NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

167# CTP2 - FOUR OPINIONS Solver guides you to the world of the CTP series 166# MEMO TO ISABELLA, QUEEN OF SPAIN Raingoon of the Chinese sends a memo to Isabella, his ally. Or is it Firaxis? 165# CIV3: WORST FEARS COME TRUE! Fiera is rather unhappy with recent civ3 news 164# APOLYTON: THE GAMER'S HUB If you saw the opening of the Earth 2025 and Trade Wars 2002 forums, there is more, as Father Beast talks about the benefits of the Other Games forum 163# VARIANCES IN GAME PLAY SETUPS Some ways to spice up your civ games COLUMN ARCHIVE

Perhaps the biggest controversy that has arisen out of the recent previews of Civilization III is the issue of whether to have the proposed civilisation-specific units in the game or not. By "civilisation-specific", I mean units that are at one stage of the game or another only available to one of the players, or "civilisations", rather than to all players like regular units are. The issue may seem minor, but can in some specific cases result in major losses in game balance and enjoyment, if its detractors are to be believed. I know, because I used to number among them. However, after reading the recent round of previews, all I can say is: I've changed my mind. I now think civilisation-specific units are a great idea, if implemented correctly, and I have yet to see any indication that they are not. In this article I shall try to list the advantages of civ-specific units, and why most of the objections to civ-specific units are unfounded.

Let us begin with the main advantage that really should be obvious. Civ-specific units give personality to individual civilisations in a way no other gameplay effect can. Sure, you could imagine Morgan's or Deirdre's mind in Alpha Centauri, but mostly when it came down to actual tactics the difference was not that great, a bit here and a bit there. However, with civ-specific units the tactics of the different civilisations are bound to be different, if only because they have these units at their disposal. If handled right, the Zulu AI will build lots of impis when they become available and raid your cities, the Viking AI will flood your coast with longships, and the German player will act like a panzer-tank maniac. Your opponents will feel distinct and individually challenging, not just the same old player over and over again. They also add colour to a game like nothing else, with Samurai and Horse Archers (or whatever) battling it out in epic fights. Add the concept of "leaders", and you've already made the game much more personal and interesting.

There are, of course, problems with this essentially beautiful concept, and those who oppose its inclusion are quick to point them out. I shall, however, argue that none of the standard objections raised have any bearing on the concept if executed right. It's probably easiest to do this in list form.

1) "This will cause every player to always want to chose the Germans/Americans because they have the best special unit." I have to admit, in Age of Empires, this was a problem because everyone always played the Sumerians or whatever. But the point is, I don't think it will happen in Civilization III. In Age of Empires, you essentially had one tactic you needed to successfully follow to complete the game. In Civ3, it is not so- you can conquer the world early or late; you can play a perfectionist game or a defensive, trade-oriented one; you may favour fast units over strong ones or vice versa. Civ is great precisely because it is open-ended, and unless all of the special units are clumped in one era with very similar capabilities, there will always be people to favour each one of the separate civilisations. Also, if different civilisations favour different tactics it might encourage the player to try all the different civilisations just to be able to take up the challenge of the varying tactics!

2) "What happens if the Vikings end up in a desert or the Germans on an island? Won't their specific units force them into a specific mould?" What happened if a civ in the last game ended up on an island? They were at a disadvantage. Or if a player by pure serendipity found herself next to the Monsoon Jungle in SMAC. Wasn't that unbalancing as well? It's not as if every civ does not have land/sea/air units in this game! You surely can't take luck into account when it comes to civ, there never has been and never will be a level playing field. So what if the Vikings can't use longboats in the middle of the Sahara? The French who end up there can't use their caravels! No special unit will be so vital to a civilisation's success that it needs to be used in order to win. Or perhaps each civ could have two special units? A Viking berserker would work equally well in a desert...

3) "i juzzt don't lik special unit they's SuXXoRs!" So, there will almost certainly be a check box to not include them if you so wish.

4) "Special Units make gameplay predictable, if you encounter the Zulus you know they will have impis." I personally like this, but sure, if that's a problem for you, I'm certain that there will be a check box to randomise which civ gets which unit, just like the venerable "randomise leaders' personalities" checkbox. But guess what? That one was hardly ever used, even though you had predictable meetings with Miriam.

5) "Civilization will lose what is perhaps the most compelling aspect of the game, the fact that you rewrite history. With rigid special units a civilisation is forced into the mould of what actually happened, and there is less freedom to play as you like." This is perhaps the most persuasive argument of all, and one that is quite difficult to tackle. However, you must remember that it is a game, not a historical simulation. What is important is the fun factor, not the historical accuracy, which has never been Civ's strongest point. And if rigidity is added, it will be a small measure of rigidity, one unit among dozens. That is a small price to pay for making the game colourful, interesting and enjoyable.

I definitely think this is an idea of merit, if done right. Sure, it can turn out disastrous if messed up, but so can any other gameplay elements. As long as there are "turn off special units" and "randomise special units" buttons, and the units are spread out over the ages and types of units, I can't see any major problems associated with this issue.


---------
About the author: Snapcase is a guy without an Apolyton T-Shirt

Comment on this article!

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.