c168 WHY CIV-SPECIFIC UNITS ARE A GOOD IDEA

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


So your saying making all the Civ's the same is the true concept of civilization? What makes a civilization a civilization is its uniqueness. If I had my way, all units would be civ specific. And you know what? That's how the real world is.



People want REALISM in games. Why do you think people bought Civilization in the first place? Because you could control the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc, and rewrite history with a realistic twist.



Is the world balanced and fair? NO! Why do you think so many ancient civilizations don't exist any more. And its your own dumb fault for building all naval units if your land-locked. Don't blame your lack of skill on the developers and civ spefic lovers.



Actually the best method to solve this is to let the game makers make the game. I bet you a million dollars when the game comes out you will spend hours upon hours playing it. I love how people get all upset with change when it is for the better.

Yet another who fails to understand the relation of CSU's to historical accuracy. CSU's make civ LESS accurate, not more so.
Yes, civilizations in the past have been unique. But they have been unique as a RESULT of their history. EG Brits didnt have it in their genes to be great sailors, a sequence of geographical accidents, historical accident and deliberate decisions resulted in their naval superiority. Ideally civ should play so that IF you start on the right location on a real world map, and follow historical strategies as closely as possible, you should end up with historical results. If you DONT start with same location, or follow the same startegies, you should end up with different results.

I can understand pro-CSU position that this is only a game. The view that CSU's make the game more historical is however, incorrect.

For a deeper view of historical what if's and the problems that come with assuming you can change one hisotrical factor without impacting all others, i suggest following Soc.history.what-if.


I do suspect that the CSU's will add to sales however.

LOTM

[eNo]

Hmm..lord of the mark's comments makes me wonder: What if unique units are granted according to history?

That is if a civ in its history has been very warlike, it is granted a special warrior unit to reflect the civ's experiance with war. A civ that starts off on an island or/and has made extensive use of water is granted a special frigate.
The unit granted will also be appropriate to the civ's technological level. A warlike civ learning flight after every other civ won't get the F15 unit but neither will the peaceful civ who discovered flight first.

Heck you could probably tie the new culture stuff into it by putting a culture minimum before you get the unique unit.

[Cyclotron]

So your saying making all the Civ's the same is the true concept of civilization? What makes a civilization a civilization is its uniqueness. If I had my way, all units would be civ specific. And you know what? That's how the real world is.

Yes. A Civilization is made by its uniqueness. So why let Firaxis give you a straitjacket that is CSUs? As far as I am concerned, enforced and never-changing uniqueness is not uniqueness at all.

You obviously have no concept of what Civilization is at all. It is the re-creation of history. Got it? Which means that is the REAL WORLD, I should be able to shape the path of my Civ, including what units they develop according to my choices and my civ's environment. So don't tell me about the real world, because Civ is about making your own "real world."

People want REALISM in games. Why do you think people bought Civilization in the first place? Because you could control the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc, and rewrite history with a realistic twist.

Does the fact that people want a good and balanced game escape you? I bought Civ because I was told it was a great GAME. I son't buy something because of realism, so your generalization of "people want realism" is probably the dumbest thing you could have said. I would like to see your marketing research and study info about how this is true, but I know you don't have it because you don't know jack about what "people" want.

Is the world balanced and fair? NO! Why do you think so many ancient civilizations don't exist any more. And its your own dumb fault for building all naval units if your land-locked. Don't blame your lack of skill on the developers and civ spefic lovers.

It is unlikely that a game which is both unbalanced and unfair will be a good seller or a good game. Such games are almost always poor sellers. I personally do not believe that I or anyone I know would buy a game that was by default unbalanced and unfair to promote realism. Once again, this is a game, not real life.

Actually the best method to solve this is to let the game makers make the game. I bet you a million dollars when the game comes out you will spend hours upon hours playing it. I love how people get all upset with change when it is for the better.

Actually, the best method is to give the input we think is valuable and for people like you who have nothing better to do than say "shut up! Don't give your opinions!" to shut the hell up. If I think something is important, I have the right to say it and so do you. I happen to think that CSUs are not for the better. But please, don't try to tell me that I shouldn't say what I think... because that, my ignorant friend, is what forums are for.

I love how people think they're so much more intelligent than everyone else, when they are really making a fool out of themselves...

[LDiCesare]

I think civ-specific should be environment-specific:
If your civ only has coastal cities and no trade routes inland, then you should be able to build drakars because your civ will be very focused towards sea.
If you are landlocked, you could build a special land unit because you won't be researching sailing (although being able to research sailing when you never got out of your desert always seemed strange to me).
If you spent 200 years moving alomg without settling and you finally build a city near horses, then you could have some special light cavalry unit at some time of your history.
Based on culture, you might have some special units, but that would be cool if the special units could vary depending on the world.
NO landlocked viking drakkars please.

