c168 WHY CIV-SPECIFIC UNITS ARE A GOOD IDEA

[Kropotkin]

Calm down there jeje2, I don't even thing that snapcase had those thoughts in mind when he wrote his column.

There's other games for the people that want to calculate on stuff like that. (as I sometimes find intresting but not in Civ)

[Erka]

The only valid objection against players choosing their own civ-specifics seem to be that the AI can't handle it correctly, but why should this limit the human player?

The AI-civs would still have to go for their specific, hard-coded units (which the human player could have much fun 'stealing' ), and in multiplayer games without any AI-civs it wouldn't be a problem.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Erka
The only valid objection against players choosing their own civ-specifics seem to be that the AI can't handle it correctly, but why should this limit the human player?

The AI-civs would still have to go for their specific, hard-coded units (which the human player could have much fun 'stealing' ), and in multiplayer games without any AI-civs it wouldn't be a problem.

Excuse me? This is a big problem in multiplayer games. We customise our own civs. I don't play as German or Greek. How can you balance it out? Its a bloody silly idea. Its going to create fights between players.

Also, once again, games designers go against all the collective wisdom of decades of wargaming. Wargaming classification seeks equivalence between units like samurai and legionary, not to emphasise differences. Guess what? A Roman legionary and a samurai can be accomodated within the same classification system. Asian and European units aren't that different if you look at their weapons and the way they fought - open order, close order, heavily or lightly armoured, on horse or on foot, with missile or not. Who says the Germans use armour better? Haven't you people heard of Kursk?

Its just a garbage idea to suggest otherwise, which is what the unique unit idea does, the whole thing smacks of racist nonsense.

[Omada]

If civ-specific units must be in the game, I could accept it if they are at least potentially accessible for every civ. How about this:

Every special unit ("Panzer tank") is tied to a specific special tech advance ("Panzer tank technology"). This special advance is offered to all civs that has reached the appropriate base tech ("Armor"), but as soon as one civ starts researching the special tech no other civ can pick it.

This way, the special units are not preset at the beginning of time (avoiding the problem with longships for desert-dwelling vikings) and there is an significant cost attached to getting the unit ("I have Armor. Do I develop Panzers, or should I go for Flight and possibly the F-15 instead?").

...or another way:

The Magellan wonder already gives you +1 move for all your naval units for the rest of the game. Let every special unit depend on a wonder-type building that must be constructed in a specific city. As long as you control the city you can build the special unit (either only in that city or in any city in your civ).

Alternatively, as long as you control the city all your base units are upgraded to special units, but if you lose it your units revert back to the base unit.


In short, give me anything except CSU's that are hardcoded to particular civs. That would suck. I'd like Civilization 3 to not suck. =)

[Kropotkin]

Välkommen Omada, solen skiner i Ume

The problem with your idea is about the same as the original idea. There's a great chance that the civ that gets the unit isn't the one with the best surroundings to use it. There might be great problems to make the AI pick advances that suits it in that way and/or a very advanced civ might take the advance long before anyone else. The latter might be OK when it comes to panzer warfare but not for stuff like longships and so on...

[Grumbold]

It is possible that the recent review talking of mini-wonders, available to all nations, will produce the sort of targetted specialisation we have been talking about as an alternative to CSU's. A mini wonder that gave all your infantry +1 defence or armour +1 movement, for example. We have not heard enough about them to be certain what their effects will be. If the hints turn out to be true then the CSU's can be turned off in multiplayer without too much regret by those of us that dislike it or find it too unbalancing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Excuse me? This is a big problem in multiplayer games. We customise our own civs. I don't play as German or Greek. How can you balance it out? Its a bloody silly idea. Its going to create fights between players.

Also, once again, games designers go against all the collective wisdom of decades of wargaming. Wargaming classification seeks equivalence between units like samurai and legionary, not to emphasise differences. Guess what? A Roman legionary and a samurai can be accomodated within the same classification system. Asian and European units aren't that different if you look at their weapons and the way they fought - open order, close order, heavily or lightly armoured, on horse or on foot, with missile or not. Who says the Germans use armour better? Haven't you people heard of Kursk?

