POLL: No Unit Workshop in Civ3

[Cyclotron]

Where is this response? Sounds intersting...

And, anyway, to all the people who are for unit workshops and such: Don't get me wrong. Unit workshops are a great idea, I just don't think they would help Civilization. Some of the ideas would be fantastic for some other games, but I think a Civ game is too long term for this and the workshop would become a needless detail.

[Youngsun]

Bye bye "mobilisation idea"!
Bye bye "Arms trade idea"!
Bye bye "better representation of socio-economic impact of war"!

Wait a minute! If there is any way represent stockpiling arms and recuriting combat personnel, unitworkshop may not be a necessity.

I find SMAC unitworkshop quite uninspiring and boring and there were a lot to improve(the potential was limitless)but Firaxis gave verdict not based on their poor perfomance in SMAC and blaming unitworkshop itself as scape goat? come on!

People don't like unitworkshop why? It was Firaxis's poor design, uninspiring graphics and cumbersome interface with so many useless prototype things! not because unitworkshop was fundamentally bad.

There are so many to represent unitworkshop but Firaxis pursue only one choice which is

1.design a unit
2.unit type produced: prototype
3.produce a unit based on prototype
4.make variation of the unit: editing of prototype
5.produce a unit

This way produces problems of frustration from people since we are restricted to produce unit based on prototype and every type should be managed. how inconvenient!

so is there any alternative to that? sure!

1.produce predefined weapons such as rifles
2.stockpile them
3.recruite men
4.make a unit by mixing a weapons and men
5.done!

There are no prototype or type to manage every time and no need to upgrade unit type. Just produce and mix! That's all and every time(likely to be war time)you make a unit for your custom need.

Come and visit my "unitworkshop module list" thread and see what I have done.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 13, 2001).]

[Roman]

People, you cannot expect all your ideas to make it into Civ3. I think cutting this particular one was wise.

[shimmin]

Basically, it seems that Firaxis' decision summarizes more or less like:

1) SMAC's unit workshop may have added a fair degree of tactical depth and variety that was missing in the civs, but graphically, it was pretty uninspiring.

2a) Being the game designs gods we are, there is NO WAY a unit workshop could possibly be done in a more inspiring way than we did it in SMAC.
-OR- (your choice)
2b) Being the game design sluggards we are, there is NO WAY that if we were going to use a unit workshop, we would pass up the opportunity to reuse the code from SMAC.

3) Therefore, we won't have a unit workshop. Besides, as long as the units look really cool, no one will care that there's more or less no way to be innovative with your military tactics. Aren't eye candy and mod packs so much more important than game depth anyway?

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by shimmin on 02-14-2001 07:28 AM3) Therefore, we won't have a unit workshop. Besides, as long as the units look really cool, no one will care that there's more or less no way to be innovative with your military tactics. Aren't eye candy and mod packs so much more important than game depth anyway?

Actually, I think they realized that unit workshops were the real eye candy. I'm glad they diodn't resort to them and stayed with basic units. I am glad they did not sacrafice the very game depth you speak of for frivolous unit templates and the limited and unrealistic scope of unit workshops. And tactics will probably be actually quite innovative, now that we know the AI will actually be able to use the units (I was afraid of the AI ineptitude in SMAC). I think the only people who will be un-innovative are the ones who will not buy Civ3 just because they'd rather mope about unit workshops. Firaxis is not lazy or does it have delusions of grandeur; maybe they just know what they are doing.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[Roman]

Most excellent response, cyclotron 7.

[Krippled]

I liked it in SMAC - I mean how cool was a colony pod attached to a plane chassis? I mean, it rocks for colonising islands, non-attached land and also for hedging your opponents in. Beats the heck out of moving a normal colony pod. I think it will much reduce the fun of getting new tech's. Another thing I liked about it was always the fact that your opponent (and I'm talking network...) never knew quite what they were about to be up against

Having said that I can see why they can't do it in Civ3 with the unit animations. The question is what would I like most? Short term probably the animations, long term unit development.

