c168 WHY CIV-SPECIFIC UNITS ARE A GOOD IDEA - Page 2

Kropotkin · May 31, 2001, 05:41

Calm down there jeje2, I don't even thing that snapcase had those thoughts in mind when he wrote his column.

There's other games for the people that want to calculate on stuff like that. (as I sometimes find intresting but not in Civ)

Erka · May 31, 2001, 07:21

The only valid objection against players choosing their own civ-specifics seem to be that the AI can't handle it correctly, but why should this limit the human player?

The AI-civs would still have to go for their specific, hard-coded units (which the human player could have much fun 'stealing'

), and in multiplayer games without any AI-civs it wouldn't be a problem.

Alexander's Horse · May 31, 2001, 07:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Erka
The only valid objection against players choosing their own civ-specifics seem to be that the AI can't handle it correctly, but why should this limit the human player?

The AI-civs would still have to go for their specific, hard-coded units (which the human player could have much fun 'stealing'

), and in multiplayer games without any AI-civs it wouldn't be a problem.

Excuse me? This is a big problem in multiplayer games. We customise our own civs. I don't play as German or Greek. How can you balance it out? Its a bloody silly idea. Its going to create fights between players.

Also, once again, games designers go against all the collective wisdom of decades of wargaming. Wargaming classification seeks equivalence between units like samurai and legionary, not to emphasise differences. Guess what? A Roman legionary and a samurai can be accomodated within the same classification system. Asian and European units aren't that different if you look at their weapons and the way they fought - open order, close order, heavily or lightly armoured, on horse or on foot, with missile or not. Who says the Germans use armour better? Haven't you people heard of Kursk?

Its just a garbage idea to suggest otherwise, which is what the unique unit idea does, the whole thing smacks of racist nonsense.

Omada · May 31, 2001, 07:58

If civ-specific units must be in the game, I could accept it if they are at least potentially accessible for every civ. How about this:

Every special unit ("Panzer tank") is tied to a specific special tech advance ("Panzer tank technology"). This special advance is offered to all civs that has reached the appropriate base tech ("Armor"), but as soon as one civ starts researching the special tech no other civ can pick it.

This way, the special units are not preset at the beginning of time (avoiding the problem with longships for desert-dwelling vikings) and there is an significant cost attached to getting the unit ("I have Armor. Do I develop Panzers, or should I go for Flight and possibly the F-15 instead?").

...or another way:

The Magellan wonder already gives you +1 move for all your naval units for the rest of the game. Let every special unit depend on a wonder-type building that must be constructed in a specific city. As long as you control the city you can build the special unit (either only in that city or in any city in your civ).

Alternatively, as long as you control the city all your base units are upgraded to special units, but if you lose it your units revert back to the base unit.

In short, give me anything except CSU's that are hardcoded to particular civs. That would suck. I'd like Civilization 3 to not suck. =)

Kropotkin · May 31, 2001, 10:18

Välkommen Omada, solen skiner i Ume

The problem with your idea is about the same as the original idea. There's a great chance that the civ that gets the unit isn't the one with the best surroundings to use it. There might be great problems to make the AI pick advances that suits it in that way and/or a very advanced civ might take the advance long before anyone else. The latter might be OK when it comes to panzer warfare but not for stuff like longships and so on...

Grumbold · May 31, 2001, 10:27

It is possible that the recent review talking of mini-wonders, available to all nations, will produce the sort of targetted specialisation we have been talking about as an alternative to CSU's. A mini wonder that gave all your infantry +1 defence or armour +1 movement, for example. We have not heard enough about them to be certain what their effects will be. If the hints turn out to be true then the CSU's can be turned off in multiplayer without too much regret by those of us that dislike it or find it too unbalancing.

lord of the mark · May 31, 2001, 10:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Excuse me? This is a big problem in multiplayer games. We customise our own civs. I don't play as German or Greek. How can you balance it out? Its a bloody silly idea. Its going to create fights between players.

