quote: Originally posted by Chronus on 03-06-2001 08:16 AM If I am to gain a unique civ benefit, I want to EARN it . . . |
I'll post something about that later though...| quote: Originally posted by Zulu Elephant on 03-06-2001 06:05 AM Wonders... Thats it The wonders represent specificc civs becoming specialists at certain things. Seafaring civs have magellen etc. In real life, the english would have had the seafaring wonders That way civs choose their own specialisation |
| quote: Originally posted by Salvius on 03-17-2001 12:56 AM Just wanted to voice my agreement with the "have them, but only as an option" position. For full-scale, epic, historical games, I agree that Civ-specific bonuses make little sense. However, I can see a couple of potential uses for them in scenarios: 1) Small-scale scenarios. For example, in an American Civil War scenario, only the Union should be allowed to build, say, Abolitionist units, and only the Confederacy should be allowed to use slave labor (however that may be dealt with in the game/scenario). Note that the Confederacy could be allowed to actually abolish slavery (to gain favor with England, if that were included in the scenario), but I think they'd have had a tough time finding very many strong abolitionists who were also strong Confederate loyalists. 2) Non-historical scenarios. The obvious example would be a Middle-Earth scenario: The forces of darkness would have access to orc units, dwarves could build cities in mountains without starving, etc. In a not-even-fictionally-historical Star Trek scenario with all the ST races starting on one planet (!), Vulcans might get science bonuses, Ferengi might get trade bonuses, and so on. There might even be some limited justification in full-scale historical games. I've heard it argued that one reason the Japanese samurai fighting style is so different from the European knighthood fighting style was that the steel ore in Japan was of higher quality, which made for better swords, which made armor less effective, which forced them to develop a style based on speed, accuracy, and dodging & parrying, rather than on encasing themselves in armor and going toe-to-toe. I'm not sure that Civ3 will simulate a fighting-style level of detail, but that's just the first example that came to mind. Since (if "true") this is a cultural/technological difference that was dependent on available resources, the only ways to simulate it that I can see would be either a civ-specific tech or bonus (assuming pre-determined starting locations), or tying a tech, unit, or bonus to local natural resources. While that would be WAY cool (Elephants, anyone?), it would also be very hard to balance, especially for random worlds (and would probably require more than one or two resources per terrain type). I view the Civ games as "What If" tools. That may be as simple as "What if I were in charge of Rome?" or "What if the Japanese were pyramid-builders?", but one interesting experiment would be "What if one group of people were inherently better at [something] than all other groups of people?" How would this alternate history have been different from (or similar to) our own? Anyway, in short: Unique civs good for scenarios, probably bad for standard full game. |
Tweet
Ok, Last Time....Why We DONT need Specific Civ-Bonuses
Comment