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-12-2001 03:44 PM Okay, that may be interesting (ooh! My marines have wilderness survival training!) but what use is it? How will all this junk and doctrine and stuff affect the game at all? This sounds like an RPG, not Civ! If it has no use, there is no reason to tack additional meaningless details onto CivIII.

What a well thought out response

All these different trainings and doctrines of course will give units various abilities.

Right now, the Civ model is unrealistic. Think about it, putting a unit in the middle of nowhere, and it is going to suffer various sorts of ill consequences such as loss of morale, combat strength, and so forth. When you put a bunch of men in a jungle and they will suffer. If your unit has Wilderness Survival, though, it will suffer less.

Doctrines are meant to give units special abilties. What would a skirmisher unit do? Perhaps, say, hit-and-run raids instead of all-out combat?

If you just bother to think about this a little bit, the answers should come to you. After all, it is not that hard.

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-14-2001 06:11 PM Actually, I think they realized that unit workshops were the real eye candy. I'm glad they diodn't resort to them and stayed with basic units. I am glad they did not sacrafice the very game depth you speak of for frivolous unit templates and the limited and unrealistic scope of unit workshops

Really?

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HT...256.html?24#24

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 02-14-2001 10:46 PM What a well thought out response

Why, thank you. Roman liked my last response, too.

quote: Right now, the Civ model is unrealistic. Think about it, putting a unit in the middle of nowhere, and it is going to suffer various sorts of ill consequences such as loss of morale, combat strength, and so forth. When you put a bunch of men in a jungle and they will suffer.

And, if you put a bunch of gamers in a room with a game that bogs itself down in "realistic" nuances like loss of morale because they are further from cities, etc., you can bet they will suffer.

quote: Doctrines are meant to give units special abilties. What would a skirmisher unit do? Perhaps, say, hit-and-run raids instead of all-out combat?

Okay, but you still haven't told me what this means in game terms. When last I checked, all Civ combat was all-out.

quote: If you just bother to think about this a little bit, the answers should come to you. After all, it is not that hard.

Actually, I have bothered to think about it for some time, and I have decided that my opinion is that all this super-realism that makes Civ "unrealistic" to you makes it a good game in my eyes. This is a game, not a documentary. Your suggestions would both not work and would be mind-bogglingly dull to anybody playing it. What we need is better gameplay, not painstaking "realism." I still don't understand (Is this what I am supposed to think about?) how any of the details you have mentioned above could possibly benefit anyone playing the game in any way or improve anyone's gaming experience, besides possibly getting good excercise at honing their math skills. With a game like you describe, maybe I could do my homework while I play it!

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

I am surprised that I was able to vote 5 times in that poll so far!!
[This message has been edited by Chaos Warrior (edited February 15, 2001).]

[shimmin]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-14-2001 06:11 PM Actually, I think they realized that unit workshops were the real eye candy. I'm glad they diodn't resort to them and stayed with basic units. I am glad they did not sacrafice the very game depth you speak of for frivolous unit templates and the limited and unrealistic scope of unit workshops.

I don't understand a word here? How is a workshop more limited than fixed units in any way besides visually? Name one thing that can be done with fixed units that cannot also be done with user-designable one.

By "innovation" and "tactical depth" I referred to there being multiple viable strategies at a given tech level in the game. When I played Civ II, and I was playing a competent opponent, if I knew what techs my opponent had, I could pretty well predict what force would come knocking at my door if we fell into war, and conversely what his city defenses would look like.

[raingoon]

For several reasons SMAC's Unit Workshop is just not as strong a system for a strategy game... You may be able to "think differently" about designing units, but that's not the same as creative problem solving. You're not thinking nearly as creatively as you would be forced to think were you limited by the static nature of your units.

