23-02-2004 18:17									#1
	A new approach to unique units Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

One common criticism to unique units is that it makes teh starting playing field intrinsically unbalanced, and depending on teh luck of teh draw, some nations may find that their uniue unit nevers appears in a useful position. Here's an idea that may redress that.

Basically, each unique unit appears in a separate tech that grants the unit. Iron working might give swordsmen, but then youd need to research military formations to get the unique unit "legion".

The catch is, only the first civ to research the tech can use the unique unit.

Of course, if it were that simple, whoever has the tech lead can just scoop up all the uniques. So we need an extra catch.

Once you have a unique unit, you can't gain another unique unit (your 'first to research' status is ignored) until all other civs have one unique unit. Then the process starts again until every civ has a second unique unit.

This will of course mean that some of the unique units in civ3 should be removed. Some of them just felt like "lets invent something, anything, just so every civ we named has a unique". Only those uniques that are reasonably well known or genuinely unique should exist as such.

Comments?

	23-02-2004 19:27									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The problem with that is that beakers can't be reused. So you pour your science into researching a UU and get beaten to it by the AI, all your beakers are wasted. Try for a different UU. Get beaten again. More waste. I can see this getting frustrating remarkably quickly.

Would I like to see a change to the way UUs are implemented? Sure. But not that one.

	23-02-2004 19:57									#3
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

First, even if the beakers cant be reused, that isnt necessarily so terrible. In that regard, it isnt particularly differnet from losing a wonder race and being forced to waste 300 shields by having your construction changed to some cheapo building you never got round to doing.

Its not quite that bad. First, Id want it so that each UU tech either has a specific bonus of its own, or is a prerequisite to something else. The research shouldnt be in vain. In some cases, the same tech may release both the standard and the unique unit. Basically, it should never be a vain attempt to research anything.

If boolean tech trees are implemented, we could even set it so gaining a particular UU tech will lock you out of others. That could force some real decisions on whether to research something. Basically, I want something that forces you to avoid the "max out the tech tree then go kill" strategy.

Suppose that there are 4 civs. You race for the first UU, and lose. You race for the secon, and lose. You race for teh 3rd, and lose. Now, it doens't matter what UU you go for next, it doesn't even matter if a comp researches it first. Because any civ that has already got a UU is ignored when considering who was first to get the UU tech, at this point you are guaranteed to get the UU for whichever UU tech you decide to go for next.

Note that in this example, if the leading civ researches a tech that would normally release a UU, they can't gain that UU, but others still can. It's a small mechanism to prevent the leader from getting an overwheleming edge. I think with this model it is possible that some UUs may end up being obtained by no one, depending on how the research plans of each civ pans out.

------------------------------------------------------------

Alternate idea on how to enable UUs:

For each UU, there is a basic unit. For example, the trireme's basic unit is the galley. Once a player has built (10) number of the basic unit, he receives the UU as a build option, subject to the tech requirements of the UU. Of course, once a UU has been assigned to one civ, it is locked out from other civs.

In some cases, such as galley, there are multiple UUs (trireme, longboat, dromond). In this case, the UU is chosen randomly when the units threshold is reached, and the others are left open for the next player to build enough of the base unit. An example message might be:

Sire, our mastery of the techniques for building (galley) has inspired our (shipbuilders) further. Once we have (alchemy), we will be able to build the (dromond).

Sire, our mastery of the techniques for building (swordsmen) has inspired our (armourers) further. Once we have (military formations), we will be able to build the (legion).

Sire, our mastery of the techniques for building (interceptor) has inspired our (engineers) further. We can now build the (F-15).

Of course, the base unit can be upgraded to the UU. Multiple upgrade options for some units should be specified, some of which will be locked out as the UU won't be available.

Thinking about it, I prefer this second idea better. But it needs a mechanism to stop the leader from scooping up all the UUs. let's say if you have the requried number of units, you have a 5% per turn of enabling the UU. And probably cap the total number of different UUs you can ever receive.

	23-02-2004 20:55									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by lajzar First, even if the beakers cant be reused, that isnt necessarily so terrible. In that regard, it isnt particularly differnet from losing a wonder race and being forced to waste 300 shields by having your construction changed to some cheapo building you never got round to doing.

