Civilization 4's Unit Workshop

[GhengisFarb™]

While I think a unit workshop is nice thing to give the player more variety and ability to adapt I don't think it fits Civ well.

Civ basically tries to rewrite history to a point. It generates the units civs had in their historical context which it does well to create in a game format. A unit workshop basically eliminates Roman Legions, German Panzers and the what not and just makes a generic strategy game.

I am also concerned with the fact that a unit workshop would greatly reduce modibility to the Civ series. You would be forced to use the in game models and skins and it would be more difficult to add alternate units like Dragons, Trolls, Trebuchets, etc.

When you use generic models and skins you lose a lot of the detail from dedicated graphics. I think a modified improvement system would be a good idea though.

Like an addition in the editor where a unit can get a bonus to its stats with the acquirement of a specific tech.

For example, once you have Horseback Riding you can build Horsemen. They have a 1/1/2 stat. Once you research the tech Stirrup it triggers a bonus 1/0/0 to your Horseman units.

Thus those who have discovered Stirrup have 2/1/2 Horsemen.

Similiar to Mysticism giving a +1 bonus to Temples. I think that would be an easy element to add to the programming and allow greater flexibility in mod making.

[ThePlagueRat]

Nice! A slight modification to Ghengis' idea could be the requirement of a certain building (following the respective tech) in order to receive the stat bonus. Such as Stirrup allowing a new building (stables or something) which grants 1/0/0 to horsemen. That would demand a bit more effort from the player to get bonuses, which I think is nice...

[Trifna]

I'll try a different approach. Instead, it could be by a more general view. Example:

1. Infantry armies
a) Body armors:
- More armor (non-metal) = more protection, higher cost
- More armor (metal type) = more protection, less speed, higher costs
b) Weapons = ???
c) ...

2. Boats:
a) More weapons = higher costs, less freight/transport, needs to be bigger (thus speed down and less manoeuvrable)
b) More power (bigger sail, more rows, bigger engine...) = higher costs, more speedy, boats is a bit bigger (thus speed down and less maneuverable)
c) Bigger boat = can transport more or have a bigger freight, can put more on the boat, is less maneuverable
d)...

And so on. I think it has the advantage of being more straight forward, brings everything into ONE model, a rule instead of a bunch of exceptions.

In these two examples, we can see really what happened at some battles. Look at the hoplite when it got in front of the Roman legion: the legion were adapted differently with less bulky weapons and it helped. Boats? Look at these naval wars waged by the British against other countries and pirates. The pirates generally favored little boats that would be fast so that they could trap the big ones that were away from their group and then escape. It was a racing game.



Personally, I tend to believe that it would work better if it worked with another system than the workshop. The best I could see would be a system with a few types of units:
Ground: Artillery, cavalry/tank, infantry
Sea: Little ones (frigates, destroyers...), big ones (battleship, cruiser), submarines
Air: Helicopters, combat planes, bombers

Of course, there are a few unclassed sur as transports (by air, sea and ground) or a ship carrying planes. Each of the category would have caracteristics proper to this category (I get my example from www.supremeruler2010.com).

But I'm still ready to see what a system such as proposed by Snoopy could look like

[yellowdaddy]

c... Moa Cavalry!

d.. Multihulled boats! (cata/trimarans)

my head is with what Ghengis is saying, but my heart is with Trifna's way!

is there any kind of meeting of the two approaches?

[lajzar]

The big problem with unit workshop models are twofold:

Once your economy is big enough, you'll just max out all the aspects anyway. In SMAC, I only ever built one kind of unit, and it had everything.

It makes the game almost impossible for modding. I want elven dragon riders, zerg mutalisks and undead catapults.

[yellowdaddy]

...don't we all

but i'm not sure if you're really going to be able to create a universal superweapon... some advantages given by adding some bits, will bring their own disadvantages...

and it would make sense to have restrictions on weight and number and type of bits you could combine... not to mention there's usually a need for cheap units you can build quickly whilst you're waiting for your super units.

i'm reminded of those funny hovertanks and leviathans in ctp2

[lajzar]

ok, that was a bit of an exageration. Looking back, I usually bult:

A police unit. 1 attack, max defence, psi defence and police skill.

Hovercraft thingy, maxed attack, 1 defence, ag struts

Transport ship, 1 attack, max defence.

Combat ship, maxed att and def, marines

Swarms of Chiron once I get bored and want to end the game quickly. Those were serioulsy unbalanced iirc.

But my point remains. Having a workshop discourages the decision making on what kind of unit to build. Historically, just about every primary defence unit had some nominal attack factor, but there is no reason to build in any attack factor with a workshop. Similarly, my hovertanks with 1 defence would never have been passed by any realistic defence ministry.

