Special/Specific units = blech.

[Venger]

This concept, ladies and gentlemen, sucks.

Why? Because the key to Civ is in it's malleable nature - my Civ is what I build it to be. But when you introduce Civ specific advantages, you lose that power to shape it as you see fit, and now have to play with what they see fit...

Now mind you, if we were talking about simply graphical special units, then hey, that's great, it's a visual feature along with city style that doesn't do anything but change looks. But why on earth should only the German player be able to build the Panzer unit? If he get's to build the Panzer, does he also have to build the Auschwitz wonder? If they make a Panzer, a Sherman, a Challenger, a T-34, special just for each country, so be it, as long as it gives no one civ a tactical advantage. My concern is that sure, the German's made a great WW2 tank, but the German Civ in the game may bear no resemblence at all to the real nation, save the name...

I'm all for American F-15's, as long as it doesn't give me some unrealistic advantage based on my Government type. I may want to play the Americans, but that doesn't mean I should get an F-15 improvement or a Slave labor wonder. So special unit looks for flavor, sure, but special units that convey advantage, no...

Venger

I'll say it again.

The idea of civ specific stuff doesn't bother me in principle because when I face off against the greeks, I want to face off against the Greeks. Yeah, yeah - if the Greeks had started off in the Mojave, they would be more like the Anasazi. This is the necessity of origin problem in philosophy. In some other possible world though, if the Greeks had a different origin (started in southwestern US or even on a contintent not in the real world) are they still really the same Greeks? Would Alexander the Great's parents have met in such a world? Surely Alexander's (biological) parents are necessary to his existence. So look on the bright side, sure the Vikings would not have been masters of the sea if they did not originate from Scandinavia, but if some group originated from some other place than Scandinavia, would they really be vikings?

If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'? The civs in CTP 1&2 were pretty bloodless and very abstract. So ask yourself if you prefered the robust factions of SMAC or the abstrations of CTP2.

[Cyclotron]

Robust? I played SMAC recently, and it is anyhting but robust. Unbalanced? Yes. Uninteresting? Yes. But not robust.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd disagree. SMAC was a robust game. Much better than Civ2. The only problem was SMAC is in the future and doesn't deal with history, but the specialness of each faction makes it that much better.

Not that I'm for special units for each civ, but SMAC was a more robust, better game.

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Mister Pleasant on 05-01-2001 06:12 PM If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'? The civs in CTP 1&2 were pretty bloodless and very abstract. So ask yourself if you prefered the robust factions of SMAC or the abstrations of CTP2.

Why call them Germans if they aren't from Germany, which is as much a geographical distinction as any other? The reason is you assume simply some basic, superficial historical info from them - city style, city names...that's about it in Civ2. Period. The Americans can build the Pyramids, the Sioux can build Michaelangelo's Chapel, etc...

To me, special units should fit in the superficial realm - they ought to resemble the source, but they should not beget any special benefit to that Civ. It's the equivalent of only letting the Egyptians build the Pyramids...

Venger

[St Leo]

If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'?

So that memory-friendly city names can be used.

------------------
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/
petrazi@sprint.ca

[ancient]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-01-2001 08:53 PM I'd disagree. SMAC was a robust game. Much better than Civ2. The only problem was SMAC is in the future and doesn't deal with history, but the specialness of each faction makes it that much better. Not that I'm for special units for each civ, but SMAC was a more robust, better game.

scowls ooh i dont like you,,,, civ2 is better than smac.. smac hurts eyes,,

[ancient]

quote: Originally posted by St Leo on 05-01-2001 09:02 PM If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'? So that memory-friendly city names can be used.

ee a your completly right.. you play the civ you like because you like it in real life.. but only now you can controll things you dont like about it..

[Gammaray fan]

So giving Vikings a special ship will be ridiculous if they start off in a landlocked desert. There is an easy solution to this. Although I am totally against civ-specific units (read my post FIRAXIS PLEASE READ: a solution to the Panzer problem) if they are to be included, simply make it so that even on a random map, the computer would place starting cities for each civ, and decide what civs they will be by geographical location. Therefore, Vikings will only ever start next to the sea, Mongols will only ever start on plains etc.

Yes SMAC hurt my eyes too, but ...

I've played games where Morgan became the endgame power and games where he had one city defended solely by his allies. Same with the Gaians, the university, the Believers and yes, I even had games where the Hive were easy to take out. Bonuses make your initial choice more interesting.

