Civ Specific Units

[Sava]

I disagree with the fact that the "Vikings" or "Russians" could start out on the equator instead of their natural habitat. Having such randomness takes away from the realisticness of the game. Each Civ's culture developed around the area where it started. Everything about their uniqueness stemmed from their environment. Look at Egypt's relationship with the Nile River. Frankly, I want a REAL game, and not some random collection of muppets. I'm against certain Civ's given their own starting point at 4000 BC. The Americans branched off of the English. I would like to see an Ancient Age group of Civilizations which evolve into Modern Age Civilizations. Some will stand the Test Of Time (no pun intended), others won't.

[Sava]

Grumbold, another purpose of the unique units would be to say, "What if the Romans had Jet planes?" We have to trust that Firaxis will take that next step and develop modern age units for all of the civilizations as well as ancient age units. How about making only unique units, with unique Jet fighters for each Civ, unique legion units for every civ, etc.

Did you know that around 50 AD, a roman philosipher/inventor discovered how to make a working Steam Engine? He died before he ever built a prototype. Just think, there almost was an industrial revolution in ancient Rome that would've change the course of history.

[Sirotnikov]

I agree with grumbold. Having premade Romans that are the same each time is boring...

[Grumbold]

I believe the current plan is for each race to get only one unique unit in the entire timeline...but getting two, three or even ten unique units won't alter the fact that they are being predetermined at 4000BC. There ought to be a way of changing the scenario from game to game so the nation starts "Roman" but gradually becomes a different "Roman" as you make choices in the game. For instance you research iron working and get an Iron based unit. Then IF YOU CHOOSE you can research one extra tech: mobility, defense or offense which will alter your iron based unit. Pick defense and bingo you have the Legion. Pick Offense and you have Norse Baresarks. Pick mobility and you have Byzantine Cataphractoi. No matter what you decide, it doesn't affect the options you will get to customise your tanks or fighters 2,000 years later.

[Roman]

People in both "camps" should now be very happy.

[jordanz19]

Ok, now everyone can stop complaininjg about unique civs, they can be disabled. This whining has gone on long enough.

quote: Originally posted by Harlan on 05-13-2001 04:49 PM But why the silence on the two biggest burning questions here, how many max civs (7 or 8 or ??) and what years the game starts and ends?

Harlan, the answers to these two questions, just like to all really big and important questions is one and the same:

42

[Cyclotron]

If you must know, I've always been shut-the-hell-up intolerant. It gives me a rash.

My problem is that... sure, we can play with no specific units. But Firaxis' decision to go with pre-set civ units and other stuff means that there is no chance I will get what I want:

Civ-specific bonuses that are created by the actions and decisons of the player.

What's the point if you can't earn the bonuses? Well, I guess some people would rather have them on a platter. It's too bad, I think it would have immesely opened up the strategic possibilities in civ, and given the player a real feeling that it was their civ, and not a default civ with some fixed ability.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "The Rajah of Resources"

[Harlan]

Markos: 42? That's great news as far as the maximum number of simultaneous civs, but really bad news as far as the number of years the game lasts.

Cyclotron, Grumbold and others, let's all chant together: "third option, third option!" One that gives you choice in determining the special units. This is not grumbling, this is trying to influence the gamemakers so they'll make a better game. Jordanz19, if you don't see how this simple change would make the game so much better, look again. There would be so many hard decisions to make regarding which special unit you choose, to go for something early or late in the game, to get one as a blocking move to prevent someone else from getting a good one, research races to reach them, and so forth. An endless array of strategic gambles and choices, all wiped out by having it predetermined. So no, I don't want the whining to end, and Roman, this camper is still not happy.

Can anyone seriously put forth any gameplay arguments why having the special units all predetermined would be a better way to go?

[Cyclotron]

Sounds good, Let's chant signature style!

------------------
"Third option, third option!"
Let's have civ bonuses that YOU control!

[Theben]

I've tried shut-the-hell-up and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

While I prefer the "experience of the civ makes the bonus" approach, I'll settle for Harlan's idea, which IMO would work quite well and not require too much redigning on Firaxis' part. Another voice for 3rd option.

[Roman]

Well done Jeffrey Morris and Firaxis! You have chosen the best of both worlds.

Could you possibly give us an "example civ" to see what kind of bonuses the civs will have other than units? Is it like in SMAC (eg. +1 to growth, or +1 to research, etc.)?

Thank You for Your time.

[Roman]

People who like and people who dislike unique civs should now both be placated, so why in the world do they keep on complaining?

