Do you ever turn off the civ-specific abilities and units?

[sboog]

I have about decided to turn off the civ specific abilities and units. There's enough in the game to learn for me now without trying to learn all these new units for each civ.

Anyone else do that? Do you find the game is just as good without being as complicated?

sboog

[Colonel Kraken]

I've never tried turning off the Civ specific abilities. To me, it makes the game more interesting to have at least some uniqueness in the game.

Cheers,

Colonel

[Cookie Monster]

I've never played a game with these options turned off. Now that you mention it though I wonder how much different a game would be?

[dojoboy]

Never! Why is this even an option?

[The Viceroy]

I also have never turned it off, but im pleased its there as an option .. I actually love configurable games .. the more the merrier, as long as the changes can easily be put back, and don't crash the flippin game

Civ3 really is in desperate need of a scenario maker .. let that and multiplayer be your next target Firaxis .. please ..

[sboog]

The manual says it is an option. You can go to the Rules when you set up the game and turn it off.

sboog

[Akka]

I never play with the UU
Civ is about rewriting history. I don't feel to only reread it

So in my mod I just get rid of the UU. Rather than 16 units seen only once in the game, I prefer to use some of them to smooth a little the upgrade tree, which advance in a too choppy way for my tastes

[dunk]

I love the civ abilities and UUs. It makes each game different.

[lockstep]

I was hoping that Firaxis would incorporate one of my favourite SMAC features (unique factions) also into Civ3, and was afraid at the same time that it wouldn't fit into the game. Happily, I was wrong.

[Sandman]

I never play with civ-specifics on.

Why?

1. Unique units are not that useful, and they clog up the production queue. I'm not a warmonger anyway.

2. I find it very, very difficult to make a decision, because there is no way I will be able to know if I am making the right choice. It's a shot in the dark. I'd rather adapt whilst playing.

3. Some traits are better than others.

4. It is my belief that the AI will perform better. No evidence though.

5. I also think that the game will run faster.

6. Civ-specifics make the starting location even more crucial. Expansionist is useless if you start on a medium sized island, conversely, if you start in the middle of a huge continent, expansionist is one of the most useful to have. Removing them levels the playing field.

[asleepathewheel]

i play with them on.

I think they're great. tailoring a game towards a civ's specific abilities. Like if I'm not religious, do I wait for republic or democracy or monarchy to change. anarchy is pretty crushing if at the wrong time. and the units. if I am iriqoius, I have to attack early to have them be of use. if germans, I can bide my time (quietly) before strking. fun

[ChaotikVisions]

I leave em on, it adds new strategys to it. And the units are quite nice also, if your not isolated on an island your bound to use them sometime. Anyway, just my opinion.

[Thrawn05]

Since seeing the overwelming number of people have the civ traits on, I wonder if that's the reason for Tank killing Spearmen.


BTW: I leave it on.

[Carver]

Turning off civ specific traits has to be an option in case anyone wants an absolutely equal playing field - and for the upcoming (we hope) multi-player.

But, I myself never turn them off. I love the notion of different civs with different charachteristics. If anything, I wish there were more personality differences between civs, ala SMAC.

[Captain]

Besides my first game, I have always turned UUs off.

Why?
Start with a level-playing field. Uniqueness comes from the different PLAY styles. My civ will have strengths and attributes due to the way I run it, not because of some inherent "genetic" code. This borders on being a morally repugnant notion as well. The Germans naturally make better tanks? The French are genetically endowed with superior musket-firing abilities? So technical know-how and an industrial base, both being based on the player's playstyle, have nothing to do with how powerful tanks are? You can build barracks and train your musketmen into a more disciplined fighting force, but for some reason, they're inferior to the French, well, simply because they're not French? WTF? Those scientific Russians have cheap libraries and free advances because??? Forget about putting more taxes into research or building more improvements!.. the Russians have an edge, not because they concentrate on science more or manage science better than me, but because.... well, Firaxis needed a way to "spice up" the game.

If I have a powerful offensive civilization, it is because I concentrate on taking the initiative. If I want to run you over with tanks, I'll get the techs, build up my industrial production capacity, build the tanks, and the infrastructure to get them over to pound on you, thank you very much. I won't just pick "Germans" b/c I know my Panzers can dust your tanks in a certain era. If I have a science heavy civ, it is because I choose to concentrate on that. If I have an expansionist civ, it's because I went settler-crazy.

