Eliminate the UU's

[Deornwulf]

Either by patch, expansion, or in the next incarnation, the UU's need to go. Now before explaining to me that I can turn the Civ specific features, understand what it is I am actually saying.

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.

To allow for more variety in the combinations of abilities, a few more may need to be added to the mix.

There might be some crossover of units common to some or even all of the civs, especially for the ancient civs that are no longer with us.

Examples would be easy to find in history - just look at a copy of Janes to find how many different types of tanks there have been.
Americans could have covered wagons, minutemen and combat engineers. England could have commandos, gliders and Celtic beserkers. It would not take long to find more units for each civ.

Would this be hard to implement? No, Master of Magic did it long ago.

A change of this sort would go far to adding to the replay value of the game. It could create a different set of choices for each civ and change the way you play the game.

Variety is the spice of life.

[tomcat ha]

yeah and germany shoud have heavy panzer V1 and V 2

[planetfall]

What was heavy panzer?

If V1,V2, then you need the ME262.

You are not talking about eliminating UU's you are talking about making all units UU. This might make the game too complicated for new users. Interesting idea for an advanced play option. Civ level A-- one UU per civ. Civ level B-- all units in civ UU.

It would definitely add a lot of complexity to the game. It might be hard to keep civs in balance with all units UU. Would it really gain anything?

I would rather have the ability to print out the end of game replay summary than this RFE.

[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.

[MiloMilo]

While I disagree with just about all of Deornwulf's ideas, I do like the idea of the American Minuteman. Does anybody see any value in the F-15? I usually don't even get to the modern age. If we're stuck with UUs, the American UU should be the Minuteman, 4/4/1. The better attack value would reflect their facility with guerilla tactics. The French musketeer would of course have to be changed as well. It seems to represent a traditionally superior musketman, so its bonus should be to its strength: defense. Make it 2/5/1. These two units would mirror the swordsman's variants, the legionary and the immortal: one better on offense, one better on defense.

[Deornwulf]

Complicated? I think not. There are a wide variety of games with units unique to the different factions represented in the game, such as:

Master of Magic
Command & Conquer Series
Star Wars Battlegrounds
Star Wars Rebellion
Age of Empires
Age of Kings
Mechwarrior Series
Birth of the Federation
Star Fleet Battles
Star Trek Armada Series
VGA Planets
Every Single Historical based Wargame

And I'm sure there are more. If those game designers can produce balanced games with that much of a variety in units, Firaxis should be able to do it with the Civilization series. It would seem to be the most logical step in the evolution of the series.

The civ traits don't add any variety to the game at all. For the AI, it uses the same strategy for every civ - spew out as many settlers as possible and build cities on every square available on the map. My strategies tend to change dependent on the unique unit of the civ I am playing. That is why I would like to see more unique units.

Milo - If you would, please explain further on how you think the unique units are all horribly unbalanced?

Planetfall - What is RFE?

[MiloMilo]

I haven't played any of those games, but I would venture to guess that they don't have 24 factions in them, which is what civ3 will have with PTW. 24 civs, with what, 30 or 40 units each... you're asking Firaxis to tailor-make roughly 1,000 unique-yet-balanced units. All with combat values ranging from 1 to 24. It just doesn't work out. What will the ancient-era iron-dependent foot soldiers be like? We already have 3.2.1, 4.2.1, and 3.3.1. Tell me what values the other 21 units will have? There just aren't that many possible variations.

Now, if you want to keep regular unit values, but change the names and icons, then I'm all for it. It will still be a lot of work, maybe too much to be worth it, but at least it's feasible. The above idea isn't.

And the current UUs, or some at least, are not balanced. The persians get a unit with ironmaking, maybe at 3500 BC, that is superior to the longbowman, which comes along usually at like 500 AD. The Greeks are virtually unassailable until the middle ages. The romans get a unit that combines the best attack value ot its day with the best defense value of a day 3000 years in the future, thus eliminating the need for any kind of combined-arms strategy. The japanese take the best unit of the middle ages and eliminate BOTH of its only weaknesses: vulnerability in the field due to poor defense value, and dependence on a resource. These are simply not balanced.

There have already been posts by very intelligent people about this. Giving a mounted warrior an extra attack point gives it 5 ADM points overall instead of 4 - a 25% increase in its effective total value. This is incredibly more powerful than that same bonus when given later to a french musketeer or, god help us, an F-15.

[ShredZ]

I dont think this idea would work, if you think the UU idea is poorly implemented, just imagine trying to custom make each unit for each civ. And just imagine playing the Romans and then in yer next game playing the English and having to RE-LEARN all the units again, trying to figure out there strengths and weaknesses, it gives me a headache just thinking about it. I think they did a great job with it, its just enough to make the games unique, but not confusing.
Just turn the UUs off...