The difference is that if you loose a wonder, there's a pretty good chance that you can change to another wonder and not loose the shields. With beakers you loose it all.

quote: Its not quite that bad. First, Id want it so that each UU tech either has a specific bonus of its own, or is a prerequisite to something else. The research shouldnt be in vain. In some cases, the same tech may release both the standard and the unique unit. Basically, it should never be a vain attempt to research anything.

OK, maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. Are you saying that the tech currently needed for a UU opens that UU for anyone who wants it, and the first to get that tech gets it? Or are you saying that the tech that currently gives the UU opens up a dead-end "UU Tech", and the first person to reasearch that gets it?

quote: If boolean tech trees are implemented, we could even set it so gaining a particular UU tech will lock you out of others. That could force some real decisions on whether to research something. Basically, I want something that forces you to avoid the "max out the tech tree then go kill" strategy.

Erm... why do you find this not a valid strategy? I would think that the risk involved in putting more of your resources in tech than in a military should pay off when you research technologically superior units...

quote: Suppose that there are 4 civs. You race for the first UU, and lose. You race for the secon, and lose. You race for teh 3rd, and lose. Now, it doens't matter what UU you go for next, it doesn't even matter if a comp researches it first. Because any civ that has already got a UU is ignored when considering who was first to get the UU tech, at this point you are guaranteed to get the UU for whichever UU tech you decide to go for next.

But by this time you're so far behind in the tech race because of loosing UU races that any UU you get might actually be less effective than the regular units your enemies get...

quote: ------------------------------------------------------------ Alternate idea on how to enable UUs: For each UU, there is a basic unit. For example, the trireme's basic unit is the galley. Once a player has built (10) number of the basic unit, he receives the UU as a build option, subject to the tech requirements of the UU. Of course, once a UU has been assigned to one civ, it is locked out from other civs. In some cases, such as galley, there are multiple UUs (trireme, longboat, dromond). In this case, the UU is chosen randomly when the units threshold is reached, and the others are left open for the next player to build enough of the base unit. An example message might be: Sire, our mastery of the techniques for building (galley) has inspired our (shipbuilders) further. Once we have (alchemy), we will be able to build the (dromond). Sire, our mastery of the techniques for building (swordsmen) has inspired our (armourers) further. Once we have (military formations), we will be able to build the (legion). Sire, our mastery of the techniques for building (interceptor) has inspired our (engineers) further. We can now build the (F-15). Of course, the base unit can be upgraded to the UU. Multiple upgrade options for some units should be specified, some of which will be locked out as the UU won't be available. Thinking about it, I prefer this second idea better. But it needs a mechanism to stop the leader from scooping up all the UUs. let's say if you have the requried number of units, you have a 5% per turn of enabling the UU. And probably cap the total number of different UUs you can ever receive.

I like the second idea better, but I think that there's a problem with that in the fact that by the time you have 10 of the unit out the door, thus opening up the UU, everyones ahead in tech, and may have a unit that's better than the UU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of points:

1)I think that one of the reasons the UUs become problematic is that the ADM values are not granular enough in the early game. A 2.1.1 unit is massively more powerful than a 1.1.1 unit, and there's nothing in between.

There are a couple of ways this could be dealt with. One posibility would be to start warriors as 5.5.1 units, and scale up from there. But then you might run into the problem of MA and Battleships needing 3 digits of AD values in order for the scaling to work.

Another possibility is to use fractional values, but that could get really complicated.

I think a good compromise would be to use + and - to give .33 increments up to 10. So a unit could be a 1.1.1, or a 1+.1.1 or a 2-.1.1 etc. etc. up to 10, after which there are no more pluses or minuses. This would allow more granularity in the early game without requiring another digit.

How this pertains to the UU question, is that it gives you more room to balance them without their becoming overpowered.

2)I think that UU's are interesting in that they cause each civ's strategy to be slightly different, and that they are balanced with reference to the specific traits of that civ. Thus if a militaristic civ could get an enslaving UU, you might have serious balance problems.