Uniqueness should come from the player's choices throughout the game, not from some artificially imposed constraints. The game should have the flexibility and replay value to make each game different because players choose to use different tactics based on the changing game conditions.

Resorting to these predetermined UUs seems like a cheap way to increase replay value. Personally I think it DECREASES strategic value. It limits the play style by funneling choices down the same path. Gee, you're Chinese? Well, I wonder when you're going to expand! Oh, you're Greek? I guess I'll pick another target for ancient conquest. The only choices you make are at the start up screen. Think about it.

Try playing a game with them off and see whether or not you are more free to choose your civs direction. Those AIs aren't nearly as predictable now, are they? The Aztecs won't always do a jag rush, the Persians won't typically sit back til immortals. You, the player, won't always do the same thing, resorting to the same tactics as the last time you played with this civ. Thus you will make your civ as good as it is, because you are a good player that adapts and plays well, not simply because you got samurai first and went on a ho-hum killing spree.

Alright, end of rant. I doubt I'll change any minds, most folks seem to play with it on without any qualms. That's why I'm happy Firaxis made it an option. If they ever took that away, it would probably push me to the dark side of these forums.

[Theseus]

Captain, I understand and respect your arguments, but I suggest that you're missing part of what Firaxis was trying to do with this concept.

For whatever reason, throughout the course of history, different cultures have, of course, developed certain strenghs and weaknesses... not that we know why, but it is certainly true.

Much of human history has been defined by the interaction of those different characteristics. Now, the mechanism and impact on gameplay may be in question, but I think Firaxis was trying to create a situation where those cultural differences could come into play. This started before Civ3, and the current game represents an effort to further the concept. It's not meant to be a "genetic" thing, but rather a differentiation thing.

I think (IMHO), that you would be happier with a more sophisticated application, where unique characteristics, traits, units, etc., arose organically through the play of each civ, human and AI, in a given game. So would I, probably, but I would imagine that that would be much much more difficult to program.

I haven't tried the level playing field yet, but I will, both to test the enjoyment of gameplay, and to prep for MP (my belief as to why it's there). I recommend that you try turning civ-specific on... you don't have to play a circumscribed game according to your UU or traits, believe me, and neither do the AI civs.

[alva]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Since seeing the overwelming number of people have the civ traits on, I wonder if that's the reason for Tank killing Spearmen.

BTW: I leave it on.

not this one again please!!!!!!!!!

i leave them on aswell, much more fun!!!!

[nationalist]

I LOVE the civ-specific units! It actually makes a differance now which civ you pick. Great improvement over Civ 2 in this area.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Theseus
For whatever reason, throughout the course of history, different cultures have, of course, developed certain strenghs and weaknesses... not that we know why, but it is certainly true.

Much of human history has been defined by the interaction of those different characteristics. Now, the mechanism and impact on gameplay may be in question, but I think Firaxis was trying to create a situation where those cultural differences could come into play. This started before Civ3, and the current game represents an effort to further the concept. It's not meant to be a "genetic" thing, but rather a differentiation thing.

I think (IMHO), that you would be happier with a more sophisticated application, where unique characteristics, traits, units, etc., arose organically through the play of each civ, human and AI, in a given game. So would I, probably, but I would imagine that that would be much much more difficult to program.

Certainly. You've put it quite well, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't begrudge that UUs exist, I just don't think it was implemented well.

I am not sure that it would be all that difficult to make it more organic. For instance, they could have simply added a Building requirement for certain units (certain bldgs are already prerequisites for other bldgs, why not units?). Then, we have the flag which makes certain types of bldgs replace each other (such that you can never have more than 1, I think the default game has the different power plants replace each other ). Just make the UU dependent on the bldg. Thus you could only have one kind at any time. Make the bldg a small wonder. This would prevent different ones in different cities. Admittedly you could build them in series and then have different UUs, but the cost of the small wonder would account for the benefits gained. Remember that they've now lost the ability to produce their last type of UU so they'd better be sure about wanting to switch.