[Deornwulf]

>>just imagine playing the Romans and then in yer next game playing the English and having to RE-LEARN all the units again, trying to figure out there strengths and weaknesses<<

That would be the point. It would add to the replay value of the game. One of my favorite things about playing Master of Magic was the variety of units unique to each race.

Mino - Starfleet Command II has over 1000 individual units so it can be done. Firaxis might need to add a few more unit abilities to allow for more flexibility in the unit creation but here's a simple example under existing conditions of how many varied units could be created.

Features of a Basic Bombard Unit
A:0 (Bombard Strenth)
D:0
M:1
R:1
ROF:1
Sighting Range (Radar)
Foot Unit
Shield Cost
Required Resources

That allows for nine different features to be adjusted to create unique artillery units for each civ. One civ could feature armored artillery, another could have self-propelled (more moves), while another has really long range artillery. The possible combinations are only limited by the imagination of the programmers.

And as far as any unit being unbalancing, that notion is hogwash. I would view it as a challenge instead of a game flaw. So what if one civ has an early strong defensive unit. I'll let that civ live until the next age or mass enough troops to overcome it. Ever spot a newbie player your queen in chess? It does make the game interesting. If you really want a game in which all units are equal, play Diplomacy.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Deornwulf
Complicated? I think not. There are a wide variety of games with units unique to the different factions represented in the game, such as:

Master of Magic
Command & Conquer Series
Star Wars Battlegrounds
Star Wars Rebellion
Age of Empires
Age of Kings
Mechwarrior Series
Birth of the Federation
Star Fleet Battles
Star Trek Armada Series
VGA Planets
Every Single Historical based Wargame

And I'm sure there are more. If those game designers can produce balanced games with that much of a variety in units, Firaxis should be able to do it with the Civilization series. It would seem to be the most logical step in the evolution of the series.

The civ traits don't add any variety to the game at all. For the AI, it uses the same strategy for every civ - spew out as many settlers as possible and build cities on every square available on the map. My strategies tend to change dependent on the unique unit of the civ I am playing. That is why I would like to see more unique units.

Milo - If you would, please explain further on how you think the unique units are all horribly unbalanced?

Planetfall - What is RFE?

Now I may be wrong, but pretty much all of thoe games center around war, or at least have war as a central component. In civ this is often the case, but you can easily play a warless game (OCC, for example), and Firaxis is always saying how civ is not a war-game.

[Inverse Icarus]

jesus, it's taking firaxis 8 or 9 months to release an XP with maybe 40 more units tops. imagine making 5-10 units per civ.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Deornwulf
Age of Empires
Age of Kings
And I'm sure there are more. If those game designers can produce balanced games with that much of a variety in units, Firaxis should be able to do it with the Civilization series.

If I remember correctly, in AOE and AOK, there is only one unique unit per civilization which are built in the castle. There are disallowed units for each Civ as well, but that is a different matter.

http://aok.heavengames.com/thegame/units_unique.shtml

[Capt Dizle]

There you are talking about the talent and the ability of the programming team. In SFC (Star Fleet Command) mentioned above, those thousands of units were ships, each unique, each carrying several weapons types, weapons implemented on hard points, each hard point having a firing arc, and sometimes four or five different firing arcs on a ship, each weapon having its own unique damage table, unique sound, and unique grapic, each shield had shields that could be damaged and regenerate, ships had mines that could be dropped, marines that could be transported, shuttles that could be launched (including suicide shuttles, scatter packs, wild weasels), there were direct fire weapons, and seeking weapons (plasma and drones) and tractor beams, when sustaining damage a ship could lose weapons, hull, systems or power, and you can chose to repair what you want!; there was electronic warfare and terrain type (nebula, asteroids and planets), ships had tractor beams and some exotic weapons that are too complex to explain here; some ships were carriers and you could launch fighters and PFTs (you could even jump into your PFTs in the middleof the fight and fly them!); base and battlestations!, all implemented in real time with up to six players at once!

And I am sure a bunch of stuff I have forgotten.

Please don't say something like Deornwulf is suggesting can't be done. It certainly can be. In fact, in SMAC you had the unit workshop that allowed for the design of hundreds of different units.

Complex? Yeah, but some of us think that would be just fine.

[simwiz2]

this idea could be done if all unit stats were multiplied by 10, then you could make changes that aren't so drastic, and there would be infinately more possible changes.

Example for Aztec UU's:
Unit Name________Cost____Att______Def_____Mv
Warriors_________10_______9_______8______2
Eagle Warriors___10______11______9_______3
Horseman________20______21______12______4
Jaguar Warrior___20______24______14_____4

In this example, small, subtle changes are made. (Movement is doubled to allow small changes there too, but this is probably not possible without changing border/map size)

[ShredZ]

Im sure when developing a game it comes down to compromise, why would you want all these different types of units if you had to remove something like diplomacy from the game. Civ isnt just a war game so lets not focus too much on the units, the game is well rounded atm...

[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]

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.