There is no way the "third option" is going to be implemented. That would require massive redesign of the game. Just be happy that you can turn off unique civs.

As far as I am concerned this issue has been completely resolved (to my satisfaction [I was undecided on the matter]).

[Grumbold]

Sorry Roman but I will have to agree to disagree with you. I believe there is a fundamental difference between a choice to make at the start of the game and choices to be made within the game. You obviously don't agree, and that is your right. This is a point that was raised by several of us well before the FIRAXIS implementation was announced. It is not a case of asking for one thing then not being satisfied when we get it. I'm not going to change my mind and become a convert to this "Age of Empires" approach now when there are better alternatives. Hopefully extensive playtesting will show up its limitations and make them reconsider.

[Roman]

Sure, Grumbold, but what I am saying is that you will also have the option of turning the pre determined bonuses off - so that only your in game choices will shape your civilization. What more is neccessary?

[Grumbold]

That means you have no unique or custom at start abilities and no chance to get unique or custom abilities throughout the game. Entirely different to earning a custom ability of some kind by developing your civilisation along a certain path to get it. Instead of being told "pick from the following at 4000BC: Roman Legionary, German Panzer, American F-15" I want to be able to say "It is 800 BC, the persions are kicking my arse, I NEED Legions or Cataphracts to turn the tide, how can I get them?" and preferably without killing any chance of earning a different feature 2,000 years later. Any nation that has a long history like England/Britain has had at least one identifiably unique feature in every period of history. Whichever one they choose to represent their uniqueness for the game, it is going to leave the nation featureless and bland throughout the rest of history.

Incidentally, since we are now down to a small number of real civs I want to revive the suggestion for identifying their units with real historical flags not silly touches of their "player colour" (Blech) on their units.

[Roman]

I see what you mean, Grumbold, but I doubt it will be implemented.

Anyway, I am more than satisfied with the announcement.

[Erka]

I'm also perfectly happy with this solution. I never really
doubted they would make civ-specifics optional, though...

I'm also quite sure they will include good editing capabilities,
where it will be possible to implement your ideas (at least for
multiplayer games, where AI is not a factor )

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-14-2001 07:22 AM Incidentally, since we are now down to a small number of real civs I want to revive the suggestion for identifying their units with real historical flags not silly touches of their "player colour" (Blech) on their units.

Damn Skippy !! There's an option that with about 6 months remining in Civ3 development can still be changed in the final build. It would also be a nice touch to making Civ a more refined game. Colors just say placeholder art.

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-14-2001 07:22 AM That means you have no unique or custom at start abilities and no chance to get unique or custom abilities throughout the game. Entirely different to earning a custom ability of some kind by developing your civilisation along a certain path to get it. Instead of being told "pick from the following at 4000BC: Roman Legionary, German Panzer, American F-15" I want to be able to say "It is 800 BC, the persions are kicking my arse, I NEED Legions or Cataphracts to turn the tide, how can I get them?" and preferably without killing any chance of earning a different feature 2,000 years later. Any nation that has a long history like England/Britain has had at least one identifiably unique feature in every period of history. Whichever one they choose to represent their uniqueness for the game, it is going to leave the nation featureless and bland throughout the rest of history.

Yes, the third choice add more deep than on/off switch. I'm afraid I renounced every hope Firaxis will put this thir choice at work: the needed tweak to tech tree, game rules and AI would probably be the stone too much who break the back of designers and developers.

quote: Incidentally, since we are now down to a small number of real civs I want to revive the suggestion for identifying their units with real historical flags not silly touches of their "player colour" (Blech) on their units.

Errh, that's a bit more difficult to me: what flag would you assign to Americans? Modern "50 stars" one? (sorry to all USA citizen, I don't know any proper name of your current flag), or early "independence day"?
What about English colours? And Chinese? I understand Firaxis already chosed Mao as leader, hence you must chose related flags, but did Americans at the time of Lincoln president have the modern flag? (and can Americans players live without it? ).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited May 14, 2001).]

[SerapisIV]

When you have a flag consisting of only 50 pixels, it doesn't really matter how many stars there are, its a blur to begin with. The difficulty lies in finding flags for nations such as the Aztecs, Mongols, or Ancient Greeks. I think the Romans could have the old Centurian Eagle Standard (the one the Nazis copied) But if flags are instituted such an option should have a toggle for waving or not waving (the units are animated, why not the flags?), so that a Roman standard would just be.

Such a feature would be a very nice deal if the pics were left as small gif or bmp files, because other flags could easily be imported and add a nice and easy touch to player scenarios or multiplayer maps.

