More shared UUs

So, now that the dust has settled, outside of "b-but we have 3 hussars with wings now :sob: :sob: :sob: ", are we happy with winged hussars as a design addition to the game, or are we not?

The balance of Polish WH is up for debate, but not the point here. In a sense, Camels, Battle elephants, Steppe lancers, Eagles all are shared unique units. It’s not like we saw something new as an idea, in fact I’d even argue it’s something in the game since AoK.

Now Poles and Lithuanians have more civ identity, similar to the meso civs, the SEA ones, we have even been seeing steppe lancers here and there, so central asians too.

And everyone loved the regional trade carts.

So why exactly do we get on here and go on rants for months every time something small and cutesy gets changed to fit a civilization’s identity better?

If it were to me, most civs would have some form of secondary or shared UU, or upgrade. Could be used for better balancing, better historical accuracy, and better civ separation and identification. Also we can avoid things like Hun Paladins, Mayan Halberdiers and Arbalests, Goth Hand Cannons, and many more smaller balance issues.

7 Likes

I guess bc it’s really hard to design these well. Winged hussar works for poles with lacking armor and for lith with lacking last atk plus having relic bonus for gold cav. So you need to have good ideas and rework some of the civs. While that’s not impossible I guess the fear is the new design approach might just be broken or useless. Like steppe lancers feel redundant most of the time bc usually you either wanna make knights or light cav. And battle elephants still don’t seem to be in a good spot.

2 Likes

These are not unique units.

3 Likes

Agree here, those are shared regional units not unique units, they don’t have the UU armor, similar to camels
I would like to see more uniqueness but also it is difficult to balance accordingly
WH excellent addition, SL still need something IMO but I love both units

1 Like

I think we could start with genitours becoming a regional unit.
I think in the process the unit could also use some tweaks. But I am currently not sure which would be useful. (one idea could be to make genitours a cavalry type unit that excels against cav archers, with a low ranged melee attack but good amount of bonus damage against cav archers - this would give the unit a very destinct role to excel in and it happens that it is one of the biggest weaknesses of the spanish and portuguese)

5 Likes

As far as I am aware Genitours are UU, you will nerf Berbers badly

1 Like

Berbers are maybe the civ with the least usage for genitours actually… They have the camel archer.
I also don’t get the point where regional units are UUs… Isn’t it right the opposite?

1 Like

That could be say also for Vietnamese
The only shared UU that makes actually sense is the Condottiere (mercenaries)

1 Like

I think the imp skirm is better as it improves a unit you would possibly make regardless. Imo it’s quite a strong unit actually.
Ofc in TG it’s weird, but in 1v1s it’s quite useful for vietnamese.

1 Like

These guys were only used in italian city states right?so who else can use them?

oh hell no. Condottiero 's would fight all around europe as mercenaries, in small but powerful mercenary bands. Some of them became great commanders of foreign armies, like Ambrogio Spinola for example.
Many italian sailors and ship captains would be hired by portoguese and spanish kings to command their expeditions .

So its very fitting that the condottieros are usable by anyone who is allied with italians.

i Think there is a place for a new " imperial" unit as second UU. probably Imperial pike or Imperial crossbowman ? hmm maybe Imperial Galleon?

In an indian style if it is a gold unit ( for example Gain imperial cavalry archers but loose archer line entirely)
vietnamese style if it is a non gold unit. ( imperial halbedier maybe?)

Regional units then. I got the point across anyway.

Ah, we need regional monks though now. Wololo!

5 Likes

And regional vills please

3 Likes

Yes. And then unique castles would be really good. The best would be civ specific everything, but I’d be really happy just having regional unit graphics for everything.

5 Likes

More regional units would be nice. And I agree that Genitour could be the first one, adding it to Portuguese and Spanish, while keeping it for Berbers (although not their allies).

Maybe the Imperial Skirmisher could be regional as well, the Burmese would certainly benefit from a decent anti-archer unit. Geographically it could also be an option for Khmer and maybe Malay then.

These are just existing units, new regional units would also be great.

3 Likes

Regional monks trade units villagers are skin changes not really new units.

3 Likes

No. But they would look cool. Which is definitely more important. :wink: :wink:

Portuguese I agree with. Although I also agree with Spanish, it creates a problem, because Spanish already have two unique units, and that seems to be the current limit. It would also create some issues with the UI.

I think it could cause issues if they got an additional true UU, but we already know the game can support Spanish Genitours as a regional unit because it works when they have a Berber ally. It already has a spot in the archery range, and IMO would suit the civ well. It adds to the Spanish identity of great trash units, while also fitting the theme of a mounted variant of a standard unit (like Conqs and Missionaries). It also makes sense historically, arguably more than Berber Genitours.

2 Likes

Yeah, I know. It’s just that Genitours appear in the UI, and count as a unique unit, so if we add them to Spanish, suddenly they have 3 units. Which is more than anyone else. I do like the idea of them and the Portuguese having Genitours as a regional unit though. The game can support it, and history does as well, but I’m not sure the UI does, or if people will be too happy about one civ having 3 UUs/Regional units, while most others have 1.