All the structures are in place, all a firaxian has to do is toggle them on - unless of course they've hardcoded it so only bldgs need prereqs and units don't. I wouldn't be surprised considering how many hardcoded limits there are in the editor.

I have to admit that the civ-specific traits would be very useful for scenarios, esp. alien ones, or specific historical eras. Then I would admit that there might be some "genetic" codes or at least for a certain era, a civ had certain dominant skills (e.g. the commercial netherlands in that era). UUs are great for scenarios - but we don't have any yet. I remain adamant that over a 6000 yr regular game, civs should be able to change and flexibility is critical. Again, I'm glad it's an option to turn off or on according to our likes and dislikes.

Right now, I'm in the process of designing a mod that will take care of some of these issues. Doubt it'll be done anytime before the summer's over, but I must admit, modding is sometimes more fun for me than playing the game.

Theseus, I know I don't have to play a certain way - I just think non-UU games are "freer'. I know that when playing as the aztecs, I almost always use an early rush. otherwise, it's "wasting" my UU. As a roman, I beeline for iron for those legions. horses for the Iroquois, and so on. the gameplay isn't bound by UUs, but it has strong "tendencies". I know I said I've only played on UU game, but its not totally true, just only 1 full UU game. The rest I quit after the novelty of UUs wore off.

[notyoueither]

I leave them on and here's why...

It never occured to me to turn them off.

It lends to greater variety. The various starting positions of the civs and various ancient UUs lead to less predictable games.

I play Romans. Legions rule. So there.
Actually, I use the Legion stratigically. If I am in no need of the brutes I save them and keep them out of combat. I use Horse instead. Why? So that I can have a Golden Age when ever I darn well feel like it. That's why.

[Spec]

No.

[Theseus]

Hmmm...

It occurs to me that Captain's arguments / thoughts, especially as to how UUs could be available to all civs, dependent on their path, could be very interesting in MP (rather than turning civ-specific traits off).

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by alva848



not this one again please!!!!!!!!!

i leave them on aswell, much more fun!!!!

I was trying to make joke. I've never seen tank killing spearmen. I personally think it a myth made by a few people who just hate Civ3.

[ChaotikVisions]

I think it'd be interesting if you completely conquer a nation like Germany, later on during when they'd get there UU(if its before), you have a chance of developing it then. Just a thought, you could also give each civ 3 UU and then make it random which 1 hes able to make over the course of the game. This would prevent set strategys based around one UU, and make it more interesting too. Could even base it off number of citys/current military/take various factors into a fact for making why they needed and developed that unit.

And btw, i've never had a spearman kill a tank in Civ3, but one of my phalanx's on a hill and in my capitol took one out in Civ2(suprised the hell outta me cause I hadn't noticed the tank comign and thought it was gonna be wiped out). But besides for that single time, I haven't seen it anymore.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
I think it'd be interesting if you completely conquer a nation like Germany, later on during when they'd get there UU(if its before), you have a chance of developing it then. Just a thought, you could also give each civ 3 UU and then make it random which 1 hes able to make over the course of the game. This would prevent set strategys based around one UU, and make it more interesting too. Could even base it off number of citys/current military/take various factors into a fact for making why they needed and developed that unit.

That's a pretty cool idea, getting another civs uu if you eradicate them. that would force me to finish people off rather than just having the ai do my dirty work for me.

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
And btw, i've never had a spearman kill a tank in Civ3, but one of my phalanx's on a hill and in my capitol took one out in Civ2(suprised the hell outta me cause I hadn't noticed the tank comign and thought it was gonna be wiped out). But besides for that single time, I haven't seen it anymore.

In Civ2? Surely something like that would never happen in Civ2, what with hp and firepower etc. Civ2 has the perfect combat system, and there is no way a 3000 year old spearman could defeat a tank. I would watch your back. Your blasphemy has been duly noted.

[Denday]

I turned it off and cant get it back on
:sad:

[Skanky Burns]

I've never turned them off.
I guess I'm used to them, and they add some flavour to the different civs.

[Jethro83]

Do you ever turn off the civ-specific abilities and units?

NEVER!!!

I can't imagine a game of Civ III without civ-specific attributes. If you want that kind of game, play Civ II instead.

[Be Quicker]

I turned them off the first three games that I played, just to get a feeling for all the other changes in the game relative to CivII.