One is fooled into thinking "less restriction" from a unit-design standpoint means less restriction from a unit-strategy standpoint. It does not. Ironically, the one thing that fixed units engender which user-designable units do not is the very problem-solving creativity that makes a Civ game fun.

It's a paradox that restriction engenders creativity, but it's true. And universal. You may feel you are highly creative inside your unit design workshop, but you're not. You're just "thinking differently," and that to a limited degree. Problem solving in a design workshop is non-existent. In effect, you've simply just built a mod-builder into the game. You lack a real problem set and instead you convince yourself you're solving problems you really don't have ("should it be a bow or a lance?") -- there are no opponent forces acting against you in this arena. Whereas the current system restricts your ability to make those kind of horizontal decisions and forces you to make use of the sticks and stones you've been given to create solutions in the arena where opponents really are acting against you.

But wait -- your opponent would have a workshop, too, and his moves would be infinitely harder to predict, correct? Oddly, not. At best it works out the same as were his units fixed to begin with. But usually on the strategic level the result is in fact that his moves have on average become easier to predict. For one simple reason...

Creativity is a problem solving skill. He's attempted to think creatively within his design workshop, but by definition no problem really exists there, therefore he's only thought "differently" about units that don't change without his input. Be that as it may, now let's say he has his finished designing his units and he's placed them on the board. Aren't we back to Civ 2 anyway at this point? Not really. Because he has, to a limited degree, added a factor of unpredictability in the makeup of his troops, he now lacks a need to be as unpredicatble in his attack. And "need" is the operative word, here, because certainly he may choose to be as unpredictable in his attack, but by definition, to a certain factor that did not exist before, he no longer needs to be. And in a nuanced game like Civ, that "certain factor" can change everything. Therefore, what fixed units allow that "user designed" units do not is the real need to be more creative. The less you can change the nature of your units, the more creative you need to be in using them.

All this to say, one may still appreciate the greater flexibility of the design workshop, but if you want Civ 3 to require greater flexibility in strategic thinking, Firaxis was right to cut it.

[Cyclotron]

Raingoon... I wholeheartedly agree with your point. I don't know if anyone could have put it better.

[Roman]

Raingoon, good job. This is one of the most thoughtful posts I have ever seen on these forums. You are precisely on the spot by saying that limitations engender creativity.

Units should come with their specific advantages and limitations. If you are allowed to remove all limitations from your hypothetical unit type and give them all the advantages, there would then be no point in building the other units (exept for perhaps price). The game would then degenerate into one unit type game with little real strategy.

[shimmin]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 02-15-2001 02:54 PM It's a paradox that restriction engenders creativity, but it's true. And universal.

It is not universal, nor even true except in unbalanced games.

Consider the game rocks, scissors, paper. Now add the restriction that neither player may choose paper. Whereas before the game had psychological strategy (provided neither player was a random number generator), without the ability to choose paper, the strategy is obvious -- choose rock. Since each player observes that the choice of rock cannot be defeated and at worst tied, whereas that of scissors cannot win at can at best tie, the game becomes trivial.

But, if restricting choices universally increases creative strategic depth, then we can further increase strategy by removing the obviously best one (rock), leaving the game a ritual of each player repatedly pointing two fingers at the other. Finally, we can increase creative depth even further by the additional restriction that neither player can throw scissors, except that leaves us without a game. Something must be wrong with the original thesis.

Strategic depth is increased by an increase in non-obvious choices. Adding more choices increases strategy so long as no choice becomes clearly superior in all circumstances. Restricting choices increases depth only when it eliminates clearly superior choices to leave behind a greater number of viable second-rank choices.

I do not think it is obvious that even a less-than-inspiring workshop like SMAC's produced fewer viable and qualtitatively different choices than Civ II.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by shimmin on 02-15-2001 07:53 PMConsider the game rocks, scissors, paper. Now add the restriction that neither player may choose paper. Whereas before the game had psychological strategy (provided neither player was a random number generator), without the ability to choose paper, the strategy is obvious -- choose rock. Since each player observes that the choice of rock cannot be defeated and at worst tied, whereas that of scissors cannot win at can at best tie, the game becomes trivial.

