rofl, a 0.5 pop ultra trash is far more unique than “another version of the goth flood”, parthnan is right on this one… the karambit sees way too little usage
and he’s right in wanting UU to see more usage, it will lead to more diversity in game as opposed to “yet another knight / xbow army”
imo most of the issues is the UU being made redundent needs a buff/resource cost change, and even then i dont agree with all of these… like the shotel fills a very different roll to the 2HS, scorps are fragile as hell etc
I watched on the day it uploaded. It is an ideal scenario, not a real one. Lithuanians are not even a top tier civ, barely get 50% winrate.
Civ that do not have Heavy Camels, have Halbs or Pikes with bonii. This game is much more well thought out than you give it credit for.
If you’re taking 10v10 fights with a stable unit against a castle unit you’re already failing.
Unique Units in most cases were not design as replacement for standard units. Few of them can be and are core of Civ army, but this is more sideeffect than design.
Unique Units were design as unit withuot some weakness of coresponding standard unit. They were desig to mess with counters.
Frank TA is more of a Hand Cannoneer without weakness to Skirmishers and Towers. It’s primary fuction is to destroy Pikes and Halbs, which the HC is also supposed to do, while also being decent against buildings because they benefit from Arson.
I do agree with the general reasoning of your post.
Instead of buffing the UU, nerfing their alternatives should be considered when applicable to prevent unnecessary power creep.
except nerfing the alternatives would impact those who don’t have access to the uu.
haha loved this one! 
since they buffed tatars they will have a special place in my heart, even if they arent S tier
This is true. All the civs have one of the following:
Italians are the only exception, but if their UU will become viable, they could be even an anti cavalry civ (as, I guess, the devs intended them originally)
Agree. Even if letis was cost effective vs its theoretical counters 10vs10 (it is not btw) you would lose the cost efficiency due to numeric disadvantage
Regarding the under used UUs, well the problem is that, either a unit is too weak and needs a stat buff, or, simply, it is not enough to justify the castle investment, which is huge.
The problem is especially true with infantry UUs, like samurais. Samurais are almost always worse than a champion if you consider the castle investment. Even vs goths I would say. I have proposed somewhere else an option (quite difficult to balance to be honest): introduce a castle tech allowing to train your UU in the corresponding building at lower speed (so a worse version of goths/huns UT).
Clearly it would be very difficult to establish which civs should get this tech. My answer would be the one with underused UU, since, in the majority of the cases the reason why you do not see a UU, is not that it is too weak compared to the standard option. You do not see the UU because there is the multiple castles requirement to sustain the production.
So, for instance, it would be pretty obvious that Chinese , mayans, mongols, and Lithuanians cannot get this tech, while Japanese, slavs, or Ethiopians can.
Way more difficult to say if this new tech can be given to aztecs (already a top civ) or Vikings without any nerf.
My problem with this tech is
100F 70G EA doesn’t have Skirm weakness??
They are REKT by all trash units, Skirms or Spears
And is the Ballista Elephant really much more durable than HScorps when they cost much more and also die like tissue paper to the most spammed (and most easily spammable) unit in the game, Halbs? They also have not nearly enough damage output, it is as low as Elephant Archers 
You know well that not only do Mamelukes have 0 base Pierce Armor, but they are also nonsensically in the Archer armor class(which is ridiculous) and are DESTROYED by the least of Archers, the Skirmishers.
Sorry but Mamelukes are weak to all ranged units, AND cost 85G.
@Bzhydack you make it sound as if the game is so fair and balanced when it comes to Unique Units, when it is a clear fact that so many UUs are simply UNVIABLE.
And that has to be corrected.
All I am saying in this Topic is that:
“Generic Units available to a civ should not take ALL the viability space of that civ’s Unique Unit”
And NOT that:
“Unique Unit for a civ should replace Generic Units of that civ”
I never said anything like the latter. As some people are thinking.
Yes but I think that even for the less used UU there is viability space. It’s small but it exists. There are always this awkward situations, where your strange UU is the right choise. I think that even pro players sometimes don’t think of them just becaus they are so unusual. Yes, some of them could be a bit more buffed but overall I like the concept of the UU as choise for special situations.
To be honest, I would start by buffing UUs of the weakest civs, at least to make the game variety better.
For instance organs guns. One weak UU of a weak civ. I would say that if it becomes the way to go for Portuguese (better rof/accuracy), we add game variety by helping a weak land civ. Perfect. With some small eco boost (univrsity discount?) Portos would be unique and decent.
Similar thing for Italians. Weak civ with the worst UUs in the game, considering that they have 2. Make pavise to reduce the training time of the affected units (around 40%). So genoese crossbowman can be actually used. With some small buff (I love the proposal of free archer armors), italians will become a decent land civ.
Clearly it is more difficult for jaguar warriors. They belong to the (maybe) strongest civ in the game. So we can be a bit more conservative here… similar for samurais or condos (which are team units)…
and? most UUs, especially the infantry ones are superior to generic units/champs but the cost of castles and higher gold cost in the late game make them less practical, there’s no good way to fix that
?? So there is no way to fix unused infantry UUs according to you?
Let’s keep them unused you say
Superior… right… No wonder we see Shotels, Samurais, Karambits, Jags, TKs and Condos soo frequently
You do. Huskarls, Shotels, Kamayuks, Throwing Axemen (they are Infantry, not Archers), Woad Raiders, all get used regularly.
If it doesn’t hurt the meta, why not
we see woads, TAxes, huskarls, shotels when needed (no we don’t see Ethiopian 2HS instead), Jaguars are better than champions but Aztecs don’t use champs as a general strategy anyway so unless you’re willing to redesign the unit and its purpose, it will remain unused.
My point is your claim of generic units overshadowing is incorrect, the need of building castles and the lack of proper role in the civ negates their usage