Also, once again, games designers go against all the collective wisdom of decades of wargaming. Wargaming classification seeks equivalence between units like samurai and legionary, not to emphasise differences. Guess what? A Roman legionary and a samurai can be accomodated within the same classification system. Asian and European units aren't that different if you look at their weapons and the way they fought - open order, close order, heavily or lightly armoured, on horse or on foot, with missile or not. Who says the Germans use armour better? Haven't you people heard of Kursk?

Its just a garbage idea to suggest otherwise, which is what the unique unit idea does, the whole thing smacks of racist nonsense.

Amen, brother!!! It was worth it viewing this thread, just to see that such a legend in the civ community has so clearly stated the truth about unique units.

The ignorance here of the real history of the eastern front is simply abysmal.

LOTM

Omada · May 31, 2001, 10:38

Tack Kropotkin, inte ett moln på himlen här uppe.

I'd rather not have CSU's at all, but since they apparently will be included I'd prefer them to be implemented in a way that won't make me bash my head against the keyboard when I play the game...

KrazyHorse · May 31, 2001, 11:58

We already know that the game will automatically put civs close together in the game which were close together historically. It is more than possible that the game will also consistently put the Vikings on a coastline with a slightly hostile inland, and the Germans in the middle of a largish, fertile, landmass, and the Zulus in an open savannah-like setting. Thus, the useless units problem will be avoided.

Also, I don't understand what this resistance to civ differences is all about. Even in civI and civII we had the leaders' personalities adjusted according to their civ. This diversity will accomodate different playing styles. If I'm a quick-rush ***hole (you know who you are) then I'll choose the Romans or Zulus for their early, powerful units. That way I'll gain territory right away. However, I'll be handicapped by my later lack of advanced units (a Panzer or MiG would be useful in 1960). If I'm a ridiculous perfectionist and technologist (which I am) I'll choose the Americans and be able to dominate the endgame with waves of F-16s. The only real problem is one of balance, which is hopefully going to be solved by the play-testing occurring this minute at Firaxis (lucky ***tards). I think this will lend a diversity to the different cultures lacking in civI&civII. It would, of course, be preferable, as someone already pointed out, to allow the player or AI to make their own decisions on such matters, based on their setting, but this would almost be too much to ask. The problem of balance would be multiplied a hundred-fold if there were so many options. In addition, the pre-decided templates are easier for an AI to handle.

Besides all this, don't you remember how easy it was to customize civII? Do any of you doubt we'll have the same possibility this time? If you don't want customized units, take 'em out of the rules.txt file.

p.s.: Why do the Sioux or Iroquois (or whoever) get mounted units? Native Americans had never even seen a horse until whitey brought 'em over in the sixteenth century. Maybe they should get a stealthy, treats-all-terrain-as-roads, foot warrior-type unit. This would also fit in better with the Iroquois, rather than the Sioux.

SerapisIV · May 31, 2001, 12:02

Nice signature KrazyHorse

Cyclotron · May 31, 2001, 12:16

Quote:

We already know that the game will automatically put civs close together in the game which were close together historically.

Huh? Where was this reported?

Quote:

It is more than possible that the game will also consistently put the Vikings on a coastline with a slightly hostile inland, and the Germans in the middle of a largish, fertile, landmass, and the Zulus in an open savannah-like setting. Thus, the useless units problem will be avoided.

Krazyhorse, the problem with this is that you are assuming that any map will have all of these. What if it doesn't? Personally, my two favorite styles of playing are in a low resource environment where you have to struggle (mostly hills, jungle, desert, swamp) or a high-water environment where there are tons of small islands, making sea warfare all important. Does this mean that in these games, the Germans are never picked because there is no place for them? With your system, it does.