[yellowdaddy]

well i'm not really thinking about SMAC when i think about a workshop.

i'm thinking about the dawn of time, and what kind of boats to build - long or short, what kind of armour to give my troops.

naturally i would expect a pay off of flexibility and speed for leather armour over plate armour, so that in battle my total attack and defence points weren't the be all and end all.

i guess i'm also imagining a game where there is some scope for battlefield tactics as well as strategy, not a simplistic Civ style unit on unit, square on square thing.

i wouldn't see the sense in creating a workshop where you could achieve military superiority just by desigining a handful super-units.

you need that david and goliath factor, ants and grasshoppers etc...

just like in nature, where even the most powerful units (tigers, sharks, man, scorpions, bacteria) have weaknesses you can exploit.

[DarkSlayer]

The unit workshop stuff is interesting, but not very Civ.

Colonization had it to an degree, but very simplistic. But Col had an total different economic model than Civ. Civ is simple, thats why it is so popular. Everything in Civ is simple and ppl tend to forget it. Col was a bit tricky to play in the beginning, but thx to an excelent help, I mastered it.

Designing your own unit is something I have thought about for a long time, but I don't think it is Civ. Even the "requirements of iron to build swordman" is something I don't like. It is too powerful to early, and can doom your empire right away. Even gunpowder looks like everybody had in no time - except those in the new world, but then there was no contact with them...
'

hmm

[lajzar]

i'm thinking about the dawn of time, and what kind of boats to build - long or short, what kind of armour to give my troops.

One idea I posted in another thread was boolean tech trees. This could do some of the job you want without requiring a workshop. COnsider teh following example:

longbow drill NEEDS warrior code NOT crossbow drill
crossbow drill NEEDS warrior code NOT longbow drill

Medieval stage civs can then choose which technology branch to explore, without giving them the flexability to switch casually, which a workshop would provide.

The main point here is that once a civ has one of these, they simply aren't going to explore the other path because the two techs do almost the same thing.

Similarly, early sea tech might give a choice between the battle barge and the trireme. Medieval tech might force players to choose longboats or caravels, again employing boolean NOT statements in the tech tree.

[Kuciwalker]

again, I am extremely impressed with your suggestion

[GhengisFarb™]

So what your saying is modify unit research to where a tech that would currently allow a unit to be built would now require you to "research" each specific unit before you built it?

[Fosse]

Originally posted by lajzar

The main point here is that once a civ has one of these, they simply aren't going to explore the other path because the two techs do almost the same thing.

Your idea is interesting, but if the different paths yield not so different results, then it seems a waste of resources.

If there is no practical difference between longbowmen and crossbowmen (which you state would be so, in order to justify not researching both), then there is no pracical reason to have any difference at all.


Now, I like your idea a lot more than having a crazy unit workshop in Civ.

If the choices that your boolean tech tree offers were signifigantly different to make a real choice between two options, AND numerous enough to force that choice to be necessary, then you might be on to something.

If there are many more techs than there are now, and you spend all of your time researching the ancient age variations on infantry, then you'll be left behind as your opponants select a few that they really want, and then begin researching middle age level technology.

Problems with this? Well, how to make differences matter. Seems easy enough, with history giving us countless ideas. How to make the AI have good research choices (the current one researches Fascism and Communism right now, for example)... well, it's going to have to be improved anyhow... might as well be able to handle this. How to ensure that one "thread" in the giant tech tree does not show itself to be the best choice every time. Game balance... something that's always a little off in Civ.


Anyhow, I like your idea but mostly because I don't see it as a Unit Workshop at all, and it can lead to all kinds of interesting ideas for the tech tree, regarding units, improvements, wonders, and anything else.

The idea of an Alpha Centauri style workshop still gives me the creeps.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
well i'm not really thinking about SMAC when i think about a workshop.

i'm thinking about the dawn of time, and what kind of boats to build - long or short, what kind of armour to give my troops.

naturally i would expect a pay off of flexibility and speed for leather armour over plate armour, so that in battle my total attack and defence points weren't the be all and end all.

Why can't this be accomplished with predesigned units? Map making gives you two types of boats, a small fast one that only brings a few units, and a huge one that is slow and carries lots.

Cheaper infantry with mediocre defense, expensive ones with lots of armor.

Then you simply choose which options are right for you at a given time. The plus side is that modders abilities are not hampered, you get the unique flavor of packaged units, and you still get the flexibility the workshop advocates want.


In current Civ, a new tech gives you a new unit, and it is the best unit available. If we just add a few units, with pros and cons, here and there and at major techs, then we've created the differences that we can all agree would be good, and we've left out the horrors of trying to build a sensible workshop into the Civ environment.

