I can't believe civ-specific units are in!?!?

[JamesJKirk]

Would you much rather the end game being filled with several democracies, each occupying a large continent with all the same units and features as the other civs have? How does this represent each civ having a distinct culture, if the whole game routes the civs to go in the exact same direction?

I sincerely doubt the special units will be absolutely destabilizing, they'd just be there to give an extra edge to each civ at a certain point. It's not as if suddenly when the discovery of mobile warfare, the Germans will automatically roll our dozens of panzer units, thus wiping out the globe, I'm sure they'll be expensive, and if wouldn't be too effective to build too many of them.

Also, there's no way Firaxis would not have the option to disable something so controversial, so I don't see why all of you are so riled up
[This message has been edited by JamesJKirk (edited April 29, 2001).]

[sedge9]

It does seem like if every civ had a unique unit with unique stats then the game could get unbalanced.

On the flipside,if unique units were only unique in appearence,that is, every equally advanced civ could build an alternative to another civ's unique unit with equal abilities to attack and defend(for example Abrams tank = german panzer tank)...seems like that would attribute more of a personal identity to your civ. A good thing.

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by JamesJKirk on 04-29-2001 09:47 PM I sincerely doubt the special units will be absolutely destabilizing, they'd just be there to give an extra edge to each civ at a certain point. It's not as if suddenly when the discovery of mobile warfare, the Germans will automatically roll our dozens of panzer units, thus wiping out the globe, I'm sure they'll be expensive, and if wouldn't be too effective to build too many of them.

Not destabilizing. But when I can have an edge in modern warfare (the tank being the arm of choice) why wouldn't I chose ONLY one civ that does give me that (even small) advantage?

And all civs do not have democracies in the end game.

[joseph1944]

Just maybe the Unique Units will give Veteran status to a stack, or just maybe you will only be able to build a few or just build one instead of 50. What if every Civs on the map can build all unique units when they make the appropriate discovery? In the other thread about the first screen shots a lot of you were saying how bad they are, then we get the new screen shots and all of a sudden they are not so bad. I will say it again; wait a while before condemning the game. Is PC Gamer and PC Game Play the same magazine? If so then our copy will be here is a week or so and than we can see write up ourselves.

[yin26]

quote: You cannot have balanced civs with unique units. It's that simple.

This is just so wrong it's laughable. Yes, it's MUCH MUCH harder to make a game with unique civs, units and techs. And in the hands of MOST companies, players find huge whole to exploit. But a good company can (and does) take this approach a makes a masterpiece.

Bottom line in that Sid is in charge of this thing and he'll make sure it's balanced. And no doubt after you get used to these design upgrades, you'll look back on Civ2 and see just how flat it really is.

[Zylka]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-29-2001 06:24 PM Zylka: Your wit is stunning. Looks like you'll be playing Civ2 then. Too bad. Maybe you should have been more active around here when it mattered instead whinning like a little wimp now?

No way Yin! I didn't feel the need to be around here when I assumed the players representing this board would be logical thinkers who didn't just wander over from a game of Red Alert. Looks like my assumptions were right if radical dudes such as yourself are calling the shots around here!

You like my ideas? I've got more! Perhaps every civ can get pre-set citizen attributes, such as larger & stronger heart arteries for the Aztecs because they lived high up in the hills where breathing is tougher (this would decrease the likelyhood of Aztec heart attacks in battle, and they could also start out with better disease ratings in the demographics). Who knows, the civ with the stongest type of people could even use technological advances to eventually shoot laser beams out of their eyes! After that, we could make the Russians prone to Nuclear Meltdowns (we all know how chernobyl went!), and the city of San Fransisco will go through Earthquakes every 4 turns so you'd better think about renaming that place, bucko!

Of course we shouldn't stop at pulling reference from the real world, so the sky's the limit! Just think of how cool it would be to control a mythical sea race that can only function underwater. If you're a buttoned down conservative such as myself who prefers building on land, you can still access imaginative civs such as the Oompa Loompa's (who are extra good at using the sweets resource). Just watch out you don't get gobbled up by the ferocious Wang-Doodles, because 150 gold ransom is yours for capturing their leaders!

[Lan_Rover]

I do not reply to forums often- being reserved and all that . But fireaxis seems to be creating a game that I simply will not buy. I do not want civ specific units and will not buy the game if it uses this idea.

[Dylan Baker]

LMAO!

[yin26]

Zylka:

1. Pull your head out a second and go read the List. I appreciate that for a Spaz to focus that long will take TREMENDOUS focus.