One way around this (if you're hell bent on offering any UU to any civ) would be to give certain civ traits bonuses for certain UU. So a militaristic civ might be able to get javalin throwers, but they might cost 10 shields more than if an agricultural civ got them.

	23-02-2004 21:33									#5
	Got spare money?

UU's are meant to add some MINOR imbalance to the game- to differentiate between the civs and shwo the fact that each civ had a period in it's history in which it had some advantage or the other.

No UU is so overpowered as to really screw the game up. Even ones in the ancient days-specially since there are so many ancient UU's that a lot of them play of against each other.

	23-02-2004 21:45									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I like lajzar's second UU idea, where building a certain number of a unit lets you start building the souped up version. But I also like the idea of having specific UUs assigned to specific civs, just as we have at the moment. I think lajzar's idea could be a new addition to the game. It makes sense that building (and deploying?) some units might make you better at building more, possibly more powerful ones. Perhaps every unit could have a "souped up" version that you get to build if you've used enough of the basic version. Some of these souped up versions could replace some of the units we have anyway (for example, instead of having a Rifleman unit in addition to the Musket Man unit on the tech tree, the Rifleman is the souped up Musket Man and you can build him only when you've built X many Musket Men). In this way you'd avoid the problem of having vast numbers of different kinds of units. But would it add anything to the game, particularly?

	23-02-2004 23:04									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

I guess you all make the mistake our friends at Firaxis made... you are somewhat addicted to low numbers.

The current editor of C3C allows for combat stats (attack and defense) of up to 999.
So, if all attack values were just multiplied by 10, we would have some space to "fine-tune" it.

Taking the warrior as basis, it would have A=10, D=10. The spearman then could have A=13, D=17 or whatever... The numbers are just examples.

Of course, this would require a whole new balancing run but there is still plenty of time

	24-02-2004 02:20									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: The problem with that is that beakers can't be reused. So you pour your science into researching a UU and get beaten to it by the AI, all your beakers are wasted. Try for a different UU. Get beaten again. More waste. I can see this getting frustrating remarkably quickly.

Galciv lets you lose totally all your investment when building a wonder and you get beaten to it. Even in civ3, there's not always another wonder to switch to. I don't think this would be a problem.

	24-02-2004 03:06									#9
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Plotinus Some of these souped up versions could replace some of the units we have anyway (for example, instead of having a Rifleman unit in addition to the Musket Man unit on the tech tree, the Rifleman is the souped up Musket Man and you can build him only when you've built X many Musket Men). In this way you'd avoid the problem of having vast numbers of different kinds of units. But would it add anything to the game, particularly?

I'd be leery of this. The point behind the UU is that only one civ (the first eligible civ to release the UU) can ever deploy it. In this example above, I don't think it is realistic to say that only one civ ever fielded riflemen

I suppose a case could be made for making the longbow a UU though. Can't think of examples for the other mainstream units. But generally, a UU shouldn't merely be an upgrade that could have been common, but a culturally unique unit. The examples I am thinking of right now are:

Legion (swordsmen, military formations)
Samurai (swordsmen, the way of the warrior)
Ninja (diplomat, the way of stealth)
Crusader (knight, monotheism)
Baochuan (galleon, cannon making)
kobukson (frigate, cannon making)
F-15 (interceptor, rocketry)
panzer (armour)
longboat (galley, seafaring)
dromond (galley, alchemy)
trireme (galley)
ship of the line (frigate)
War chariot (chariot)

Looking at this partial list, I'd definitely say the number of units required should be differnet for each UU. Players are very unlikely to build 10 diplomats. OTOH, ninja are sufficiently esoteric that anyone who goes out of their way to get them fully deserves that bonus. Tough call.

	24-02-2004 09:36									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: The difference is that if you loose a wonder, there's a pretty good chance that you can change to another wonder and not loose the shields. With beakers you loose it all.

Civ 4 isn't written yet. Who says you have to lose all research up to that point?

