It would be nice if the Unique Units functioned like this:

[LDiCesare]

Sure, England doesn't always start on an island every time you play, but if that bothers you, it should also bother you that it even has the name England

My point is: What does it mean for England to have traits that it couldn't have developped in this setting? England unique unit is a ship. If it doesn't start on an island, this UU is useless. That's pitiful, particularly if you consider there is one historical uniquely English unit, namely the longbowmen. Find one other country that used longbows? Still, longbowmen are a standard unit. Why couldn't the English choose between a land UU or a naval UU based on game conditions when both could be historically accurate?
As for renaming civs, I often rename my civs in civ2, including all city names. Doing it for all the civs is a bit boring because I have to edit all the names of all cities in the txt files and that's boring since I have to change that each time I want to change the civs I play with. So I end up leaving the default names, but don't care if they are this or that tribe. In Civ3, I don't feel the UUs add anything historical because most of them are very badly chosen. I mentioned the English units, the Gallic swordsman is also something totally weird historically (in fact, swordsmen as a unit are a bit weird in general, but celtic ones..). Why do Germans have a tank instead of, say, Teutonic knights? Why can't Hannibal build elephants?
It would be very possible to allow every civ unique units at every age, with different names and graphics when applicable, if some conditions are unlocked, but prevent any civ from getting 2 different UUs in any single game. You'd have to pick your unit, and this could lock the same unit from other players.

[Trifna]

BigJMoney, the fact that you didn't knew the first two games brought you to say "No Unique Units is un-civ" or something like that. Since it was a new Civ3 implementation, it was said too fast.

Not knowing certain things can still bring to say things without considering certain aspects. I think you'd like to give Civ 1-2 a test. And since you're at it, don't miss SMAC (Alpha Centauri) or the post-Civ3 Galactic Civilizations! Those last two are played more than Civ3 by some people here, from what I understood ( ). Anyway, everyone cheeeers and smiiile

PS: Atari is not involved anymore (I may be wrong? Who knows). The franchise was sold this year

[BigJMoney]

Um, Trifna, that's already been pointed out to me, and my reply was, "I stand corrected." I have also already said that I have played SMAC, but thanks for mentioning it. It was a really great game, and the reason I bought Civ3. I personally like both methods those games employed to make the different teams unique. I'm hoping Civ4 will have some kind of hybrid.

@LDiCesare
I see what you are saying, and I suppose its simply a matter of preference. I'm not bothered by the fact that the historical authenticity of the game isn't exact. It's representative in a sense, but the innacuracies are worth it to me for the sense of immersion it gives me. I do see your point. The only thing I don't agree with is that England not starting on an island is "useless". Starting on a continent coast seems just as good to me. And if its Pangea, I usually won't pick England, because their strength certainly is designed to come into play on ocean maps. That's actually another part of the game I like, along with the whole dynamic of the random resources spread.

=$=

[Trifna]

I think that this leads to two possibilities:
- Get your attributes partly or entirely formed by the environment
- "Pick your general position" option

This could do... Perhaps the first possibility could be something more "temporary", just as having horses around brings to research "cavalry" more easily.


/me notices that BigJMoney is one of the best-quality settlers he has ever seen

[LDiCesare]

I'm not bothered by the fact that the historical authenticity of the game isn't exact. It's representative in a sense, but the innacuracies are worth it to me for the sense of immersion it gives me. I do see your point. The only thing I don't agree with is that England not starting on an island is "useless".

I was taking the example of England on an island a bit far. I actually don't care if they don't start on an island.
I think unique units could be dependant of in-game achievements while still retaining civ-specific traits.
You could also select 'themes' when you design your nation. For instance, you could pick Pericles or Alexander as the leader of the Greeks and get different traits (one being more scientific and naval warfare oriented, the other being more expansionist and military for instance).

[Max Sinister]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Personally I'm in favour of a system where the civs get traits dependant on their accomplishments and behaviour. But perhaps not so that if the Egyptians conquered half their continent during the first 2000 years, get to keep a militaristic trait, if they haven't touched a knife since...

That's something I'd like too.
@Trifna: I didn't want to call you a racist, but I still think it's true: Saying "the Germans are better in science" is logically equal to "everyone else is worse in science". If this was based on their behavior and accomplishments in the past, I maybe could understand it (nurture, education and environment of course influence people, and maybe even genetics are important if people in a certain culture choose their mates for certain abilities) - but in Civ3 the Germans start as a tribe without a past, but still, poof! they're scientific. That's what I dislike.

[Trifna]

Then maybe it could come gradually and see its strength in its historic golden age?... I see your point, it is as if it was intrinsect...

I do believe that environmental factors should have their influence (which would influence on this here). As Nikolai says, how do they "get to keep a militaristic trait, if they haven't touched a knife since..."

[BigJMoney]

It seemed weird to me at first, but now I particularly like the idea of a civ that gains a "trait" based upon how they play the game. It means that if you want to play militarily, you have to go at it for a while first before you start to get your bonuses. And, if at some point in the later game you decided that your military endeavors were fruitless, maybe you could replace that trait with another one by your actions.

Empire Earth II, an RTS game, has a system that is similar to this concept. I think it's called the "crowns" system or something. For example, if you research military techs or maybe defeat a certain number of enemy units first, you gain the military crown and its benefits. I haven't played the game, so I might be misrepresenting it, but that's the basic idea. In Civ4, you probably wouldn't want to make the traits exclusive to only the first civs that achieve them, since more than one civ could easily share the "militaristic" trait. What exactly would be the criteria for gaining a trait? Would it be the two aspects of the game that your civ has focused on most in the last 25 turns, or something? How would the switching of traits work? Would it be optional or mandatory, depending on what you switch focus to?