In a truly good game, the Germans should start out randomly (or at least semi-randomly) like all other civs, and then build the improvements, wonders, and units that best suit their condition. Evolving and environmentally-based traits wouldn't hurt, either. Read my signature:

KrazyHorse · May 31, 2001, 12:36

First off, the placement fact was posted in the about.com preview.
Second off, we know that the terrain generation system has been revamped for more realism, so hopefully there will always be sufficient variety. Thirdly, I already explained why it would be so difficult to have the levels of individuality that you want (i.e. balance and AI). Finally, your signature's option puts only slightly less burden on the AI, and provides even more balance problems.

Ecthy · May 31, 2001, 14:43

won't Elvis be in CIV3 ?

KrazyHorse · May 31, 2001, 15:38

I don't think so. The city status screen (you know; the one mentioning Montreal) has the six in-game advisors' pictures down the left-hand side. None of them have any sideburns to speak of.

Kropotkin · May 31, 2001, 16:17

Maybe they are planning to replace him with Joey Ramone. I'm starting to think that he's not dead either

Erka · May 31, 2001, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Excuse me? This is a big problem in multiplayer games. We customise our own civs. I don't play as German or Greek. How can you balance it out? Its a bloody silly idea. Its going to create fights between players.

Oh, I didn't mean I like the idea of hard-coded unics either, sorry if it looked like that!

What I was trying to say was that the much prefered and much superior idea that player get to pick their own civ-specifics during the game, with minor wonders or minor techs, only have one complaint, and thats AI. And if AI is not a factor (as in multiplayer) then you should be able to use this idea too.

Soren Johnson · May 31, 2001, 19:03

Because there has been so much interest in civ-specific units and powers, both on the positive and negative side, we should probably clarify once and for all that civ-specific powers and units will be fully editable. Thus, the anti-civ-specific crowd should have no problem taking them out of the game, and mod writers will also have the flexibilty to construct highly civ-specific scenarios.

Soren Johnson
FIRAXIS Games

Cyclotron · May 31, 2001, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse Second off, we know that the terrain generation system has been revamped for more realism, so hopefully there will always be sufficient variety.

Umm, as in the examples I gave you, what if I don't want "sufficient variety." What if I don't want huge grasslands on my map? I thought CTP had a great map generator, because I didn't have to submit to standards of what a world map should be. I could make my own, and make my own distinct games. I don't want "sufficient variety," I want a unit system that is equally adaptable to all maps regardless of terrain.

Quote:

Thirdly, I already explained why it would be so difficult to have the levels of individuality that you want (i.e. balance and AI).

I'm not asking for much. Having lots of barracks over time gives you slightly better units or a better chance of becoming a true veteran (if experience gradations are used), or building proportionally more cavarly than infantry would make your cavalry slightly more adept at attacking. All of these are simple algorithms and equasion programs that could be put in with great ease.

Quote:

Finally, your signature's option puts only slightly less burden on the AI, and provides even more balance problems.

I explained above how the AI would have very little stress placed upon it. Would you mind telling me how my simple system would create balance problems, since everybody has a fair chance at each option?

Alexander's Horse · May 31, 2001, 19:19

Soren thanks for the info. But will it be an option in the set up screens? For multiplayers the toggle cheat mode approach is no good.

Actually my spies report this controversy is all kind of pointless because the real reason we're getting unique civs and units is because to save time and money Firaxis is building Civ 3 using the Smac engine. Guess what? Smac has unique civs and units

Care to confirm or deny Soren

Soren Johnson · May 31, 2001, 19:54

The Setup Screens have yet to be designed, so there is nothing I could either confirm or deny.

Soren Johnson
FIRAXIS Games

Comrade Tribune · May 31, 2001, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV

Does this mean that each Civ gets four unique units, one per era?

No; definitely not. 4 times 16 civilizations would mean 64 unique units, effectively doubling the number of units they would have to animate.

Since this is the most expensive part of game design, hell will freeze over, before they do that.

Imran Siddiqui · May 31, 2001, 20:08

Quote:

Firaxis is building Civ 3 using the Smac engine. Guess what? Smac has unique civs and units

Trolling again?

