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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

I am no military specialist, but I think that *these* are the questions that were asked to all generals since ages: the 3 characteristics
- offense: catapults, canon, artillery
- defense: pikeman, musketeers, infantry
- mobility: horsemen, dragons, tanks
and the quality/quantity problematic.

I would like to have these problems reflected in CIV3.

SMAC general: "Let us put those catapult on our horses, we will have speed AND firepower".
CIV2 scientist: "no general, I am afraid you can't. You have to choose between the two, but now you say it, what I could do, is something called chariot, it should increase your firepower, but not as much as a catapult".
CIV3 General: "Wait, wait, you two, let me think...we have horses, wheel, Iron, ...could we think about a much less powerfull chariot, but best armored?"
CIV3 scientest: "Yes, why not, instead of a 3-1-2 chariot, a 2-2-2, why not?"

Remember also the story of the German scientist showing to Hitler their new invention:
- Here, mein Fuehrer, the jet engine. With it, we will have the fastest fighters of the world.
- Great, forget the fighters, put them on bombers and we will have the fastest bombers of the world.
- But, mein Fuehrer, fast bombers, why...?!?!
- Do as I say!
- ?!?!?

Quality vs quantiy can be done by 3 means:
- CIV2: different production cost. This is IMO not enough.
- different support cost, including money. This is a little better, as all of us know a stealth bomber cost more than a group of partisans.
- different experience level. I think this point is the one to be improved. Experience level is usually underrated in civ/smac games.
Put a few veteran of Napoleon's 'vieille garde' in fron t of 5 times so much austrian/prussian peasants of the Landwehr and there is no doubt about who will win.
I would like to see a 1 to 5 ratio between (very) green units and elite.

Ok, this is a long post, but to summarized, I would like to have, for military units, the same triangle problem as tax-trade-lux, or food-shield-arrow: offense-defense-move and/or a real quality-quantity problem.

I loved the comparison with Chess and Go. Chess has only SIX different types of fixed units, played on a fixed sterile 8 by 8 board. "Go" has ONE type of unit (the bead) played on a fixed 19 x 19 square board. Yet there are still infinite undiscovered strategies to be found in Chess. And "Go"... there still isn't a computer around, (no matter how big), that can beat the best human GO player!! The strategies in GO are probably even more elaborate than chess... WITH JUST ONE TYPE OF UNIT!

A limited form of unit workshop would allow me to accomplish the former, and maybe the latter.

Of course, I'll be happy if this game has balloons(zeplins), period, let alone, different varieties.

Or maybe something like this. Choose a chassis, decide for what purpose you want it. Diplomatic, military, trade, cargo, or spy, and that would be the end of it.

Two choices. Choice of chasis, and its purpose. That it. Offensive and Defensive values of military units would automatically be chosen depending on the type of technology you have.

Say we have a technology that allows you to produce spears, and nothing better. They would automatically be equipped with spears. Say, then you discover how to make rifles, now all future units would be equipped with rifles, with maybe an option to upgrade your spear units to rifles.