	24-02-2004 20:56									#11
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

[lajzar] Ah, you misunderstand - I was imagining that the option of upgrading from, say, Musket Men to Riflemen once sufficient numbers of the former had been deployed would be open to everyone (it wouldn't be a replacement UU system). Looking back on it though, I don't think this idea would add much to the game.

	24-02-2004 23:51									#12
	Tired of ads?

This idea is good because it decreases unbalancing. It also gives a player more strategic oporunities, and makes history less deterministic.

And the problem with losing a "unique units race" could eaily be solved - for instance those "lost" beakers could be used for researching any other tech.

	25-02-2004 02:33									#13
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Further thoughts on how to restrict the lead player from scooping all the UUs.

First, lets say there are X UUs defined, and Y players. Once a player has acquired 2X/Y unique units (round fractions up), he can never gain another UU. So if there are 10 uniques and 5 players, he can acquire 4 different uniques at the most.

Second, each unique unit should be assigned an era, based on the tech required to release the unique. Legion would be considered ancient, while dromond would be medieval. Let's say there are X unique units in a particular era, and Y players. Each player can acquire at most X/Y unique units from each era, round fractions up.

And just to recap and keep everything in one post, below is the original:

quote: For each UU, there is a basic unit. For example, the trireme's basic unit is the galley. Once a player has built (10) number of the basic unit, he receives the UU as a build option, subject to the tech requirements of the UU. Of course, once a UU has been assigned to one civ, it is locked out from other civs. In some cases, such as galley, there are multiple UUs (trireme, longboat, dromond). In this case, the UU is chosen randomly when the units threshold is reached, and the others are left open for the next player to build enough of the base unit. An example message might be: Sire, our mastery of the techniques for building (galley) has inspired our (shipbuilders) further. Once we have (alchemy), we will be able to build the (dromond). Sire, our mastery of the techniques for building (swordsmen) has inspired our (armourers) further. Once we have (military formations), we will be able to build the (legion). Sire, our mastery of the techniques for building (interceptor) has inspired our (engineers) further. We can now build the (F-15). Of course, the base unit can be upgraded to the UU. Multiple upgrade options for some units should be specified, some of which will be locked out as the UU won't be available. Thinking about it, I prefer this second idea better. But it needs a mechanism to stop the leader from scooping up all the UUs. let's say if you have the requried number of units, you have a 5% per turn of enabling the UU. And probably cap the total number of different UUs you can ever receive.

	25-02-2004 02:51									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

What about early UU's? With only a few cities, by the time you've pumped out enough warriors to grant you the ability to make javelin throwers, your enemy might already be to swordsmen... One of the reasons UU's work is that they replace a unit at a time when it's useful to replace it.

A possible solution might be to allow units to "Upgrade" to become the UU when it becomes available. This would cut down the time it takes to get a bunch of the UU in the field. But then you have the question of "do they automatically upgrade? or do they have to go to a barracks city to upgrade?"

Just out of curiousity, can you be specific about what you don't like about the current implementation?

	25-02-2004 03:11									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, I noted that the trigger for a UU would be building a certain number of units, and then with a % chance per turn of actually gaining the UU once the trigger requirements are met. For the early UUs, just set a suitably low number of units and a suitably high trigger percentage. The only restriction on flexibility in this regard is that all UUs based on a single unit should have the same trigger values.

So using your warriors example, if we set the trigger as 4 warrior units and a 40% chance per turn, that should allow almost anyone who wants a warrior UU to get one. The trigger quantity should be only slightly above what you might normally build straight away. Of course, for late game units, the quantity required should be higher, and the percentage chance per turn lower.

Things I don't like about the current implementation are:

Depending on start location, you may find your UU useless. Byzantines starting in the midle on a continent, Iroquois on an island, etc. Basically, this will prevent you losing to the random number generator.

Second, the current implementation is too deterministic. What is it about the German psyche 6000 years ago that decides that by modern times, they, and only they, wll get a superior tank? When I play the full game, I want to write my own history, not recreate actual history.

Third, it creates an additional strategic dynamic within the game. If you are lucky enough to gain an early lead, you will of course gain earlier unique units, but may find your enemies with more powerful late game uniques at a time when you have used up all your UU slots.