[Grumbold]

Take a look at the EU website (www.europa-universalis.com) to see just how good these flags can look even with only a few pixels. Right, I promise to try not to mention that game again but it is worth a look just for the unit art

[SerapisIV]

I haven't played EU, but the unit flags look great. Thats exactly what I'd like, though I think the flags should be lower on the unit because the map grid is much smaller in Civ and high flags could cover up terrain/other units

[SerapisIV]

I'd rather not see sea improvements like SMAC, too future tech-like. The only such improvement I could see possible would be an off-shore drilling, but how many of those can you actually build and be useful? I'd rather it remain simple and kept as a city improvements. Although maybe a fishing trawler unit off-shore fishing far from the coast, as thats been done for a few centuries now. It's an idea, but not a vital one, Civ would be just as good without it

[JMarks]

Well, this debate seems quite interesting, so let me put in my two red cents. I agree that unique units should not be forordained. Should wonders be forordained? Also, who says that one civ couldn't have more than one or two UUs? It is possible to gather more than your share of wonders, so why not UUs? The implimentation of this of course would be interesting to solve. Possibly be the first to research two certain techs? For Legions Iron Working and Army Reform? The first to build a 'unique units allowing building/unique unit wonder? For Legions Marius' Reforms?

All this aside, I have faith that no matter how they decide to do this, Sid will make a great game. Plus there is the option. Of course if everythings gone sour, I can always complain...

[Sava]

I bet Firaxis has been done with the game and they're just sitting in their offices playing it 24/7, laughing at all of us...

Grumbold, have you been eating a lot of your country's beef?

[polymths]

Well I don't know that I won't play with pre-destined Civ specific units but I doubt it. Thank goodness I can turn it OFF!

I mean, to know that you are playing against the German AI and to know that it is pre-destined to have this knowledge of Panzer tanks from 4000 BC FOR ME detracts from gameplay.

But it is important to realize that the vast majority of Civ buyers won't be that nitpicky about this or won't give a damn about the philosophical problem with pre-destined units and might enjoy this uniqueness.

Anyway, a good compromise for all involved.

(I know that know that a better solution would have been to have special units be available in the matter of wonder building so it is still available but simply not pre-destined but this is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AT THIS LATE STAGE!)

[Harlan]

As mentioned elsewhere, one can make a good comparison between special units and wonders. Imagine if wonders were in the game, but only predetermined civs could have them, for instance when the Egyptians get Stone Building, suddenly they are given the Pyramids. Then, since a lot of people don't like this, the company includes an option to turn off wonders altogether.

What a shame that would be, because the company went through all the trouble of coming up with these wonders, doing all the art, playbalancing them, and then with the stupid decision of having the wonders be predetermined, ruin it. Having wonders turned off isn't a great idea, either. This is EXACTLY what Firaxis is doing with special units. If this happened with wonders, would you say you're "more than satisfied" or "perfectly happy" with that?!? I think not!

Some people are saying well, that may be true, but there's no way Firaxis is going to change things now. Think again. If Civ3 is gonna be released in early 2002, which it probably will be, they have the better part of the year to finish the game. Last we heard, they are only 50% done, and in some reviews they've publically stated how they are still tweaking with how some major features will work (leaders or culture, for instance).

They have done most of the work already in getting the graphics and playbalancing of special units working. To include an option that allows them to not be predetermined is very small potatoes in comparison.

Whether they do so or not I think will largely depend on how well their predetermined idea goes down. Already one game reviewer has snickered at it in an article. Firaxis folks read that, and also read these forums. If people here say, oh well, "I guess pretermined special units is as good as we can hope for, story over," the story will be over. If people here keep on Firaxis' case on this, I believe they'll respond to constructive criticism and make a relatively easy change to the game, a third option with special units.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS MINORTECHS

THis idea is the only way to placate both camps while still keeping unique units in.

------------------
One death is a tragedy; One million is a statistic

[lord of the mark]

They are giving us a choice.

Good.

They recognize the balance issue, and claim the game will be balanced both ways.

Good, I'll trust em for now.

My remaining concern - will the UU's be so central to gameplay that disabling them leaves a hollow game? For example will iron still matter if i have UU's disabled? Will this be a Civ3 game that one can play equally well with or without UU's and participate in strategy discussions (like playing with different barb options in Civ2)

Or will it be a game largely about UU's(like AOE), with an option thrown in to satisfy us anti-UU freaks?

My impression is that the former will be the case, but we cant be sure until the game is released (or public beta )

LOTM