Umm, what? Yes, in your scenario "rock" is the obvious choice. However, given that there are NO units in Civ2 that are completely, 100% (or even close to that) unbeatable, your logic is flawed.

quote: But, if restricting choices universally increases creative strategic depth, then we can further increase strategy by removing the obviously best one (rock), leaving the game a ritual of each player repatedly pointing two fingers at the other. Finally, we can increase creative depth even further by the additional restriction that neither player can throw scissors, except that leaves us without a game. Something must be wrong with the original thesis.

I would argue that at this point, something must be wrong with your argument. It would seem you would just like to poke fun at raingoon's obviously well-thought out opinion by making base, hollow, and meaningless remarks.

Your evaluation of Raingoon's thesis is further wrong due to the fact that he clearly states that strategy is produced by the lack of an ability to change your units, not by a sheer lack of units. Of course, the more units the better the strategy. The problem with unit workshops is that being able to CHANGE your units is what restricts strategy. You have misquoted raingoon and so this logic is also flawed.

quote: Strategic depth is increased by an increase in non-obvious choices. Adding more choices increases strategy so long as no choice becomes clearly superior in all circumstances. Restricting choices increases depth only when it eliminates clearly superior choices to leave behind a greater number of viable second-rank choices.

This is true; and this is what not having a unit workshop preserves. I don't see an argument for a workshop here. Choices increase strategy; the unit workshop does not.

quote: I do not think it is obvious that even a less-than-inspiring workshop like SMAC's produced fewer viable and qualtitatively different choices than Civ II.

Actually, you are right that SMAC produced greater choices. Unfortunatly, adding a unit workshop to SMAC produced a worse game. And that is what we are trying to prevent: A SMAC style unit workshop that superficially increases choices while also destroying strategy, eventually removing all semblance of strategy and depending entirely on the cheapest and least fair possible units available. If left with a unit workshop that is what will happen, after all. People will discover the unit sets that give them the most advantage, and keep those. After that who needs a workshop? You're right back to square 1. Except that now, your units are so off anything ever thought of they cannot possibly have a realistic name and there are no pictures of them, so viola! You know have a fixed units game where nobody can possibly relate to or picture any of the units. Civ3 would be better made without a unit workshop to ensure strategy and eliminate completely unfeasible units.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[shimmin]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-15-2001 08:24 PM People will discover the unit sets that give them the most advantage, and keep those.

If there is such a set, you are correct. After hundreds of hours of SMAC, I have yet to find such a set. Certain groupings of units complement each other very nicely, but certain other groupings do to, and have completely different strengths / weaknesses, especially when combined with differing economic / terraforming policies. In many ways, SMAC warfare after the early midgame has the elegance of rock-paper-scissors. You make decisions on the composition of your armed forces well aware that they have weaknesses to certain decisions your opponent may make, but you must decide, for trying to remove all weaknesses is prohibitively expensive and making no decision is the worst strategy of all.

quote: Umm, what? Yes, in your scenario "rock" is the obvious choice. However, given that there are NO units in Civ2 that are completely, 100% (or even close to that) unbeatable, your logic is flawed.

I was not talking about Civ II in this example. Rangoon made a remark regarding restriction of choice that he claimed was universal. I was merely producing a counterexample to show that it was not universal.

quote: Your evaluation of Raingoon's thesis is further wrong due to the fact that he clearly states that strategy is produced by the lack of an ability to change your units, not by a sheer lack of units. Of course, the more units the better the strategy. The problem with unit workshops is that being able to CHANGE your units is what restricts strategy.

If the more units, the better the strategy (which I do not entirely agree with) then the unit workshop is clearly better, since it really is just an efficient means of representing a large number of fixed units. From a gaming poiint of view, SMAC is really a "fixed units" game with a very large number of fixed units.