(while on the topic, I also think the civ traits (seafaring etc) need rebalancing or removing. That too is too deterministic. But that's another topic for another thread.)

Of course, for historical scenarios, the current implementation of unique units makes sense. But that is not the full game, just a scenario. And I think that in scenario terms, the default setup is *beep*. As evidence that the default is bad for scenarios, none of the C3C scenarios (that I have played) leave all the defaults alone.

	25-02-2004 19:28									#16
	Tired of ads?

How do you balance the synergy between UU and traits? There's a reason a militaristic civ doesn't get Javalin Throwers...

	25-02-2004 20:10									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan How do you balance the synergy between UU and traits? There's a reason a militaristic civ doesn't get Javalin Throwers...

I'd like the traits to be removed, or at least flexible. The idea that Mongols are militaristic by birth is nothing less than racism.

	25-02-2004 20:18									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Optimizer I'd like the traits to be removed, or at least flexible. The idea that Mongols are militaristic by birth is nothing less than racism.

Where is the racism in it?
In Civ, militaristic just means that you have a higher chance to get promoted during fighting, including a higher chance for military great leaders, and that military improvements are cheaper.
It doesn't mean that the given civ would be more aggressive or more likely to attack anyone else...

I think, you mix that up with your understanding of the term "militaristic".

	26-02-2004 03:11									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: How do you balance the synergy between UU and traits? There's a reason a militaristic civ doesn't get Javalin Throwers...

Ah, the enslave ability, combined with cheaper military improvements and faster promotion.

Well, a number of points. First, I favour a public works system, so any slaves created would become non-combat units that you can move to a city and add to the population (the system will remember their slave status), or sacrifice if you are a blood cult gov. Second, the idea that onlt 2 or 3 civs ever had slaves is somewhat conceited. All civs should have access to some kind of slaver unit. Unless you can point me to a case where a civ never had any kind of enslavement of course.

Third, the idea that a civ starts with a particular cultural trait and retains that forever is somewhat deterministic imho. Civs should start either with no traits (or randomly determined ones), and it should be a long term effort to change a cultural trait, but it should be possible. If I were the mongols and the random number generator placed me on an island, I'd be pretty motivated to become seafaring. Similarly, if I found I needed to fight a lot, I would try and make my civ militaristic.

Cultural traits is probably the only area where I'd agree that a SMAC governemnt style interface makes sense. But it shouldn't be so easy to change these traits. Probably you should have to declare your new trait ahead of time, and it should take a long time to take effect, maybe 20-40 turns.

The existing traits need some balancing anyway. Each should also have some kind of penalty associated with the trait as well as a bonus.

	26-02-2004 04:46									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Commander Bello Where is the racism in it? In Civ, militaristic just means that you have a higher chance to get promoted during fighting, including a higher chance for military great leaders, and that military improvements are cheaper. It doesn't mean that the given civ would be more aggressive or more likely to attack anyone else... I think, you mix that up with your understanding of the term "militaristic".

I fully understand the rules for the different ciilization traits. But to be a good Civ player, you _must_ take advantage of your traits. I want the opportunity to be a peaceful Zulu leader!

	26-02-2004 05:02									#21
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Optimizer I fully understand the rules for the different ciilization traits. But to be a good Civ player, you _must_ take advantage of your traits. I want the opportunity to be a peaceful Zulu leader!

That I do understand. What I do not understand, why would the militaristic trait force you to go to war?
You may use the cheap barracks for building an excellent defensive military, which will deter any possible enemy to attack you. If he would do, you would be glad to have good military capacities. So, where is the problem?