The addition of borders alone puts SMAC beyond Civ2. The computer's ICS strategy with sea cities, the completely unintuitive set up (what the Hell is the Temple of Planet or the Living Refinery? Sorry, I can't relate), the way the environment works (or fails to), and the graphics drag it down back below civ2. BTW, if you disable sea cities, SMAC is almost as good as Civ2.

Well, there you go. If the Vikings start in the desert, they just won't be Vikings will they? 'Viking' would become merely an easy to remember placeholder. But gee, wasn't that a big complaint with CtP? That CtP civs were bloodless placeholders? It just goes to show you can't please everyone all of the time. The solution is simple - civs with special sea units always start on a coast. Is this really a problem.

Again, I have to say: wait and see. If the game sucks, fire up Civ2. Frankly, I'm dissapointed that Firaxis elected to stay with worker units as opposed to a public works system. But there you go - the only way to get everything you want is to program your own damn game. And no consensus could ever be created on what civ3 should look like.

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Mister Pleasant on 05-02-2001 04:01 AM Well, there you go. If the Vikings start in the desert, they just won't be Vikings will they? 'Viking' would become merely an easy to remember placeholder. But gee, wasn't that a big complaint with CtP? That CtP civs were bloodless placeholders? It just goes to show you can't please everyone all of the time. The solution is simple - civs with special sea units always start on a coast. Is this really a problem. Again, I have to say: wait and see. If the game sucks, fire up Civ2. Frankly, I'm dissapointed that Firaxis elected to stay with worker units as opposed to a public works system. But there you go - the only way to get everything you want is to program your own damn game. And no consensus could ever be created on what civ3 should look like.

My original reply got screwed up and I don't feel like typing it again...suffice it to say any Civ should be able to achieve any goal, and not be locked out of any technology. The reason to play the Aztecs is not to repeat their time on earth, but to shape them into a race withing that game universe...the Romans went under, maybe I can do better than that, and not giving me the ability to research a Panzer or F-15 because those units belong to another Civ sucks...

MEC2
[This message has been edited by Venger (edited May 02, 2001).]

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Mister Pleasant on 05-01-2001 06:12 PM I'll say it again. The idea of civ specific stuff doesn't bother me in principle because when I face off against the greeks, I want to face off against the Greeks. Yeah, yeah - if the Greeks had started off in the Mojave, they would be more like the Anasazi. This is the necessity of origin problem in philosophy. In some other possible world though, if the Greeks had a different origin (started in southwestern US or even on a contintent not in the real world) are they still really the same Greeks? Would Alexander the Great's parents have met in such a world? Surely Alexander's (biological) parents are necessary to his existence. So look on the bright side, sure the Vikings would not have been masters of the sea if they did not originate from Scandinavia, but if some group originated from some other place than Scandinavia, would they really be vikings? If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'? The civs in CTP 1&2 were pretty bloodless and very abstract. So ask yourself if you prefered the robust factions of SMAC or the abstrations of CTP2.

because the "Real germans" were different in different periods of time, and could have ended up diff in the 20th c if things had gone differently in history.

I can play as english on a real world map and build naval wonders, emphasize trade, go republic, demo, establish colonies around world.
OR i can quickly settle in Northern France, and expand across the continent from there, and play as a land power. If I do so, does it make sense to give me Enlgand's historical naval advantages? The whole point of such a strat would be to explore, in civ terms, the potential of england had she won the 100 years war, and developed as a continental empire. Similarly what if the Hanseatic League had colonized eastern North America, instead of England - would 20th c germany have ended up the same way? (Hint - if anyone other than Prussia had emerged as dominant power in Germany, Germany woudl have been different - most so-called "German" great power charecteristics were really Prussian)

LOTM

Guys look at it like this. You are one of 20 people working on what is suppose to be one of the greatest game ever made ( Civ 3 ), and each day you ask your PR man (Dan M) to brief the team on what is being posted on the Apolyton Site each day, how would you feel?
Not every thread, but most of the threads has had negative comments on almost every aspect of the game. The Firaxis group that is working on the project are trying very hard to make a great game and all they hear is negative comments. Last year was really great because we were asked to provide a list of things that we wanted in Civ 3. Most of those comments were positive. Some of you should go back and read some of the request before you tear the game down.
So in the end, 8 civ's is OK with me, so is number in city screen, so is future tech., so is Unique Units, and probability just about any thing else they put into the game. Oh just in case someone said I'm a new guy on the block, I have been around for a while.