[Kc7mxo]

So your saying making all the Civ's the same is the true concept of civilization? What makes a civilization a civilization is its uniqueness. If I had my way, all units would be civ specific. And you know what? That's how the real world is.

The real world is not full of unique civilizations. Thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard. So we paint our tanks different from the chinese. They're still tanks. The concept is the same. Samurai are NOT different from a well trained mounted swordsmen from anywhere else. There's nothing special about japanese that allow them to learn to ride a horse and shoot a bow anymore than there is something special about "Americans" that let us be the first nation with a flying machine.

People want REALISM in games. Why do you think people bought Civilization in the first place? Because you could control the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc, and rewrite history with a realistic twist.

Really. So should we then force the american nation to start in 1776? Its rather more realistic that way. Civ is about making your OWN history. Locking a civ even slightly into a single path takes that away and will give you games that are dry and stale.

Is the world balanced and fair? NO! Why do you think so many ancient civilizations don't exist any more. And its your own dumb fault for building all naval units if your land-locked. Don't blame your lack of skill on the developers and civ spefic lovers.

This is a game doofus. It should be balanced and fair, at least to start. Any unbalances should relate to the level of difficulty chosen.

And the point i was making was that having a wonderful unique naval unit is friking pointless if you're landlocked.

Actually the best method to solve this is to let the game makers make the game. I bet you a million dollars when the game comes out you will spend hours upon hours playing it. I love how people get all upset with change when it is for the better.

Really? I'd like it if you did. It would be more money in my pocket. I don't play black and white. And I watched that game get developed for four years. I even bought the damn thing. But its not fun. I don't play games that aren't fun. I don't have that much time to waste.

Unique units are stupid. They detract from the the creativity present in a randomly generated world. And they are taking the attention and funding of the game designers, which could be better spent on developing a good ai.

Does anyone else think there is a discouraging trend of game deisngers relying on multiplayer to give challenge and letting shoddy AIs ship?

[Adm.Naismith]

Re: SMAC Engine

Originally posted by JosefGiven

I think it is a shame that we won't see a SMAC style 3D terrain in Civ III. Not only does it look good, but gradients could provide defence bonuses/farming penalties, etc. The 3D terrain in SMAC was one of the only features I liked. The named geographical features like Gorbachev's Plateau (or whatever) were cool, too.

Yes, why preview mention of "contour terrain" with bonus sight for units on hills, while the screenshots looks flat as in Civ 2?

Where are the enhancement on graphic SMAC engine? I didn't loved the SMAC terrain, but I supposed you are about to improve its 3D smoothness, matching different kind of terrain (e.g. plain, then hills, then mountains) in a more realistic way.

What's the design decision about using flat isometric tile and left only graphic tile simulate height? Where are hills, plateu, lake at different height?
In screenshots rivers flow without a visible reason (it was lovely the way SMAC rivers follow the terrain altitude )

Am I missing anything, Mike Breitkreutz ?

[Grumbold]

I'm happier in general with flat terrain. Why? Because we are supposed to be representing an Earthlike world. A height difference of 10-20 kilometres is barely a wrinkle on a world the size of Earth. Contoured maps with elevations and height bonuses are for small scale scenarios, not miniature worlds.

[Adm.Naismith]

Sorry Grumbold, your point is correct if all the game display objects at the very same size. Of course Civ don't act so: units, cities, whole map size, aren't in same scale.

Only advantage in flat map is your unit don't hide from view, but that can be solved in many way.

[Grumbold]

I take your point but if the graphical map looks and feels like a tiny archipelago rather than a huge world then nothing else is going to give that impression. I got no feeling of vast plains or huge mountains from SMAC's gently rolling terrain, particularly when it was so easy to raise or lower lots of it in one go.

[Alexander's Horse]

I would prefer unique units to be optional rather than editable. If any civ can shoot for the relevant techs, they are are less of a problem. I would prefer the CTP II model where the first to discover certain techs, such as gunpowder, gets a time limited advantage.

[Maniac]

cyclotron7:

I love how people think they're so much more intelligent than everyone else, when they are really making a fool out of themselves...

Yeah I know. I also love it when certain people make bad remarks about other people, but don't realize those same remarks can be applied to themselves.

M@ni@c
The eternal self-doubter, self-critic and self-relativator