Why Can't You Choose Your Starting Units?

[AEdwild]

It should be an option for custom games that your starting unit be one of choice - either a worker, warrior or a scout.

[Will9]

Workers from the beginning make civs that begin with worker techs (Agriculture, Mining, an The Wheel) too powerful. Scouts require a Hunting and that is why you get only some civs get them.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Will9
Workers from the beginning make civs that begin with worker techs (Agriculture, Mining, an The Wheel) too powerful. Scouts require a Hunting and that is why you get only some civs get them.

I find arguments about some combinations being "too powerful" or altering the "balance" between civs unconvincing. This may be important in MP, but does not seem to me to be a consideration in SP. There were a number of scenarios in Civ2 in which the available choices were not equal. This meant there was another dimension to the difficulty choice.

I accept that you shouldn't have a unit (scout) unless you know the required tech (hunting), but there is no required tech to build a worker.

RJM

[Pinchak]

does not seem to me to be a consideration in SP

There is a single player version of the game?

[Dis]

well... the new expansion when offering advanced starts will allow you to buy things, maybe this is what you are looking for. Of course, this won't be available for 4000 bc starts.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers


I find arguments about some combinations being "too powerful" or altering the "balance" between civs unconvincing. This may be important in MP, but does not seem to me to be a consideration in SP. There were a number of scenarios in Civ2 in which the available choices were not equal. This meant there was another dimension to the difficulty choice.

I accept that you shouldn't have a unit (scout) unless you know the required tech (hunting), but there is no required tech to build a worker.

RJM

Ok. How about the argument that a scout or warrior is worth 1/3 the value of a worker according to in-game production values. Starting with a worker = starting with 3x more value at hand.

[couerdelion]

Why not enter WorldBuilder and GIVE yourself a worker?

[Will9]

Originally posted by couerdelion
Why not enter WorldBuilder and GIVE yourself a worker?

You could also change the files to give you a worker instead of a warrior/ scout.

[Dis]

if I entered the world builder, I'd give myself 10 tanks to start with

[snoopy369]

[q="Alexman"]Advanced Starts are a pre-game setup phase players use to purchase cities, improvements, buildings, technologies, and units. It works in both single-player and multi-player. The player decides what to purchase and where to place it. When everyone is done, the game starts with players controlling relatively balanced, advanced empires with a working infrastructure. This mechanism is ideal for those who want to jump right in and experience a balanced game in the modern era, without having to start with nothing but a few settlers and units.[/q]

Something like this (from an interview BTS designer and Apolytoner Alexman gave about a feature of BTS)?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers


I find arguments about some combinations being "too powerful" or altering the "balance" between civs unconvincing. This may be important in MP, but does not seem to me to be a consideration in SP. There were a number of scenarios in Civ2 in which the available choices were not equal. This meant there was another dimension to the difficulty choice.

I accept that you shouldn't have a unit (scout) unless you know the required tech (hunting), but there is no required tech to build a worker.

RJM

Absolutely not true. Balance is always a concern. Imagine if you started with a tank and the AI with warriors. Obviously a bad game, right?

Starting with a worker instead of your warrior would be quite frankly equivalent to that if not worse. Given that many people play worker starts, where they sacrifice 10 or more turns of growth just to get a worker at the start of the game, starting with a worker would make the early game far, far to easy, and you'd have an unbeatable lead if you had any skill whatsoever.

That said, of course it is moddable (easily moddable, even) for SP or even MP; but it's not a balanced gameplay option, so why would they ship the game with it?

[Virdrago]

Make it so that when a AI civ with a warrior happens upon a human player with a worker 5 turns into the game, it will know to attack... that may keep some people honest.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by snoopy369

Absolutely not true. Balance is always a concern. Imagine if you started with a tank and the AI with warriors. Obviously a bad game, right?

Starting with a worker instead of your warrior would be quite frankly equivalent to that if not worse. Given that many people play worker starts, where they sacrifice 10 or more turns of growth just to get a worker at the start of the game, starting with a worker would make the early game far, far to easy, and you'd have an unbeatable lead if you had any skill whatsoever.

That said, of course it is moddable (easily moddable, even) for SP or even MP; but it's not a balanced gameplay option, so why would they ship the game with it?

There are two issues here - would starting with a worker make the game too easy and does it matter if it does?

I find it difficult to believe that simply by having a worker to start with, I would be able to beat the AI at deity level. Perhaps that means that I have no skill whatsoever. Be that as it may, how good is starting with a worker? It delays any exploration, which may mean missing out on huts. Also there may not be much for your worker to do. Playing Spain for example, your worker either spends a few turns doing nothing or else you have to risk exploring with it. But there are some starts with some civs where a worker would be brilliant. However, the argument about hammers is quite forceful. So perhaps the choice should be four warriors or one worker. Or perhaps everyone starts with 15 hammers that they can put towards any buildable unit.

But even if starting with a worker does make the game easier, does that matter in SP? If some leaders or civs are stronger than others, so what? As you move up the difficulty options, you could start with the strongest and move to weaker leaders / civs as you gain more skill.

As far as starting with a tank is concerned, this would not be "obviously a bad game". There are plenty of games where the human player has a more powerful start than the computer - space invaders for example. I can imagine a fantasy scenario or mod in which you start with an irreplaceable "uber unit". However, I did concede that the starting unit should only be one that the player had the technology to build.

RJM

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers


There are two issues here - would starting with a worker make the game too easy and does it matter if it does?

Yes, and yes.

I find it difficult to believe that simply by having a worker to start with, I would be able to beat the AI at deity level. Perhaps that means that I have no skill whatsoever. Be that as it may, how good is starting with a worker? It delays any exploration, which may mean missing out on huts. Also there may not be much for your worker to do. Playing Spain for example, your worker either spends a few turns doing nothing or else you have to risk exploring with it. But there are some starts with some civs where a worker would be brilliant. However, the argument about hammers is quite forceful. So perhaps the choice should be four warriors or one worker. Or perhaps everyone starts with 15 hammers that they can put towards any buildable unit.

Starting with a free worker would be the single most useful starting unit I could imagine. Even if there were nothing for your worker to do, you would still have the option of just researching something quickly; though obviously it is not as useful for those civs.

If you know how to play Civ well, a free worker is a huge boon that by itself would imbalance the game.

But even if starting with a worker does make the game easier, does that matter in SP? If some leaders or civs are stronger than others, so what? As you move up the difficulty options, you could start with the strongest and move to weaker leaders / civs as you gain more skill.

Again, for a retail game, this does very much matter. Game balance is the difference between a successful game and a failure. The game should be evenly balanced from the get go. If the player wants to mod in cheese factors, let him or her - but the core game should not have those factors in its basic structure.

[Pinchak]

Starting with a free worker would be the single most useful starting unit I could imagine.

Indeed. One of the biggest setbacks you have on higher levels is that the AI starts with workers (deity they start with workers AND settlers).

This inbalance is compounded by the fact that building these units stops city growth. Just to catch up you need to gimp your citys for 10 - 30 turns per unit... remember that on the flip side of the coin the AI is enjoying all the early bonsus that come with having early workers.

It could be argued however that the potential hut finds are equal to if not worth more then very early tile improvments. Hense, giving more or less valuablity to the scout depending on if huts are on or not.