------------------

[Cyclotron]

Joseph, some of us aren't as happy as you would seem to want. So-called "negative comments" are actually quite beneficial as long as they are not directly insulting. We call it constructive criticism. If you don't want to voice your opinion, fine... but the rest of us want to make a difference and get a game we want to play, and not just assume everything will take care of itself.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Roman]

Well said cyclotron7, after all, that is the purpose of these forums.

[Youngsun]

I second that, too. Without constructive criticism, we're going nowhere. People's diverse opinions should be accomodated and that's what this forum is all about. Discussion, debate, suggestion and criticism all helps to make the forum healthy and robust.

[Ubersandwich]

I can see both points. Yeah, It would be nice if the civs were more than just placeholders, that each one had a unique feel to them. On the other hand, it would kind of suck to have my special unit be the Panzer if I chose to play Germany and wanted to take a different road then that of a warrior.
I suppose there could be two answers to this: One, having the unique units be unique only in animation and not implimentation. (As mentioned earlier in this thread)
Two, Having a HUGE tech tree that has many paths to reach the endgame, yet impossible to cover for one civ. Alas, this seems quite complicated and too late to implement (unless somthing is already in the works, I am unsure. It is quite difficult to discern what is actually in the game, as opposed to what people wish to be in the game.)
None the less, although I am far from being a dittohead for Firaxis, I am confident that this newest incarnation of the Civ series will not disappoint. Unless we get ourselves wipped into an unrealistic frenzy (I have spent too much time on Black and White's bulleten board recently...yikes.)

[tniem]

The best way to deal with unique civs is to have each nationality have certain tendencies. These tendencies would lead to the public opinion of a country which would determine the AI's strategy and shape a human's strategey.

For example, Germans would tend to be agressive and militarily oriented. This could lead in the game to the AI player following his people's feelings and starting multiple World Wars or simply lead to an agressive diplomatic stance. While on the other hand, the English would tend to be expansionist tendencies. This would mean the country would like to form overseas colonies if possible, but the AI would adapt if it could not expand. Instead maybe they try to win the space race.

See, I think unique civs, nationalities, and public opinion could all be great additions to Civ III if put together in a nice package. It would put a nation into a normal type of strategy but give the AI tremendous flexibility - even if it is almost impossible to program.

My main concerns are that I don’t want Firaxis to stop feeding us info because of the criticism. Remember these programmer are people with feeling trying to upgrade a game that is consider to be one of the best ever made.

------------------

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-04-2001 09:10 PM The best way to deal with unique civs is to have each nationality have certain tendencies. These tendencies would lead to the public opinion of a country which would determine the AI's strategy and shape a human's strategey. For example, Germans would tend to be agressive and militarily oriented.

Well maybe Hans doesn't want to play his country as aggressive. What does Japan get? Feudal tendencies (pre Industry)? Aggressive tendencies (WW2)? Pacifist tendencies (post WW2)? Do they get an economic bonus (to 1985) or no economic bonus (pre WW2 and post 1985)?

quote: This could lead in the game to the AI player following his people's feelings and starting multiple World Wars or simply lead to an agressive diplomatic stance. While on the other hand, the English would tend to be expansionist tendencies. This would mean the country would like to form overseas colonies if possible, but the AI would adapt if it could not expand. Instead maybe they try to win the space race.

Civ 2 already gives them preconceived tendencies - but only for the AI. You are free to play the Mongols as a peaceful Civ if you like...

quote: See, I think unique civs, nationalities, and public opinion could all be great additions to Civ III if put together in a nice package. It would put a nation into a normal type of strategy but give the AI tremendous flexibility - even if it is almost impossible to program.

I agree, but they should be specific on government and Civ type, not Civ name. So a Capitalist Democracy could have certain traits, but that isn't limited or special for the Americans only.

Venger

[Warm Beer]

As far as Civ specific units go, does anyone know if Firaxis is planning on having only one specific unit per civ, or a whole line (keeping with the German example the Teutonic Knight eventually being replaced by the Panzer, of in stance.)?

If the modern American unit is the F-15, then what would the other period units be?

(1)Industrial Age: Cowboys? Special Ironclads? Protosubmarines (Hunley-type vehicles)?
(2)Medieval/Renassiance/Age of Enlightenment: Puritains (non-conventional attack: annoy!)? Minutemen? Irish and Chinese work gangs (more efficient than normal workers)?
(3)Ancient:guess we have a problem here.

Maybe Firaxis should have tried this:

When captured, cities retain flag of previous owner.