Its just a garbage idea to suggest otherwise, which is what the unique unit idea does, the whole thing smacks of racist nonsense.

Amen, brother!!! It was worth it viewing this thread, just to see that such a legend in the civ community has so clearly stated the truth about unique units.

The ignorance here of the real history of the eastern front is simply abysmal.

LOTM

[Omada]

Tack Kropotkin, inte ett moln på himlen här uppe.

I'd rather not have CSU's at all, but since they apparently will be included I'd prefer them to be implemented in a way that won't make me bash my head against the keyboard when I play the game...

[KrazyHorse]

Useless Units

We already know that the game will automatically put civs close together in the game which were close together historically. It is more than possible that the game will also consistently put the Vikings on a coastline with a slightly hostile inland, and the Germans in the middle of a largish, fertile, landmass, and the Zulus in an open savannah-like setting. Thus, the useless units problem will be avoided.

Also, I don't understand what this resistance to civ differences is all about. Even in civI and civII we had the leaders' personalities adjusted according to their civ. This diversity will accomodate different playing styles. If I'm a quick-rush ***hole (you know who you are) then I'll choose the Romans or Zulus for their early, powerful units. That way I'll gain territory right away. However, I'll be handicapped by my later lack of advanced units (a Panzer or MiG would be useful in 1960). If I'm a ridiculous perfectionist and technologist (which I am) I'll choose the Americans and be able to dominate the endgame with waves of F-16s. The only real problem is one of balance, which is hopefully going to be solved by the play-testing occurring this minute at Firaxis (lucky ********). I think this will lend a diversity to the different cultures lacking in civI&civII. It would, of course, be preferable, as someone already pointed out, to allow the player or AI to make their own decisions on such matters, based on their setting, but this would almost be too much to ask. The problem of balance would be multiplied a hundred-fold if there were so many options. In addition, the pre-decided templates are easier for an AI to handle.

Besides all this, don't you remember how easy it was to customize civII? Do any of you doubt we'll have the same possibility this time? If you don't want customized units, take 'em out of the rules.txt file.

p.s.: Why do the Sioux or Iroquois (or whoever) get mounted units? Native Americans had never even seen a horse until whitey brought 'em over in the sixteenth century. Maybe they should get a stealthy, treats-all-terrain-as-roads, foot warrior-type unit. This would also fit in better with the Iroquois, rather than the Sioux.

[SerapisIV]

Nice signature KrazyHorse

[Cyclotron]

We already know that the game will automatically put civs close together in the game which were close together historically.

Huh? Where was this reported?

It is more than possible that the game will also consistently put the Vikings on a coastline with a slightly hostile inland, and the Germans in the middle of a largish, fertile, landmass, and the Zulus in an open savannah-like setting. Thus, the useless units problem will be avoided.

Krazyhorse, the problem with this is that you are assuming that any map will have all of these. What if it doesn't? Personally, my two favorite styles of playing are in a low resource environment where you have to struggle (mostly hills, jungle, desert, swamp) or a high-water environment where there are tons of small islands, making sea warfare all important. Does this mean that in these games, the Germans are never picked because there is no place for them? With your system, it does.

In a truly good game, the Germans should start out randomly (or at least semi-randomly) like all other civs, and then build the improvements, wonders, and units that best suit their condition. Evolving and environmentally-based traits wouldn't hurt, either. Read my signature:

[KrazyHorse]

First off, the placement fact was posted in the about.com preview.
Second off, we know that the terrain generation system has been revamped for more realism, so hopefully there will always be sufficient variety. Thirdly, I already explained why it would be so difficult to have the levels of individuality that you want (i.e. balance and AI). Finally, your signature's option puts only slightly less burden on the AI, and provides even more balance problems.

[Ecthy]

won't Elvis be in CIV3 ?

[KrazyHorse]

Elvis

I don't think so. The city status screen (you know; the one mentioning Montreal) has the six in-game advisors' pictures down the left-hand side. None of them have any sideburns to speak of.

[Kropotkin]

Maybe they are planning to replace him with Joey Ramone. I'm starting to think that he's not dead either