Toggle off Civ-specific abilities in the Setup-screen?

[Ralf]

I was just wondering. A couple of months ago, there was an inflamed discussion about AoK/SMAC-style "civ-specific abilities" here at Apolyton. Since then civ-specific units seems to become a storm in a waterglass. At least I think so.

But what about the Civ-specific abilities table? Its pretty close to what an substantial part of all Apolyton-civers (including me) didnt want: AoK/SMAC-style civ-specific abilities - given for free at 4000 BC and lasting throughout the whole game. Rigid abilities & benefits that is given to you regardless how you actually play the game.

The poll-question is:
Are you going to toggle off civ-specific abilities in the Setup screen?

[Pembleton]

Why do polls never have the answer that I have?

I am going to try the civ-specific abilities and see if they are not too inbalanced. If I don't like them, I will stop but it's wait and see. Without knowing the exact specifics of how they work, which won't be known until the game is played, it's too early to tell. A little imbalance is fine, and would actually make the game more interesting since you can handicap yourself by choosing a weaker civ.

On the other hand, I won't be playing with the civ-specific units at first while I learn the game and I am skeptical about the golden ages as well. Also, I wonder if the panzer tank could be overpowered since tanks became the turning point, besides gunpowder, in military technology in the games I played in Civ2.

During the first few days of playing, if I hear too many complaints about the imbalance of civ-specific units, I won't play with them.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Pembleton
Why do polls never have the answer that I have?

Well, what can I say?

Without knowing the exact specifics of how they work, which won't be known until the game is played, it's too early to tell.

This poll isnt about if you/we think that the Civ-specific abilities table-values are unbalanced, or not. Those Civ-values are probably customizeable anyway, so what?

Its about if one still like/dislike the overall idea of SMAC faction-style rigid advantages and disadvantages, given for free early on and lasting throughout the game. Abilities & benefits that is given to you regardless how you actually play the game.

I know it can be turned off, so Im not complaining. Im not trying to advocate big changes here - its far too late for that. I just want to feel the temperature. Have your feelings about it changed since the big debate back then, or what?

[Pembleton]

This poll isnt about if you/we think that the Civ-specific abilities table-values are unbalanced, or not. Its about if one still like/dislike the overall idea of SMAC faction-style rigid advantages and disadvantages, given for free early on and lasting throughout the game. Abilities & benefits that is given to you regardless how you actually play the game.

The poll question is "toggle off Civ-specific ablilities in the Setup-screen?" It's not "Do you like/dislike civ-specific abilities?" And whether I like/dislike them depends on whether they are balanced. I won't know if I like or dislike the idea until I play the game. If they are balanced, I will like them. If not, I won't.

Those Civ-values are probably customizeable anyway, so what?

So I don't feel like fiddling with the values over and over until I find the balance I like. I'm not the type who gets into overanalyzing the game's stats or making mods, etc. I just want to play the damn game.

I already mentioned that a little imbalance is most likely good anyway. In Age of Kings it was fun beating another player with a weaker civ or knowing that your civ is the counter to theirs. However, it's no fun knowing that a certain civ (let's say Mongols even though they aren't in Civ3) is always ahead in every game you play, so that your strategy is always: I've come across the Mongols, I must be careful with my dealings with them, or if I destroy them the rest of the game is easy since they are the best civ, etc.

Have your feelings about it changed since the big debate back then, or what?

I only skimmed most of the debates because they were all based on *speculation*. I've read complaints that expansionist is a bad abillity. It could also be the best ability. Also, maybe the industrious bonus in the city center is far less than the commercial bonus. Therefore everyone who thought that it was the best ablility is wrong and it could turn out to be the worst.

[Sean]

It s difficult to give a definative answer to this poll, until one takes Civ 3 for a spin. However I am generally in favour of special abilities, unless they are asymetric in there application, ie "not fair". So, I am likely to toggle it on, though I will certainly try it without.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Pembleton
The poll question is "toggle off Civ-specific ablilities in the Setup-screen?"

Based on whether one like/dislike the principal idea of SMAC-style civ-specific abilities, yes. Anyway, you right; I should have added a sixth option; "It all depends how its balanced" or something.

[Roman]

I too vote for the sixth option.

I must say I am not very favourably disposed towards the idea of unique civs, but it is not an important issue for me and it might work well.

[isaac brock]

There is no conceivable way that the civ specific units could make the game imbalanced at all. Firaxis is only increasing either A, D, or M by one point. Does it really matter if a nuclear missile has 100 attack or 101? I don't think so you should not need to turn off civ-specific units unless your particular cult believes that different cultures are a sin.

[tishco]

i will play with it on, but i dont like the idea of early civ specific unit as if you were the zulu and statrded with impi by the time you were at war properly they wouldbe obselte. and also wot if you get an early golden age when you have a 1 person crappy city whcih doesnt do much beconming a tiny bit better.
i'll be the US of German so later when its urgent i can kick arse/ass!

[Ming]

Depends on the game I'm playing.
I will probably use them when playing SP.
I will probably not use them while playing MP.

[Paul L]

Originally posted by isaac brock
Firaxis is only increasing either A, D, or M by one point. Does it really matter if a nuclear missile has 100 attack or 101?

So far we've only seen the stats of some ancient special units. What makes you think that the modern ones also differ only one a/d/m point? And we're talking about the civ specific abilities also, not only civ specific units.

[Edward]

Originally posted by Pembleton
A little imbalance is fine, and would actually make the game more interesting since you can handicap yourself by choosing a weaker civ.

Originally posted by Pembleton
I only skimmed most of the debates because they were all based on *speculation*. I've read complaints that expansionist is a bad abillity. It could also be the best ability. Also, maybe the industrious bonus in the city center is far less than the commercial bonus. Therefore everyone who thought that it was the best ablility is wrong and it could turn out to be the worst.

If the Expansionist civ ability/focus dramatically changes your hut results, then it might be a great ability, especially on small maps.

I think the civ abilities could be fun. Like Pembleton suggests, you can purposely choose a civ with weak abilities (or abilities that run counter to your style of play) to increase the challenge.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It seem good, but I will definitley try without the feature too feel the game from a differnt perspective.

[Dugrik]

If one doesn't use the civ-specific units, I guess one is going to never see a Golden Age.

The poll is missing a truly neutral response. My answer would be "I'm going to try both options and see which I like best." All the other choices forced you to make a decision now. :banned: