Unique Civ Benefits???

Sirotnikov · January 8, 2001, 19:31

Quote frmo the site:

quote:

In Civilization III you'll find borders (but even more realistic than in SMAC), unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose, enhanced and more realistic diplomacy AI, build- queues and more ways to delegate commands for those who want to minimize micromanagement at later stages in the game

Does this mean what I think it means? SMAC type unique civs? That's wrong. Very wrong.

We have enough RTS games using this inorder to make their games less boring. After all, 10 missions from the start, you very border with the game, and unless you have at least one more race with different units to play, you feel you've wasted your money.

But Civ 3 is supposed to be on top of that. It shouldn't go down to the low level. Unique civs shorten the life of a game because you feel constrained by it.

A fact is, It's 2001 And I'm still playing Civ 2. I don't play SMAC though. Because it's boring. I always know Spartans are militant, and gayas are green etc.

Though there are general charachteristics in Civ (which I also think should be randomized before each game, and rerandomized every thousand years or so to show different attitudes and periods and leaders) it played out a bit differently anytime. And the most important thing was - that the civ that I played could go in any direction and noone including myself knew where.

Imagine multiplay, If I choose some faction over another, everybody immediately know that I will have such and such goals, such and such pluses and such and such minuses. I don't want that. When I play Civ, I want to be creative. Why can't I develop a civ that is both militaristic and has a strong ecenomy?

If civ 3 will have different factions with different chrachteristics ala SMAC, I won't consider getting it.

All I can say is, that after years of anticipation... this sucks.

jordanz19 · January 8, 2001, 20:14

Woah! Settle down man! Unique benefits could mean anything, as in Civ II, you get certain civ advances at the beginging. I think they are just expanding on this.

I think Firaxis is trying to make this aspect more realistic, and more closely following history. I think this is very cool.

Grrr · January 8, 2001, 21:21

I hope these 'unique benefits' don't affect gameplay. I would like to think that they are not unique. Every Civ II player should know that you must kill the white Civ first as it is expansionist. If this would be implied onto human players the game would become to boring.

I do hope however that the Civs look different from one another.

Chronus · January 8, 2001, 22:03

Maybe, and hopefully, the unique units thing will be an option.

Seeker · January 8, 2001, 22:03

Ever play Warlords 2 Deluxe? The different sides had different graphics for the same units depending on 'culture'.

That's what I think it is, so US jets are F-15s, Russian jets are MiGs, Japanese crusaders are samurai ect.

One vital question: Has the fabled herd of Royal Viking War Elephants become extinct in this game??

tniem · January 8, 2001, 23:51

If unique civs are like those in SMAC there would seem to be one major difference (at least I hope so):

MORE COMPUTER PLAYERS!

Each nation might act the same every time they are involved in the game, but unlike SMAC you would get 12 out of a possible 60 civs to play against. This would mean that there would never be the same number of expansionists, scientists, etc.

In the end unique civs may or may not add a level of fun, I do not think it is exactly the same as SMAC's unique groups.

Jon Miller · January 9, 2001, 00:49

I think that we should make a patition to tell Firaxis that while unique civs might be fun. That in the interest of multiplayerability and generality that unique civs be an option which can be turned off. I fine with the option of unique civs (and even beleive it is a good idea), I just don't think you should have to play that way. It should be a fairly simple fix.

Jon Miller

Sirotnikov · January 9, 2001, 14:46

Don't get me wrong, I know that civs should differenciate and I know the white civs are always expansionists and the purple are always poor and stupid and expansionist and the orange are always bastard agressors, but...

If I choose to be a white civ, I don't want to be labled expansionist and have +25% army -25% money or something. That's stupid.

I agree that AI civs should have different personas. But they should be randomized for each game (within the boundaries of historical correctness or according to leaders, an idea I suggested many moons ago) and even should change about 3 or 4 times in one game because I as a human player often change my strategy, depending on my mood and on the success of that strategy in this specific game.

I think that costum graphics for each civ will be ok (though it's too much, there should be 6 max predefined types: western, classical, eastern etc.) as long as the actuall stats don't change.