[lajzar]

If there is no practical difference between longbowmen and crossbowmen (which you state would be so, in order to justify not researching both), then there is no pracical reason to have any difference at all.

I'm not advocating no difference between the new units. Of course, there will be different graphics. But each unit would have slight differences. I guess we might have to inflate the basic attack and defence values (civ2 is rather granular in that regard), but thats no big deal. I imagine longbows as being more expensive (a lot more time to train), better attack (about 3x the rate of fire), but crossbows have better armour (medieval crossbowyers typically more light chainmail or boiled leather, longbowyers wore cloth).

having one tech provide two units with this subtle difference achieves much the same effect, but gives the players teh flexible option. European armies could see both longbows and crossbows in action easily, but neither switched. England even went as far as enforcing criminal penalties for men found in possession of a crossbow without authorisation, at a time when possession and training with a longbow was legally enforced.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Fosse


Your idea is interesting, but if the different paths yield not so different results, then it seems a waste of resources.

If there is no practical difference between longbowmen and crossbowmen (which you state would be so, in order to justify not researching both), then there is no pracical reason to have any difference at all.


Now, I like your idea a lot more than having a crazy unit workshop in Civ.

If the choices that your boolean tech tree offers were signifigantly different to make a real choice between two options, AND numerous enough to force that choice to be necessary, then you might be on to something.

If there are many more techs than there are now, and you spend all of your time researching the ancient age variations on infantry, then you'll be left behind as your opponants select a few that they really want, and then begin researching middle age level technology.

Problems with this? Well, how to make differences matter. Seems easy enough, with history giving us countless ideas. How to make the AI have good research choices (the current one researches Fascism and Communism right now, for example)... well, it's going to have to be improved anyhow... might as well be able to handle this. How to ensure that one "thread" in the giant tech tree does not show itself to be the best choice every time. Game balance... something that's always a little off in Civ.


Anyhow, I like your idea but mostly because I don't see it as a Unit Workshop at all, and it can lead to all kinds of interesting ideas for the tech tree, regarding units, improvements, wonders, and anything else.

The idea of an Alpha Centauri style workshop still gives me the creeps.

The idea is very similar to the "major" and "minor" tech proposal I made, when you put it that way

[yellowdaddy]

I like the boolean tree. One thing that turned me off Civ was that all it really is is a race up the technology tree - the main objective really being to get gunpowder first. It means that there's little incenticive to do much else - the game lacks enough depth and breadth to create a civilisation for the sake of it, so you end up having to build and bomb regardless, it leaves me frustrated and dissatisfied. I'd only play really now to see new unit graphics or try out new features, but as for replay value.. without the kind of levels of uncertainty that i'm talking about, it's quite limited really.

as for the current predesigned units, i just don't like the fact that my enemy can have identical units to me. It means I know exactly how they (the units) will behave, and how to defeat them. it turns a challenge into a chore.

I think it would offer more tension to not be quite sure what the enemy is capable of.
But I suppose I could go along with Fosse's suggestion of a range of untis per tech, as it's more or less the same as what I said, without the paraphanalia of a workshop.
I did like the Colonization did it, and I'd advocate that as a desireble alternative to a workshop. You could add up to three items to a unit - eg worker + parachute + machinegun = (amateur) paratrooper.
I think that's as far as we ought to go, and I'd enjoy that as a kind of solution to the problem of having identical units.
and you might have a choice of leath, mail, or plate for you mediavel warriors - with added costs.

However, I still find the idea of varying designs of my naval and aerial units - vehicles, attractive. different size warships and transports, bombers and fighters... i suppose this is still bit like SMAC (...oops! )

but then I suppose I'm after a game which is more like Colonization meets Gettysburg (+Balance of power 1990 and Sim City 1)! i.e. more than a basic economy, battlefield tactics, and geopolitics, and a bit more of a range of city sizes and shapes (not limited to one square) - even basic (Sim City 1/Caesar 3) city management would be nice.

[Oncle Boris]

I like GePap's idea.

The unit workshop would be more like a tactical workshop, in which you decide which kind of regiments will make your unit.

A Roman legion would have swordsmen and an engineer brigade, with auxiliaries javelin, a Gaul unit would have light infantrymen with aristocrat cavalry, a Carthaginian army would have light infantrymen, archers and the super-heavy elephant brigade.

I don't like the idea of armor/weapons. Way too abstract, and, in the end, doesn't add much to the game. A unit workshop that would devise a unit strength by calculating the tactical dynamics between each of the regiment it contains would be more historically accurate (and more fun, in my sense).