Unique units and buildings that really aren't unique?

[uberloz]

Why are some units and buildings considered "unique" when all they really do is have a different picture then the others civilisations counterpart?

I think that it actually cheapens the value of the term "unique". And at the same time basically "cheats" the civilisation out of a possibly useful bonus.

This is just a suggestion for Firaxis when (if?) they make Civilisations V....How about giving all the civilisations unique units and buildings that actually live up to the definition of "unique".

edit: I understand that all the UU's and UB's have some marginal differences but; to me; those don't exactly give the particular Civ any feeling of being "unique".

[Solver]

Examples? Every unique unit and building in the game is somehow different from the regular counterpart.

[Blake]

Civilization is not meant to be a game with strongly differentiated sides.
Part of this is that the success of a civ in civ, is meant to come from how it's played and developed, not from it's strengths in THIS reality.

[uberloz]

I just want a little more flavor for each Civilisation, nothing game breaking.

As for examples you are right to ask for them and I will post some when I get home.

I'm still at work and without my references.

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by uberloz
I just want a little more flavor for each Civilisation, nothing game breaking.

As for examples you are right to ask for them and I will post some when I get home.

I'm still at work and without my references.

You could try the ethnic mods.

These are from the civfanatics site.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=234268

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=237192

Probably they're also here.

[Solver]

Flavour isn't the same as actual gameplay effects. I think a great flavour feature comes in BtS - ethnic units. That I really like. Chinese Axemen looking way different from Zulu Axemen. There's no effect on gameplay but big effect on flavour.

Civ isn't about making different civs too different. With traits, UUs and UBs, every civ already has strengths and weaknesses. However, they're more or less similar, it all depends on how you play. Shaka is better for a Domination victory, but you can still get one with Gandhi. Too much difference wouldn't be a good thing IMO.

[wodan11]

I remember one thread where people were talking about Starcraft... how different the races are. Compare/contrast to Civ.

Wodan

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Blake
Civilization is not meant to be a game with strongly differentiated sides.
Part of this is that the success of a civ in civ, is meant to come from how it's played and developed, not from it's strengths in THIS reality.

Yes, somewhat true and I understand that. I say somewhat because the game does insist that when you pick a Civ you get a leader and UU and UB from THIS reality. But the only tangibly distinguishable thing from one civ to another, from the begining of the game to the end, is its color. Everything else seems cookie cutter.

The term "unique" in this game only really means "marginal".

I guess what I meant to express in this thread is that when I play a different Civ, I want it to "feel" like I'm playing a different Civ. I'm not talking about differences like you see in Starcraft. While those differences are tangible and unique they are also too extreme for the Civ series.

I looked at the mod for BtS and that seems to address exactly what I am talking about. If I had seen that mod first I might never have started this thread. Now if only I can find the willingness in myself to buy the BtS expansion and download the mod in the hopes that it establishes the feeling that I'm not just playing a cookie cutter Civ with a different color flag but, rather, something unique.

[wodan11]

uberloz, something I don't think you realize. Solver hinted at this but it sounds like you didn't quite make the connection. Anyway, the BtS expansion itself implements the graphic ethnicity that you're looking for.

The mod was designed before BtS was released. That's why the mod and BtS have some "overlap" by doing the same thing. They do it differently and you may have some personal preference as to which one you like better, if you looked at them side by side. Me personally: I like the change and had the mod running before BtS came out and removed it when I bought BtS; both the mod and BtS made me happy, they were both good implementations but I don't have a strong preference of one over the other

If you purchase BtS, then you probably won't want to use the mod (in fact, it might cause conflicts... I don't know).

Wodan

[ColdPhoenix]

Originally posted by uberloz


Yes, somewhat true and I understand that. I say somewhat because the game does insist that when you pick a Civ you get a leader and UU and UB from THIS reality. But the only tangibly distinguishable thing from one civ to another, from the begining of the game to the end, is its color. Everything else seems cookie cutter.

The term "unique" in this game only really means "marginal".

I guess what I meant to express in this thread is that when I play a different Civ, I want it to "feel" like I'm playing a different Civ. I'm not talking about differences like you see in Starcraft. While those differences are tangible and unique they are also too extreme for the Civ series.

I looked at the mod for BtS and that seems to address exactly what I am talking about. If I had seen that mod first I might never have started this thread. Now if only I can find the willingness in myself to buy the BtS expansion and download the mod in the hopes that it establishes the feeling that I'm not just playing a cookie cutter Civ with a different color flag but, rather, something unique.

Leader traits last all game and most unique buildings last for the majority of the game. The unique unit can make a large difference to a game too.

How different do you want the civs to be? It's not like starcraft where there are different species, people are people.

[uberloz]

Originally posted by wodan11
uberloz, something I don't think you realize. Solver hinted at this but it sounds like you didn't quite make the connection. Anyway, the BtS expansion itself implements the graphic ethnicity that you're looking for. Wodan

You are right, I did not make the connection.

I made an assumption that his reply and Supr49er's reply were refering to the same thing. Well, I guess I get what I deserve for "assuming".

I apologize for sounding like an idiot. If I had done more research on what was new in BtS and the mod community I wouldn't have created a thread that shows me stepping on my own johnson.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by uberloz
I apologize for sounding like an idiot. If I had done more research on what was new in BtS and the mod community I wouldn't have created a thread that shows me stepping on my own johnson.

Meh, don't worry too much about that Uberloz - we've all been there at one time or another.

[nbarclay]

I like the way Civ III and IV did things. To me, the civs are different enough to make the differences interesting. But they are not so different that I feel pushed into playing according to a script that the game designer wrote for a particular civ instead of being able to decide for myself what I want my civ to be like. (I never played Alpha Centauri because I found the degree to which the factions' personalities were predefined repugnant.)

[Ari]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I like the way Civ III and IV did things. To me, the civs are different enough to make the differences interesting. But they are not so different that I feel pushed into playing according to a script that the game designer wrote for a particular civ instead of being able to decide for myself what I want my civ to be like. (I never played Alpha Centauri because I found the degree to which the factions' personalities were predefined repugnant.)

I thought the SMAC factions' personailities made more sense in the context of the game than civ "personalities" do. In the sci-fi context of SMAC, each leader was literally the same person throughout the game; in civ, there's no actual real life equivalent to each "leader" (who'd rule an empire for 7000 years? a semi-divine being? A robot?). But if SMAC explicitly says that you're facing off against the same 6 other *people* each time, than it makes sense that they have predefined personalities. But merely because they were predefined didn't make them much more predictable than the civ iv personalities (Monty attacks, Isabella hates your guts if you have another religion, Gandi's a peacenik, etc).

If you're refering to each faction's intrinsic "traits," than I'd say they're no more extreme than their civ iv equivalents. Somewhere on gamefaqs, vel has a huuuuge strategy guide that outlines how you'd use any faction in any role (warmonger, builder, etc), which points to at least as much flexibility for each as exists in civ.