From all I've seen, they'd have had to totally redo the SMAC engine if they were using them. Resources alone demands a new engine, not to mention culture and the effect it has on the game world!

Thanks Soren...

Comrade Tribune · May 31, 2001, 20:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
The Setup Screens have yet to be designed, so there is nothing I could either confirm or deny.

Soren Johnson
FIRAXIS Games

This is great news; it means suggestions are not pointless, yet. My suggestion is the following: Civs that are semi-customizable at game start (Master of Orion II system). Each player can 'buy' a small number of unique units/advantages/disadvantages of his choice from a given menu.

Alexander's Horse · May 31, 2001, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
The Setup Screens have yet to be designed, so there is nothing I could either confirm or deny.

Soren Johnson
FIRAXIS Games

Thanks for the advice Soren

Could I make make a special plea again please for the interests of Multiplayers to be taking into account on set up screens? Options like "no start techs" are really important.

Also a "kick player" feature would really help. Civ 2 hangs when a player loses connection in simult, which we pretty much all play now. But even in turn based, we had a player fall asleep a couple of days ago and of course the game was stuck as a result

Player moving at the same time rocks!!!

There is a whole different mindset in multiplayer - like we play "colours" not civs - everyone has their favorite colour based on turn order and perhaps superstitious belief about where the civ is usually located on the map etc.

Kestrel · May 31, 2001, 21:59

It sounds like Civ III is going to provide a rich vein for Customisers, Modpack-Makers and general tweakers.

One hopes that the way it is constructed will allow many of the alternatives posed above to be implemented according to taste.

Firaxis, which of the above alternatives will NOT be possible to Modpack-makers ?

Seventh · May 31, 2001, 22:04

Quote:

Smac has unique civs and units

News flash, SMAC may have unique CIVs, but it certainly does not have unique units that are Civ specific. All of the units in SMAC are avialable to all of the factions as long as the faction in question has the right pre-requisite tech.

When was the last time you played SMAC?

PS, what's being done to prevent the AI from cheating?

dainbramaged13 · May 31, 2001, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

This is great news; it means suggestions are not pointless, yet. My suggestion is the following: Civs that are semi-customizable at game start (Master of Orion II system). Each player can 'buy' a small number of unique units/advantages/disadvantages of his choice from a given menu.

THIS IS GOOD

yes, do this

this here is GOOD idead

hehe

LaRusso · June 1, 2001, 04:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeje2

Also if we take WWII and the German versus American tanks there are reasons to differencies. One of them being that German didn't have have some special metal alloies that USA did have. => USA grenades had a much better penetration rate than German. So Germans had to compensate with bigger grenades leading to heavier tanks etc. (OK, this has been told to me by a WWII panzer freak, hope I remembered it correctly)

Heh, this is interesting. Sunday Telegraph correspondent from the Eastern Front, Alexander Werth, frequently reported that the Russians used American tanks they got through Murmansk convoys as "supply trucks", since they were not up to any kind of fight against Germans. Perhaps special US unit - a combo of freight from Civ2 and a small cannon on top

If panzers should be civ-specific, then Russians should get T-34, clearly the winner of all major WWII tank battles and the best overall medium tank. Germans produced some of their best 'big cat' tanks towards the end of the war and in insufficient numbers to make it really decisive.....

Jeje2 · June 1, 2001, 05:01

Larusso:
Yes, it is true what you say.

I tried to tell that one the reasons for differencies in German and American tanks were that Germans didn't have some metals.

Now if we look at what FIRAXIS has told sofar - we can see that this civ-type-specific-unit can be achived with resources. (If you don't have that resource you develop tanks like German did otherwice tanks like Americans did)

In teh same way we could have the ocean as a recourse - no own good cost in north (Lot's of hard storms), no viking longboats.

But, why do we argue anymore?
Soren Johnson, Firaxis, has given us some information and we will have these units in some form.

LaRusso · June 1, 2001, 05:22

Okay okay