	26-02-2004 08:59									#22
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by lajzar Ah, the enslave ability, combined with cheaper military improvements and faster promotion. Well, a number of points. First, I favour a public works system, so any slaves created would become non-combat units that you can move to a city and add to the population (the system will remember their slave status), or sacrifice if you are a blood cult gov. Second, the idea that onlt 2 or 3 civs ever had slaves is somewhat conceited. All civs should have access to some kind of slaver unit. Unless you can point me to a case where a civ never had any kind of enslavement of course. Third, the idea that a civ starts with a particular cultural trait and retains that forever is somewhat deterministic imho. Civs should start either with no traits (or randomly determined ones), and it should be a long term effort to change a cultural trait, but it should be possible. If I were the mongols and the random number generator placed me on an island, I'd be pretty motivated to become seafaring. Similarly, if I found I needed to fight a lot, I would try and make my civ militaristic. Cultural traits is probably the only area where I'd agree that a SMAC governemnt style interface makes sense. But it shouldn't be so easy to change these traits. Probably you should have to declare your new trait ahead of time, and it should take a long time to take effect, maybe 20-40 turns. The existing traits need some balancing anyway. Each should also have some kind of penalty associated with the trait as well as a bonus.

I wan't just talking about the enslave ability. But certain UUs are better than others, and the ones that are better tend to go to the civs whose traits make it so they need them at that point in the game. I guess my point is that there needs to be some balancing. If every civ has access to every UU, then the UU's themselves need to balanced in relation to the traits. For example if an agricultural/seafaring civ chooses a Javelin Thrower, it costs x amount of shields, if a militaristic civ gets Javelin Throwers, they cost x +10 or something like that.

	26-02-2004 14:29									#23
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan I wan't just talking about the enslave ability. But certain UUs are better than others, and the ones that are better tend to go to the civs whose traits make it so they need them at that point in the game.

Eh? You seriously believe someone at Firaxis actually balanced those UUs and traits? They look more like flavour units and abilities that weren't properly balanced, merely put together to reflect the historical civilisation.

I suppose you could explain how teh French got the musketeer? With that combination of commercial and industrious (or whatever it was, it typing while slighlt drunk), they should probably only get a ocean liner as their UU - a super fast modern transport.

In any case, since all civs will have equal opportunity to get the UUs in this system, the UUs don't need blancing as such, beyond making sure they aren't super-powered for their era. They are only unbalancing if you believe the leader shouldn't get some kind of advantage from being the leader.

To be sure of maintaining reasonable balance, you'd probably need at least (twice) as many UUs in the ancient age as potential major civs. That seems to be the approach they took in the original design. But as long as no UU is more than, say 33% more powerful than the base unit in the principal attribute, it shouldn't be a big issue.

	26-02-2004 17:56									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Commander Bello That I do understand. What I do not understand, why would the militaristic trait force you to go to war? You may use the cheap barracks for building an excellent defensive military, which will deter any possible enemy to attack you. If he would do, you would be glad to have good military capacities. So, where is the problem?

No war, no unit promotions. No promotions, no great leaders. And then you lose the main advantage of being militaristic.

	26-02-2004 18:54									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Optimizer No war, no unit promotions. No promotions, no great leaders. And then you lose the main advantage of being militaristic.

This main advantage has *mainly* gone with C3C, anyway.
But, if you are not going to war, you have to replace less units, thus allowing you to put those shields into improvements and wonders.
So, when being the peaceful leader the militaristic trait neither gives you very decisive advantages, nor does it hamper you significantly.

	26-02-2004 19:21									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by lajzar Eh? You seriously believe someone at Firaxis actually balanced those UUs and traits? They look more like flavour units and abilities that weren't properly balanced, merely put together to reflect the historical civilisation. I suppose you could explain how teh French got the musketeer? With that combination of commercial and industrious (or whatever it was, it typing while slighlt drunk), they should probably only get a ocean liner as their UU - a super fast modern transport. In any case, since all civs will have equal opportunity to get the UUs in this system, the UUs don't need blancing as such, beyond making sure they aren't super-powered for their era. They are only unbalancing if you believe the leader shouldn't get some kind of advantage from being the leader. To be sure of maintaining reasonable balance, you'd probably need at least (twice) as many UUs in the ancient age as potential major civs. That seems to be the approach they took in the original design. But as long as no UU is more than, say 33% more powerful than the base unit in the principal attribute, it shouldn't be a big issue.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about the balance issue. I think that most UU's are pretty balanced with regard to the traits. Just for fun try modding the Aztecs to have Javelin Throwers and Maya to have Chasqui. See what happens. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the aztecs will be nearly unbeatable.