Tweet
Sorry if this poll was already posted a long time ago (maybe?) but now the game is out and I don't remember seeing such a poll after people have played.
So, what do you think about unique units? Little too AoEish?
Some may find UU realistic because distinguishing civs, some may find them less realistic for some other reasons. Some may find them less fun because of the strategic consequences (more isn't always better), etc.
Here is MY opinion (read if you want):
In my opinion, units that were espescially strong in history were strong because:
1- that the enemy didn't have them yet and/or was technologically more advanced (like hoplite, elephants, F15, Panzer (today's tanks beats Panzer, but Germans were more advanced on tanks first. Same for F15), etc.)
2- of a especially strong leader, sometimes by good strategic ideas or tactics (as legion, hoplite, impis)
3- of advantages given by topography or specific aspects of the civ's territory (like Iroquois with their warriors (not the horses we have now...), or Jaguar warriors with especially good communication system (roads, etc.))
4- of culture. (Jaguar warriors that have a very strong military culture, Samorais)
5- of morale and war experience of units or of general population (F15, Babylonian bowmen)
6- of golden age, which have influences on creativity, productivity and absolutely all in a civilisation.
But stil, I like Civ III's UU to be implemented for people who are making less fun with realism and for myself when I wanna play like this. So even if I'd prefer a better system about units bonuses, I feel it's better having the option to put UU than be obliged to play without. So I voted less realistic (even if I like the option for others, and as a kind of "mod" for me). But I would sure accept a better system of UU. Like units getting serious advantages from certain factors (those I said).
So, what do you think about unique units? Little too AoEish?
Some may find UU realistic because distinguishing civs, some may find them less realistic for some other reasons. Some may find them less fun because of the strategic consequences (more isn't always better), etc.
Here is MY opinion (read if you want):
In my opinion, units that were espescially strong in history were strong because:
1- that the enemy didn't have them yet and/or was technologically more advanced (like hoplite, elephants, F15, Panzer (today's tanks beats Panzer, but Germans were more advanced on tanks first. Same for F15), etc.)
2- of a especially strong leader, sometimes by good strategic ideas or tactics (as legion, hoplite, impis)
3- of advantages given by topography or specific aspects of the civ's territory (like Iroquois with their warriors (not the horses we have now...), or Jaguar warriors with especially good communication system (roads, etc.))
4- of culture. (Jaguar warriors that have a very strong military culture, Samorais)
5- of morale and war experience of units or of general population (F15, Babylonian bowmen)
6- of golden age, which have influences on creativity, productivity and absolutely all in a civilisation.
But stil, I like Civ III's UU to be implemented for people who are making less fun with realism and for myself when I wanna play like this. So even if I'd prefer a better system about units bonuses, I feel it's better having the option to put UU than be obliged to play without. So I voted less realistic (even if I like the option for others, and as a kind of "mod" for me). But I would sure accept a better system of UU. Like units getting serious advantages from certain factors (those I said).
Comment