Well, your original post is very misleading then, because you start stating that UUs should not be common, then you go around and say they should by making castles cheap.
1 Like
Look at this thread: How to make UUs more viable? - #22 by BomberGriffin
I am against this. I donât want cheaper castles. I want castles to remain the same.
I see.
Well, I think everything should stay as it is right now, with a few civs making common use of their UUs, some making them for niche uses and some not at all because you have a much stronger generic option available (e.g. frankish/lithuanian paladin, britons arbalests, etc.).
Generalizing UUs via cheap Castles as proposed in this thread you linked is indeed stupid, and I agree with you on this.
Whats so boring is always playing against the same units to be honest.
1 Like
I would prefer UUs to be more powerful but much more dificult to train, than regular units, like the Teutonic Knight and War Elephant.
Huskarls and Mangudai are OK only because their parent civs were designed around needing them en masse, but to be honest, I wish the game was even more dominated by normal units with stats tweaks due to civ bonii, than by UUs.
Normal units are much easier to balance by design, because they are commonly available, and therefore everyone has them.
Making civs dependant on gimmicky UUs is terrible design. The Middle Ages were dominated by Pikes, Crossbows and Lances anyway, so the Pike + Xbow + Knight dominance is thematically fitting, and easier to balance.
Unique units are not rare units. Ask goths or people spamming arambais and war wagons on nomad
go watch pro games and tell me unique units are common place. just because non high level games can get away with spamming them doesnât mean much. Iâve seen Tatar longswords, Teuton cavalry archers and other terrible strategies win games at lower levels.
That logic is incredibly flawed. No-one wants cheaper castles, that would mess up the game. You can easily mass a lot of unique units with only one castle. As has been pointed out by others, you seem to confuse unique unit with rare unit. In the game unique unit means that only one civilization can produce it, by no means is it rare to see.
This is ridiculous way to look at the game. Although I agree that rushing is a good strategy, it appears that you have no grasp of the fact that it is not the only strategy out there. It isnât even always meant to win you the game, its meant to buy time for you to advance, get a lead, and get a better army, often one that includes unique units. Basically, saying that unique units shouldnât be made is both trying to remove a core element of the game, and reduce it down to something much less interesting. You donât have to build unique units if you want, but donât try and force this view on others.
This thread is 5 months old. What has been asked or talked about has already been settlled. No further discussion is needed.
Lol, oops, never saw that. Sorry.
Thatâs already how Arabia (most popular map) plays out, so what exactly are you requesting here? (this has also been true months ago, as well as now)
Again. The thread is 5 months old. No point talking here. Just look at the posts. Itâs clearly answered.
Necromancy has been committed here.
Some other user wanted castles to be cheaper. This was a rant against this. How to make UUs more viable? - #22 by BomberGriffin