What irritated me was not that the lack of a unit workshop. It's Firaxis' game, they can do with it what they want. It's the smug assertion in Firaxis' note to the boards that the reasons people who asked for a unit workshop were totally invalid that gets my goat. Certainly there are good reasons to go with a fixed set of units, and not having to do all the playtesting to make sure there are no spoiler combinations (ahem... stacked bombers... ahem) in the workshop is a fine one. But claiming that the main reason people had asked for a workshop does not in fact exist was too far. Again, they can make whatever game they want; it's their budget, their profit, their loss, their programmers; they certainly don't need to justify their design decisions to anyone else. They can say, we've decided to do this and not that, but saying, besides, anyone who would have preferred that was mistaken, is just too much.

From what I've seen, I don't think buy Civ III when it comes out. I might see if I can rustle it up as abandonware some rainy Saturday when I'm bored in 2010. In the meantime, I'm going back to playing the best multiplayer empire-building game ever made, Unix-terminal Empire. No GUI, no unit workshop, no historical feel, no Wonders, no cities, not even much in the way of units, and no need for any of those fripperies to appease the younger folk. It's been around since long before the original Civ and still neither that game nor any of its pretenders have even come close to its depth of strategy.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by shimmin on 02-15-2001 10:02 PMWhat irritated me was not that the lack of a unit workshop. It's Firaxis' game, they can do with it what they want. It's the smug assertion in Firaxis' note to the boards that the reasons people who asked for a unit workshop were totally invalid that gets my goat. Certainly there are good reasons to go with a fixed set of units, and not having to do all the playtesting to make sure there are no spoiler combinations (ahem... stacked bombers... ahem) in the workshop is a fine one. But claiming that the main reason people had asked for a workshop does not in fact exist was too far. Again, they can make whatever game they want; it's their budget, their profit, their loss, their programmers; they certainly don't need to justify their design decisions to anyone else. They can say, we've decided to do this and not that, but saying, besides, anyone who would have preferred that was mistaken, is just too much.

I must agree with this. I too am ashamed Firaxis would be so antagonistic toward free thought. I may not agree with the idea for a unit workshop, but shimmin is right that they should at least have acknowledged their position more civil-like. Shame on Firaxis if this is true!

quote: From what I've seen, I don't think buy Civ III when it comes out... In the meantime, I'm going back to playing the best multiplayer empire-building game ever made, Unix-terminal Empire... no unit workshop...

That's too bad. I, for one, even if Firaxis does not always see things my way, am putting enough hope and faith in them to carry through on this monumental undertaking.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[raingoon]

Shimmin, taking the rock out of rock-paper-scissors is not a restriction per se, but rather a reduction.

Which is not to say that reductions aren't restrictive, it's just that I was talking about restrictions that are not in themselves reductive to the point that you can't play the game . But I agree of course there are many types of restrictions, and some of them can also be reductions. I didn't think it would get semantic, but that was how you made your point so let's see if I can explain why restrictions really do engender creativity, always.

Per your tongue-in-cheek argument, suppose Firaxis DID reduce Civ to only five units -- or why stop there? Why not NO units?? -- I would have to agree that this would be somewhat restrictive. So how then does "no units at all" engender more creativity? The answer is it demands MORE creativity than we have yet considered, since now we must tackle the problem of re-building the game so that it CAN be played, before we can develop a creative solution to our strategy goals. Sounds silly, but that was your argument after all. And in the end, the original thesis is just as true.

Even in your rock-paper-scissors argument it's true. See if I'm not right: Remove one of the essential component parts in that game and the problem now becomes there is no way to win because both players will play the trump. Problem: no way to win. Creative solution (and it's a genius one, whoever thought of it): create a third trump.