Angry English cites that were captured from Iroquois revolt into Americans or Canadians (or both if enough go at once).
Angry Spanish Cities captured from Aztecs revolt into Mexicans
Angry Spanish cities captured from Incans revolt into Peruvians

Perhaps the rule could be that when the above civs are obliterated from the map - then these new civs pop up if the Brits or Spainiards hold any of those cities.

Human Player has choice of which empire to become. (Choosing the Newbie empire gives a score bonus perhaps). Thus some empires cannot be chosen initially but can be "unlocked" later. Including Appropriate name changes for the cities involved. Its the only way to capture the flavor of the western hemisphere, and frankly I'm tiered of Civ games being so anti-western hemisphere.

Here's another idea - when American cities get unhappy and revolt, who pops up? The Confederacy! That's right, give Jeff Davis a good whuppin'. Guess their special unit would have to be special ironclad or a hunley-like protosub (that moves on rivers too).

Maybe latter day "barbarians" should be named after terrorist groups. Somehow, the Magyars or Vandals just don't sound very scary in the modern age. But Sendero, ELF, Zapatistas, Basque Separatists, the IRA, and the Michigan Freemen do sound a little scary. These could even be specific about the civ they appear near.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-04-2001 09:10 PM The best way to deal with unique civs is to have each nationality have certain tendencies. These tendencies would lead to the public opinion of a country which would determine the AI's strategy and shape a human's strategey. For example, Germans would tend to be agressive and militarily oriented

Like the Austrians ("let others wage war, you happy austria, marry")
Or the Bavarians? Or the Hanseatic League? Or like the BundesRepublik?(modern Federal Republic of Germany, for the less well-informed)

LOTM

[Kc7mxo]

this is silly. making judgmeent's about baisc cultural tendencies will only get the game classified as rascist. i want my civ to be what i make of it, not defined by its special abilties.

if they are going to have unique advantages to each civ, first they should be too powerful. second they should be RANDOM. utterly and compeltly random. Otherwise you're expecting them to make judgements on various races.

What would the aztecs get, special bonus to sacrifices? How about giving my ancestors ( the germans ) concentration camps. Or us americans a special cia unit that will betray everything our country stands for as long as he's on foreign soil. See where this is going?

On the other hand, how abotu if hey're made in a different fashion. Perhaps a civ can get barracks a little cheaper, or another civ gets an extra unit of trade for every two he already has on a square. Anyone played Master of Orion? Yes. Like that.

Of course in MOO there were some traits that were simply TOO powerful.

Personally, i think civs should bewhat you amke of them. The names ARE just place holders. Have any of you had a REAL game (not a scenario) of civ where this hasn't been true? I haven't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: We call it constructive criticism.

It's only constructive criticism if you know what the Hell you're talking about. But you don't, I don't, no one does! Let Firaxis tell us how these ideas work instead of being Chicken Little yelling 'the sky is falling' because of a throw away piece of information in some preview.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-06-2001 01:03 PM Like the Austrians ("let others wage war, you happy austria, marry") Or the Bavarians? Or the Hanseatic League? Or like the BundesRepublik?(modern Federal Republic of Germany, for the less well-informed) LOTM

I believe that I have heard 16 civs will be in the game. Tell me do you really believe that the nations, organizations you have mentioned are among the top 16 empires in world history that will be included in the game?

I certainly do not, my apologies to those offended.

And do I believe that Germany has a historical tendencies, yes I do. Over history I do believe that my ancestors were Militaristic and Agressive. Hey Germans destroyed Rome and the culture formed England and other nations. So, yes I do believe tendencies of a culture can be found by looking back at a nationality's history.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-07-2001 05:08 PM I believe that I have heard 16 civs will be in the game. Tell me do you really believe that the nations, organizations you have mentioned are among the top 16 empires in world history that will be included in the game? I certainly do not, my apologies to those offended. And do I believe that Germany has a historical tendencies, yes I do. Over history I do believe that my ancestors were Militaristic and Agressive. Hey Germans destroyed Rome and the culture formed England and other nations. So, yes I do believe tendencies of a culture can be found by looking back at a nationality's history.

The other "nations" i have mentioned were all GERMANS. Historical accident that Prussia ended up unifying Germany. And, no the BAvarians, Austrians, ec were no more aggressive than any other European people. And the BundesRepublik IS Germany today. Germany WAS aggressive 1871 to 1945. A germany that was Prussian, that had a peculiar development due to its late unification, and that was highly influenced by the just the sort of racialist ideologies I am struggling against here.

LOTM