Why don't we get the flexible unit system à la SMAC?

[RonHiler]

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS on 02-12-2001 05:30 PM I think some folks are getting confused about what's happening with units in general. The whole point of not having a unit workshop is that we want you to be able to build whatever kind of unit you want, and the unit workshop actually hampers your choices.

I don't see any confusion, Dan. I think everyone understands perfectly the trade off here. You have decided to decrease the "out of box" playability in favour of scenario customizability by players.

That's y'alls decision. I disagree with it, but that's just me. I have no interest in "mods". I have never built one, and I have never downloaded them. My interest is entirely how the game plays off the shelf. Therefore I am stuck with your static units, if I want to play, which quickly becomes boring. Thus, I will not buy the game. For others, mods are all important, and they applaud your decision. Different styles, I suppose Good luck with the programming.

Ron

[Cyclotron]

As said above, this is really to bad. As was pointed out, Firaxis is truly submitting to the mod players and scenario builders, and neglecting the rest of us. Customizability is great, but I think that this much open-ness is even worse than the SMAC system. I am quite aware people will get mad at me for saying this, but I just hopw Firaxis doesn't really go ahead with this. The only thing that's confusing is why Firaxis would ever do this to us?!?!

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[Theben]

I guess the important question, Dan, is how much, if any, of this customization is available in-game? What you describe sounds a lot like the civ2 method of customization: tweak the rules.txt and units.gif. OTOH, I can't think of any in-game modifications that couldn't be described as a "unit workshop" in some way.

[Trachmir]

Here's just a thought... since it seems that customization has won out over flexibilty, perhaps firaxis can complile new units and "modded" units into some sort of "offical" dowloadable expansion... if they release enough of them (say 1 a month for a year), each with a few goodies to add to the "off-the-shelf" game, perhaps this can be seen as a compromise.

I'm not sure of this idea myself, I'd much rather of had a workshop of some-sort (or perhaps an in-game editor like dan spoke of with a lot of extra graphics).

Any comments?

[Youngsun]

Dan

quote: the unit workshop actually hampers your choices.

That's true if you want to use SMAC style unitworkshop.
Unitworkshop for civ doesn't have to be like SMAC style one does it?

I want
No more prototype(sounds like labortory work to me)
No more types also(which really reduce our choices).

Unitworkshop should be aimed to make "infantry division" or "armoured brigade" rather than individual "tank" or "soldiers". Here you face problem once you try to create a single tank which is composed of AT-gun+Chassis+Engine+Turret+radio equipment)just like SMAC style.

Tanks/airplanes should be produced as they are and they should be the basic elements to form a unit such as armoured division or fighter squadron.

The only area for SMAC style might be appropriate is battleship or crusier designe and this perfectly make sense and brings fun regarding MOO/MOOII experiences if you played them before.

This actually reduced types of units you can have but it will bring great customisation of each unit which is based on how many equipments you give to that unit.

Please come and visit my unitworkshop module list thread and have a look at "organisation workshop.gif" that will help you to understand what I'm trying to say here.

[Roman]

From the gallery on the Civ3 website, it is apparent that the choice of units will be much greater than in Civ2. Hence Unit Workshop is completely unneccessary.

[Chaos Warrior]

Dan Magaha posted in MY thread! YAY!

[Grumbold]

Roman, while I admire your enthusiasm, concept art of two tanks instead of one and two fighters instead of one doesn't exactly prove beyond doubt that a greatly expanded range of default units will be part of the finished game.

Total customisability for scenario makers is laudable but the people in favour of a unit workshop approach generally seem to be looking for customisability between nations in a game, not between scenarios. Providing enough graphics to ensure that the units don't appear completely ludicrous is certainly one of the hardest and most time consuming parts of that.

Now if the talked about approach to unique nationalities in Civ III also leads to diversity in what unit types the nations can build, then perhaps a workshop is more redundant. While building (for instance) elephants relies solely on polytheism and discounts any other factors then all nationalities with the same techs will be fielding exactly the same units.

[Nikolai]

We love Magaha! We love Magaha!

Myself, I like the news we get from Firaxis, I think they are doing a great job!! And butterflies are in my stomach(is that the right exoression? We have that expression in Norway )

And, people, please be kind to Firaxis, they are doing a good job!!!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[Yog-Sothoth]

I think this is great news. I believe as Dan said that a workshop would be a limitation, and wouldn't fit well into a game with such a long timespan.

[Grumbold]

I realise I am being aggressive about this, but I do not see how anyone can accuse a unit workshop approach that allows any feasible combination of troop type, troop weapon and troop abilities of being a limitation. A workshop does not force you to adopt the SMAC graphics approach of gluing the components together into an ugly composite unit model.

The limit is the number of skins available to "dress" your finished units up in and some code to ensure you can't dress a footsoldier in an aeroplane skin. That limit is down to artwork and will exist whether we have fixed units or an in-game customisation tool. It does not restrict the ability for scenario makers or expansion packs to add even more skins if they need to.

Having the website release more skins from month to month would be an added attraction for Civ III, a bit like SimCity 3000 released new buildings - but only if the player can plug them straight into the main randonly generated game, not see them only in specific scenarios. My ambition would be to be playing the game three years after release with historically accurate skins for all the major nationalities in any given time period, and an AI that could choose the ones appropriate to its nationality or government style.

The strongest counter arguement I can think of is the difficulty in knowing what units are capable of at a glance. Either you have to find that out by observation or have the stats appear in clear format when you study an enemy unit. To me this makes more sense than knowing not only that all countries can only churn out 4-4-1 infantry and 8-8-3 armour, but they all look the same, too.

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 02-13-2001 09:31 AM I realise I am being aggressive about this, but I do not see how anyone can accuse a unit workshop approach that allows any feasible combination of troop type, troop weapon and troop abilities of being a limitation.

If indeed we were able to provide you with every feasible combination of troop type, troop weapon, and troop abilities, then it wouldn't be limiting at all.

But the unfortunate reality of the situation is that we can't possibly do that. Instead we're doing our best to ensure scenario builders and yes, even casual players will be able to tailor the game to their needs.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

[Grumbold]

Thanks Dan

I'll eagerly await news about how you are managing to achieve this

[Youngsun]

quote: since the unit workshop and the scenario editor are targeted towards two different groups. There are people who like to mess around with strange units but lacks the patience to build scenarioes from the ground up.

Well said Urban Ranger!

A lousy scenario builder like myself or possibly many other people just don't have time and patience to build well customised scenarios for satisfcatory result. That's why I prefer to see Firaxis put more weight on the main game. I played the original civ for a long time without getting bored whereas civII was not able to make me preoccupied very long though it was still better than other games. CivII's main game features didn't match up the greatness of civI(it was just enhanced version of civI with better graphics with some modifications) While Firaxis seeing the reason which helped civII last longer was due to the existence of scenario builder, Firaxis must have felt to guarantee the success of civIII, there should be massive investment on scenatio builder and other customising tools. I see this very reasonable but what makes me so sad is why Firaxis decided to sacrifice the main game in favour of scenario building. I played many great scenarios which were made by many genious scenario builders and I enjoyed them but those scenarios were not civII anymore. They were just other games to me and I will definitely hesitate to put civII as the greatest game of all if because civII had scenario builder and other good scenario made by fans. I hope Firaxis open its eyes and put more effort to the main game then the need to create scenario will be reduced if not disappeared. I'm not saying scenario builder should not be in civIII but just expressing my opinion that the main game should be counted first.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 15, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

The above post is perhaps the most insightful and meaningful (and true, IMO) post I have seen since I arrived here.