I suspect you understood that the spirit of my thesis was true and kinda dragged it into a semantic deal where it was easier to try and make a point. But I don't really like semantics. I like things unequivocal. I do appreciate that you prefer the unit workshop, but let me just say I would be equally against adding a unit workshop to rock-paper-scissors. (!) Which really says it all.

[Grumbold]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 02-15-2001 02:54 PM All this to say, one may still appreciate the greater flexibility of the design workshop, but if you want Civ 3 to require greater flexibility in strategic thinking, Firaxis was right to cut it.

I'm not convinced that flexibility of attributes available to the playing pieces directly translates to a requirement for more or less strategic thinking. Is Go a more strategic game than Chess? Civ III will make greater demands on the player if there are multiple paths to victory which are all viable. That can be achieved (or fail) whether there are fixed or dynamic unit sets.

The AI must already take a dynamic approach to interpreting the unit values because new variations may be introduced by the player in any scenario. If the AI is a strong competitor and will attack with and can counter all strategies, then you will have a good game. Moving the unit construction tool into a design utility doesn't have much to do with it.

[raingoon]

quote: I'm not convinced that flexibility of attributes available to the playing pieces directly translates to a requirement for more or less strategic thinking.

Nor am I, but in the case of Civ it does. Is Go more strategic than chess? (?) I don't understand the comparison. The question should rather be put, would Go allow more or less strategic flexibility with more or less restrictions? I suspect Go is just fine the way it is. Presumably Go requires no less restriction than it currently allows, the same with chess.

On the other hand, would more flexibility increase strategic options? Would more options improve "Go"? I never played it so I can't say but I'm guessing Go is pretty fun as-is. Would you add a unit workshop to chess and make a knight that can move like a bishop? That would certainly make for increased paths to victory, so why not?

quote: If the AI is a strong competitor... then you will have a good game. Moving the unit construction tool into a design utility doesn't have much to do with it.

I hope you're wrong. Civ is and should be a nuanced and elegant game design of delicate balance whose requirements go beyond the need for a solid AI. If it is non-consequential to the playability of Civ 3 as to whether units are fixed or not, that should be a tip-off that you have a problem with the over-arching design.

[Youngsun]

First of all, the poll doesn't show what sort of unitworkshop we are talking about and it's all down to people's assumption and imagination.

The poll should have asked these question.

1.Do you want the same identical SMAC style unitworkshop for civIII? I would say "No"
2.If bad aspects of SMAC unitworkshop are removed and the unitworkshop itself is adjusted for civ atmosphre(historical accuracy),do you want see it in the game? I would say "Maybe"
3.If there is a way to represent military organisation
better than conventional unit system or SMAC style unitworkshop, do you want it? I would say "Yes"
and I want serious/constructive discussion for option number 3.

People who oppose unitworkshop have various reasons to do so and they can be categorised like this;

1.bizzare combination of unit components -> can be fixed
2.historical accuracy -> can be fixed
3.Bad aspects of SMAC style one -> can be fixed

If the poll intended to ask people "Do you want unitworkshop without solving above problems" I would definitely say "No Hell No!" But since we don't know what the poll intend to ask, the poll result doesn't clearly show what people really want.

I sincerely ask MarkG to conduct the new poll which contains more clear questions without any loaded questions or leading qustions so people can be sure what they are voting for.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 17, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-17-2001 02:38 AM First of all, the poll doesn't show what sort of unitworkshop we are talking about and it's all down to people's assumption and imagination.

the poll does not ask if people want a unit workshop feature. it asks people to comment on the already taken decision to NOT have such a feature in civ3...

[Youngsun]

Mark
I know what you mean but none of these choices could help me to express my opinon clearly.