2. See how many people argued for unique civs and units (this will require numbers higher than 10, but I'll help as needed).

3. Make a conclusion (again, higher brain function...I'll be glad to make the conclusion for you when your head begins to hurt to much).

4. Next time consider actually making your opinions (pissy rants) known when it actually matters, which it no longer does in case that thought never occured to you.

5. If you are so convinced Civ3 is ruined, please leave this forum and never come back. If the best you can do is drop a load of crap AFTER the decisions are being made, crawl off and ignore the development of another favorite sequel. I'm sure your great insight and active participation will be greatly appreciated elsewhere.

[Bereta_Eder]

My God. Firaxis should imediatly announce their intentions on this issue or we are going to have a war

Yin, I understand your point of view. I don't agree with you. I have said why. Now let's wait and see (while I organise the kidnaping of Sid and place ransom the exclusion of unics )

[yin26]

paiktis22: I also understand your view as well, and I realize I'm in the minority on this. I can only say that I have immense faith in Sid to do it right. Any other programmer and I'd have major doubts.

[Adm.Naismith]

We debated a lot about way to differentiate Civs, by units, government or others aspects.

If I remember right, Brian Reynolds (that surely know some bit about Civ II equal race and SMAC diversified) explained in an interview how game mostly introduced "hard coded" unique traits to game factions a few years ago (Starcraft, Warcraft, Command & Conquer), but now the way to go is to put back the choice into the players hands.

We can live very well with unique units if they aren't "preassigned" to a Civ, but they depend from a player style of play, e.g. player chose a tech tree minor research, so "trade" a special unit instead of another benefit, e.g. a better chemical laboratory to research a bit quicker.

Those aren't flat options, are deep choices. These wouldn't be predefined civ strong and weak points, these would be yours decision effects shaping your Civ. During WW I British developed first early tanks, but between the two World Wars the Germans developed better the concept, then in WW II their blitzkrieg tactic, moulded around Panzer mobility was a winner, until the Ally catched up.

I understand that someone can suppose to draw the best path to gain all the more useful special units, but that can be made less obvious: in peacetime do you still chose Panzer or a better laboratory? Bread and butter or Cannons? Choices.

I hope Yin26 and all the others that vote in favour of Unique units will like this approach, because it save their urge for Civ difference without the limits of prebuilding factions. Others, like me, would enjoy the freedom of a personal path to the Civ.

Is it really too late for a Civ III tweak as mine suggestion?
Let's hope not, or let's start looking around for something else where to put our money: I just discovered a nice restaurant downtown, and may be my wife will love more a romantic lunch then a Civ III game or two; end of this game can be greater, you know

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[aCa]

I must say I think it sounds interesting with the civ specific units. But of coruse only if the mange to balance it well. It's not even sure the civ-specific units have THAT mutch advantige over other units. I don't think you are going to chose a specific country just becouse of the specific unit they have. I really thrust FIRIFAX to make it balanced. And if for some od reason FIRIFAX doesn't manage to make it balanced......... then it just adds a new challange to the game. Play with a country with a crappy civ specific unit and make the Deity level even harder (I know MANY wan't a hard challange like me ). But I really don't see this a problem.

I'm also sure they are going to have an option to include or exlude this special units. That way they will make everyone happy.

aCa

[Greg_was_here]

There should be civ unique-ness or bonus or whatever.
But the dilemma goes to whether it should be pre-given attributes or earned ones?

For playing earth map with fixed starting position, I think the pre-given bonus really makes sense and no doubt it will add extra depth and fun. However, for playing a random map, I think pre-given bonus is utter non-sense. It simply doesn't fit into ever changing factors and variables.

Civ uniqueness should be earned by each civ through game and that's the only applicable way to deal with either the earth map or a random one.

[Zylka]

Fine Yin, I'll push all of this playacting aside.

I seem to have hit close to home with the hostility of your response. Was I right in guessing you wandered over here from a game of starcraft or red alert? Please leave your preference for those low attention-span games elsewhere.

Bottom line is, the majority of players DON'T want civ specific changes. I don't care if more than 10 people are for it (seems like an exaggeration in itself), because 90% of the players don't. Yourself and a few groups of newbies may want it, so go make "exciting" disparity scenarios when civ3 comes out instead.

I know it's hard for someone with your "reasoning" to understand and furthermore accept, but a HUGE majority of players know this is stupid and don't want it. Go crawl back to your insignificant minority hole and stop flooding these forums with newbie babble.

Thanks,
Zylka


[This message has been edited by Zylka (edited April 30, 2001).]