Improved units/buildings for weaker civs

[Goldbadger]

In the interests of Balance I was thinking of an idea that might reward weaker civs with more powerful units at different times of the game.

For example, the first civ to enter the classical era would gain the weakest unit for that era and so on until all civs have entered that era with the last to enter, picking up the strongest unit.

this would hopfully allow the weakest civ to catch up a little of over the next few turns.

This idea could apply to buildings etc as well as units.

just a thought...

[dukeisaac]

Chariot units are soooo underpowered, they should really be upgraded, or at least have their promotions streamlined in a durable way. Egypt's and India's chariot units are so weak.

[steveg700]

In the interests of Balance I was thinking of an idea that might reward weaker civs with more powerful units at different times of the game.

For example, the first civ to enter the classical era would gain the weakest unit for that era and so on until all civs have entered that era with the last to enter, picking up the strongest unit.

this would hopfully allow the weakest civ to catch up a little of over the next few turns.

This idea could apply to buildings etc as well as units.

just a thought...

Well, what do you define as "stronger" and "weaker"? You seem to be asserting that the guy who gets into the classical era first is the strongest and the guy who gets in last is weakest. It may actually be that the former may not have a single military unit produced while the latter has a horde. Who's stronger in that case?

[aj_killer]

@OP
I disagree with your idea of rewarding weaker civs.

However I ask the developers to improve existing civs to create a balance, for example- India has no good unique unit. War elephant is just useless. There are many possibilities of replacing Indian UU with something like Maratha Cavalry,Sikh infantry or Gurkha.

About Egypt, I can't argue because egyptian civilization has been under occupation since 7th century by ottoman and arabian empires, so its difficult to give them a relatively modern UU.

[steveg700]

See, I think the OP is referring to civ's that are "weaker" in the context of the current game, not weaker in an overall sense. As in the civ's that are losing.

I wouldn't mind seeing something that keeps the snowball effect from taking over, where leads become insurmountable. Unfortunately, we don't seem to much like some of those solutions, like civ's denouncing you once you start winning.

[zephyrtr]

I don't like mechanics that punish me for playing well. Also, as it's been pointed out, each era doesn't have a black-and-white way to rank their units from strongest to weakest. They all have circumstantial uses.

[twersx]

This isn't civ V mario kart. If a Civ is doing poorly, it will almost certainly be down to start position. the AI can dominate other AIs as any other civ.

What's more, this wouldn't work so well. If I'm playing Bismarck, and I have a horde of 9 brutes along with two warriors and a scout, a smaller but more advanced civ with 3 swordsmen isn't likely to win. Similarly, some civs start out slow but rocket ahead. Korea isn't very special until you get to the specialist building techs.

[Goldbadger]

Classical era was just an example, it could well mean that when a civ reached say 500 points they get Unit 10 or building 10 as a reward. The next civ to reach 500 gets building 9 etc. It might mean certain civs NEVER reach 500.

The reason I have posted this idea is because in so many games I see one or two civs become really strong and stay there all game. The weaker civs never get a chance and become cannon fodder.

In history we have seen many strong civs (UK and Rome) become strong and then become weaker over time. Just because a civ starts strong it should not mean they stay strong.