It asks
No unitworkshop in civ3
Good, I don't want it()
Bad, I want it()
No difference()

I oppose SMAC style unitworkshop but I want to see enhanced better unitworkshop in civ3 so my choice could be "Good, I don't want it" if the poll meant SMAC style one otherwise "Bad, i want it" if the poll meant upgraded unitworkshop. "No difference" is out of question for me since it makes definite difference to me but none of above choices represent my opinion clearly. Therefore I had to assume that the poll intended to ask "upgraded or changed unitworkshop" and voted for option number2 but if it had meant SMAC style one I would have voted for option number1.

Some people use these poll results for absolute reference for apolyton's opinion and if the poll didn't accomodate people's opinion clearly the information can be mis-used.(my deepest concern...)
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 18, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-17-2001 02:38 AM The poll should have asked these question. 1.Do you want the same identical SMAC style unitworkshop for civIII? I would say "No" 2.If bad aspects of SMAC unitworkshop are removed and the unitworkshop itself is adjusted for civ atmosphre(historical accuracy),do you want see it in the game? I would say "Maybe" 3.If there is a way to represent military organisation better than conventional unit system or SMAC style unitworkshop, do you want it? I would say "Yes" and I want serious/constructive discussion for option number 3.

Where is the option for "I don't want a unit workshop"? It seems to me like you are complaining the poll was tipped one way, and then suggesting to tip it the other!

quote: People who oppose unitworkshop have various reasons to do so and they can be categorised like this; 1.bizzare combination of unit components -> can be fixed 2.historical accuracy -> can be fixed 3.Bad aspects of SMAC style one -> can be fixed

Nope. Although these are all true, these are not the only reasons. You are making untrue assumtions now. Among my many reasons, for example (the rest of which I outlined in my earlier posts here) is that It wouldn't be used... people would find the optimum configuration, bookmark it, and you are right back to fixed units. also agree with the theory that to a certain degree, part of Civ's strategy is in the limit of units. You are misrepresenting the other side of the argument and making unfounded assumptions.

quote: If the poll intended to ask people "Do you want unitworkshop without solving above problems" I would definitely say "No Hell No!" But since we don't know what the poll intend to ask, the poll result doesn't clearly show what people really want.

Must I remind you that the poll was to ask whether people approved of Firaxis' decision, not what kind of workshop people wanted. Such a poll would have been irrelevant in light of Firaxis' decision to omit the workshop. The poll that Mark put out was valid, expressed people's opinions, and unlike your proposal is fairly balanced to both sides.



------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[Youngsun]

quote: Where is the option for "I don't want a unit workshop"?

If you say "No" to all three questions that represent "I don't want unitworkshop" so still you can express your opinion.

quote: It seems to me like you are complaining the poll was tipped one way, and then suggesting to tip it the other!

No! No one has to guess if my kind of questions were asked. I had to spend few minutes to decide which one I vote for the poll and I'm still not sure whether my vote represent my own opinion.

quote: Although these are all true, these are not the only reasons.

OK tell me what are those reasons.

quote: people would find the optimum configuration, bookmark it, and you are right back to fixed units

What you are refering to is exactly SMAC style unitworkshop! Don't you deny it? You can't imagine something other than just SMAC unitworkshop can you? You think unitworkshop = SMAC unitworkshop don't you?
This explains why the poll can take good care for people who have stereotype about unitworkshop but can not express whose thought are not prejudiced.

That's why added something like this.

quote: 3.If there is a way to represent military organisation better than conventional unit system or SMAC style unitworkshop, do you want it?

This can be mixed form of unitworkshop and the conventional system, upgraded conventional system, upgraded unitworkshop, or somehitng new " the truth we never know until we discuss it. This was intended to spawn new discussion for better unit creation/management.

quote: Such a poll would have been irrelevant in light of Firaxis' decision to omit the workshop.

Yes, the decision has been made but the poll should represent people's opinion clearly too.

Don't even think my attempt is kind of cheap move to reverse the poll result as you might have think. I'm trying to make serious discussion which will accomodate and satisfy both sides' wants for unit creation and management rather than dividing people as the poll has done so.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 19, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-19-2001 03:25 AM No! No one has to guess if my kind of questions were asked. I had to spend few minutes to decide which one I vote for the poll and I'm still not sure whether my vote represent my own opinion.