Anyway, this is probably all rubbish, since the game must be too far into development. I seriously doubt these ideas get anywhere.

=$=

[Xorbon]

I could be wrong, but weren't civ traits and UUs added so that there'd be a real reason for choosing your tribe at the start? In the other Civ games, all civs were the same. There was no reason for picking one tribe over another, other than for the name and picture.

The civ abilities weren't added for the purpose of realism. They were put in to add flavour and variety to the different civs.

[Trifna]

Well I guess one could imagine a system where you gain and lose abilities, which can be more or less strong (there's a difference between militaristic and MILiTaa[a-bloody-Spartan]rRissst[was-that-a-Jaguar-warrior?]iiIc!!). Of course, wash off a caracteristic which is very strong and rooted since 1000 years could be a serious thing. It's not like changing leader.

Galaxctic Civilizations has a system where the traits change, even if it is pretty different since about good-neutral-evil.

[GePap]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

I can turn your argument against you. How realistic is it that England starts not on an island? It is not, therefore England should always start on an island.

NO, not really. What about England marks if off as an "island" civ? What caracteristics of the English civ scream "Island"? I mean, how big is fish in the english diet? Mutton and beef play a bigger role- obviously then being on an island never affected daily english life that much.

Japan would have been a better example for you, but even then, the aspects of Japanese civlization chosen to be highlighted had little to do with island nature of the state.

The map you play on is not (necessarily) the world map, and civilizations are shaped by the place where they live and grow. Civ3 doesn't reflect that, and in this sense is a very bad simulation.

UU's were assigned for a variety of historical purposes- there is no reason why the German UU shjould be the Panzer or the Chinese UU the rider except for historical vagraties. But then again, UU's are easy to change. More important to civ differences is the traits.

You can, in Civ2, replace your tribes name by whatever you want, in addition to renaming every city. You can effectively make your own world.
Why couldn't traits be determined by the place you start in instead of by the name of your tribe? The same for unique units.

The place you start will determine much of how you have to play first of all.

But, on the second point, the fact is that most civs do not grow in that much of a different place. Most civs grew in relatively similar climotoligical areas- not too cold, not too hot, any forest in the region gona as fast as the wood could be used, so forth and so on. So how would this affect the game, really? In 90% of you games, you will start on grasslands or plains- how will this honestly affect that you are? And how would traits like religious, scientific, militaristic, or commercial have much to do with your starting location in the first place?

If you want to play England, you chose a water Map, then its UU will matter. If you chose a Pangea Map, you don;t pick England.

In the end, you still make your own world, you just have more choices now of how to add space to the game.

[LDiCesare]

I could be wrong, but weren't civ traits and UUs added so that there'd be a real reason for choosing your tribe at the start? In the other Civ games, all civs were the same. There was no reason for picking one tribe over another, other than for the name and picture.

Not entirely true. In Civ2, the French are more likely to produce wine and the Chinese are more likely to produce silk as trade commodities. And the Egyptians are most likely to start with Masonry. Plus the color matters a bit. In Civ1 in particular, you could pick the green in order not to have to face the zulus who behaved very agressively. Or the whites to avoid the Russians for the same reasons. But yes, they wer mostly the same.

What about England marks if off as an "island" civ?

Who else is able to utter sentences like "the continent is isolated"? Wouldn't England have been invaded more often hadn't it been for its island status (the huns didn't raid England for isntance)? Anyway, in the game their UU is a ship, so there is some recognition that they are an island, or naval, power.

But then again, UU's are easy to change.

Yes, but this thread is about changing how UUs work... and you can't choose your UU in-game right now.

But, on the second point, the fact is that most civs do not grow in that much of a different place. Most civs grew in relatively similar climotoligical areas- not too cold, not too hot, any forest in the region gona as fast as the wood could be used, so forth and so on. So how would this affect the game, really? In 90% of you games, you will start on grasslands or plains- how will this honestly affect that you are? And how would traits like religious, scientific, militaristic, or commercial have much to do with your starting location in the first place?

Egypt, Greece, China all started, in real life, in very difference places: River vally amidst a desert, vast plains and prairies near an open sea, mountainous region with lots of islands. So I disagree with your point that civs started in similar places.
Militaristic clearly depends on your environment. If you have no neighbours to fight, how can you be militaristic?
If you have little resources nearby, you'd be more commercial than industrious because you must trade for things you can't produce yourself.
Religious and scientific are more choices for the player to do, but they sound very arbitrary to me anyway. Civs don't start religious, they don't keep the same religion for ages for instacne consider the Romans who started pagan and ended Christian, and who ended up obviously religious since the emperor bowed to the Pope. Why aren't they religious? Such a choice is arbitrary, and should be given to the player in my opinion.

[Nikolai]

LDiCesare: Remember, all orignal major civs, like Egypt, Mesopotamia, China and Indus, started around a major river. It was also important that these rivers, while givining rich output, they required much work and cooperation to function properly and give such a good output. Take Egypt f.ex.: Good farmland around the river, but only in parts of the year was farming optimal, the Egyptians needed to make irrigration from the Nile the rest of the year to keep the farming running. That is part of the reason civilization came into play in that area; Good starting point, but cooperation was needed to do it effective, and therefore free up time to develop cultural stuff.

[LDiCesare]

Nikolai, Incas and Aztecs didn't start around a major river, did they? And they still developped a civilization on their own.

[Nikolai]

Yes, but 1) they also was much later and 2) they built on old civs, that didn't those I mentioned.