Eliminate the UU's

[Jaybe]

If you were to make this strategic game tactical by making everyone's units different, through each of the ages (and parts of ages), you would be making it even more of a mockery of 'realism' than it already is!! And everyone would be arguing that each of their 'favorite' units has the wrong values.

While I would also like to have more than just a 'bomber' and 'stealth bomber', to go the generic route is definitely better than trying to have 2-3 DOZEN units per civ!

JB

[PhoenixPhlame73]

Punkbass2000 is right, I think taht all of the games mentioned center around war, I could even add a few more to that list, but they would all center around war . Civ 3 was meant to be much less a war game, that is why the included the culture flipping and the strategic resources, to make it more difficult to win by simply steamrolling every other civ.

I don't think that SMAC really quallifies for this argument. We're talking about units unique to each civ, not total numbers of units over all. That said, SMAC would have been pretty cool if each faction had a unique module..........

[MosesPresley]

I'm high as a kite on anti-histamines, so please excuse any obvious blunders.

I am totally against the removal of UU's. I do think a couple of the UU's need to be changed though.

MiloMilo said the UU for the Americans should be the Minuteman. I second that idea. The F-15 is practically useless. Another UU possibility could be the Sherman tank. Make it cheaper and faster than the regular tank, but with a slightly lower attack value. Or maybe a special Marine unit with a higher attack value.

The Brits need a different UU too. The man-o-war simply isn't useful in Civ 3. Giving the man-o-war the ability to capture shipping might make it better. A cheap mercenary unit might also be a good idea. The British used Hessian soldiers a good deal during the American revolution.

[Sean]

UU are a great idea. And 2-3 for each civ wouls actually add balance to the game. This is simply because not all UUs are created equal, but imbalances can be worked out over 3 differnet units. Thus the lameness of the MAN-O-War can be made up for with a churchill tank (or whatever).

Sean.

[Coracle]

Even I can't criticize Firaxis on this one. It would be an immense effort to have unique units (plural) for every single civ, and your Art folder would be truly huge.

My problem with Civ 3 is how useless some UU's are compared to others: the American or British UU's aren't worth a nickel compared to those of the Persians or Romans, or even German panzers if you get that far. The values of all military units is simpleminded and often senseless, especially after the post-gunpowder era where they are all far too low - Soren's cheap "fix" for his ridiculously low strategic resource appearance rates.

Example: elephants should be 3.1, not 4.3., and longbowmen should be 4.3.

The Longbowman should, BTW, be the English UU, and occasionally a second UU (a MOW) could be implemented, thus balancing civs' strengths.

[Switch]

I think, if they WERE to do a massive UU revolution, that they should just add maybe one or two UUs to each Civ, totalling 2 or 3. AOE pulled this off pretty well, where some civs had one good UU, where as others had somewhat weaker UUs, but with a supplementary second UU (ie, Vikings have longboat and Berserks, Spanish had Conquistador and Missionary. Spanish were also added with AOK's XP, so don't look to low on Firaxis).

However, one thing that Firaxis has done different than AOK, is to include the UUs in the upgrade tree, and actuallu replace other units, whereas in AOK they were just extra units that upgraded to a unique fomr of themselves (Berserk to Elite Berserk. How original ).

As it stands ATM with UUs, I am quite content. Firaxis should not worry about UUs until they have more important stuff done.

[The Eliminator]

I like the UU's, therefore I will not Eliminate them.

[Cyclotron]

UUs do need better balancing... as for eliminating them entirely, I've never been a big fan of predestined UUs. UUS should be given depending on how your society grows and develops, so the Romans should be perfectly able to get cossacks if they become a very horse unit oriented people.

Originally posted by Coracle
Example: elephants should be 3.1, not 4.3

Care to explain? Why "should" they be that?

EDIT: And additionally, what does it have to do with this topic?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MiloMilo
That would be way too much work, way too hard to keep balanced, and provide too little payoff.

Instead, the UUs should be abolished altogether. Hoplites, mounted warriors, samurai, legionaries and immortals are all horribly unbalanced, and totally disrupt ancient-era war strategy. The civ traits are enough to distinguish the different civs; we don't need the UUs as well. At least, you should be able to choose to play with one or the other when you start a game (traits and UUs, just traits, just UUs, or none), not just all or nothing.

Um...you CAN. Use the editor, that's what is there for. You can disable the UUs without disrupting the civ traits whatsoever.

[Jethro83]

I'm happy with most of the Unique Units as they are. But for civs like the Americans and English, whose UUs are next to useless, they should pretty much do the same as what was done in AOE2. The civs with a strong UU maintained their one, while the rest had two not as strong UUs.

Though, I hardly ever use UUs, as I try to implement strategies that aren't so dependent of them. Especially since my favourite civ is Egypt and the very early Golden age isn't very appealing at all. If I'm using Japan, or China on the other hand, then I'll make an exception, but since I most commonly use Egypt, I don't want to rely on UUs to provide my golden age.

If you want UUs out, just take them out using the editor. If you want each civ to have their own unique set of units, even with the primitive editor we have been given it is still possible (since the 1.21 patch anyway AFAIK).

[Deornwulf]

Jimmytrick - Thanks for the support. You seem to have the best understanding for what I am asking.

Everyone/Anyone else - Did any of you play Master of Magic? If you didn't, you've missed out on a cool game.

To elucidate a bit further, I like the concept of unique units but I think there is room for more for each civ. It could make the experience of playing each civ totally different and replay value is what increases a games longevity and helps improve word of mout advertising. There could at least be one UU per civ for each age. That should help with balance.

[Willem]

Re: Eliminate the UU's

Originally posted by Deornwulf

The UU's are a great idea poorly implemented. IMHO each civ should have a whole set of units unique to its culture, not just one. The abilities, icons, strategic use; all of these could be different for the units of each civ.

If that's how you feel then go ahead and do it. There's a number of new anims kicking around, and with a little effort on your part, and some time in the editor and maybe MultiTool, you could do just that. The default game shouldn't be overly complicated so that the general player can just jump in without getting bogged down in minor details. If you crave more complexity, you can easily add it yourself.