Really? The poll just asked if you agreed or disagreed... if you had a specific comment or idea, that's what posting is for.

quote: OK tell me what are those reasons.

Like I said, refer to my above post. You understand, I get tired of writing them all the time

quote: What you are refering to is exactly SMAC style unitworkshop! Don't you deny it? You can't imagine something other than just SMAC unitworkshop can you? You think unitworkshop = SMAC unitworkshop don't you? This explains why the poll can take good care for people who have stereotype about unitworkshop but can not express whose thought are not prejudiced.

NO! I could not POSSIBLY just imagine a SMAC workshop, because I have never played SMAC in my life! I really am one of those not prejudiced people you talk about. My view on unit workshops has no prejudice, and is entirely objective on my part. I thought about such a system for a long time, and decided Civ3 would be better without it. I do NOT have a stereotype about the unit workshop!!!

quote: This can be mixed form of unitworkshop and the conventional system, upgraded conventional system, upgraded unitworkshop, or somehitng new " the truth we never know until we discuss it. This was intended to spawn new discussion for better unit creation/management.

But we are discussing it! Realize that whatever the poll is, it has started the discussion we are having now. I am as open as the next man to suggestions... at any rate, our discussion here is far more important and deep than any poll could ever be.

quote: Yes, the decision has been made but the poll should represent people's opinion clearly too.

I felt the poll did represent the people's opinion. You can't get much more objective than a Yes/No poll.



------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[Youngsun]

quote: Really? The poll just asked if you agreed or disagreed... if you had a specific comment or idea, that's what posting is for.

Yes there were comments made by people but everyone including me were commenting based on assumption and their own version of unitworkshop.

I will tell ya one story.
Once upon a time, there was a cave man who has never seen a woman before. Oneday, God said to the cave man that a woman will be sent as a present. The cave man asked "Oh lord. What is a woman?". "you will see" God replied. When the cave man met the woman, he was terrified. She was fat,ugly,mean and ill-mannered. He kicked her out after few days. In fact, he was having an affair with his dog and he was quite happy about it. A year later, God said to the cave man "another woman will be sent." The cave man replied with anger "No woman! my lord No woman!" The God said "this time I'll send a nice and beatiful woman" "Hell no! No woman! said the cave man. "What do you know about a woman?" the God asked. "A woman is fat,ugly..blah! blah!" said the cave man. "OK then, suit yourself" god said and the cave man lived with his dog happily ever after.......

quote: NO! I could not POSSIBLY just imagine a SMAC workshop, because I have never played SMAC in my life! I really am one of those not prejudiced people you talk about. My view on unit workshops has no prejudice, and is entirely objective on my part. I thought about such a system for a long time, and decided Civ3 would be better without it. I do NOT have a stereotype about the unit workshop!!!

OK you are not prejudiced but your version of unitworkshop and its drawbakcs are very much similar with that of SMAC.

quote: But we are discussing it! Realize that whatever the poll is, it has started the discussion we are having now. I am as open as the next man to suggestions... at any rate, our discussion here is far more important and deep than any poll could ever be.

Oh man! I'm glad to hear that! Hey, I'm not suggesting ideas for only civ3. who know? they might have chance to be included in civ4,civ5 or other games?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 20, 2001).]

[Roman]

Youngsun, I had multiple looks at your Unit Workshop Thread and the system you propose is excelent. However, lets face it. Such a system was utopia. It was never going to be implemented. Look at the outcry even a thread about resources has caused and than imagine this.
The unit workshop that would have been implemented would have been analogous to the one used in SMAC. Therefore it is better that Firaxis decided not to implement it at all and concentrate on other things. You must remember they have only limited development time and limited budget. Personally I far prefer they spend these resources on developing the resource system or some other new concepts.