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

[yin26]

Two Reasons:

1. If any programmer in the history of gaming has proven himself, it's Sid. Don't agree? That's fine. We disagree on that.

2. I DID MAKE SURE OUR INPUT WAS HEARD! Moreso than for ANY other game EVER. Think about that a moment. Moreso than for ANY other game EVER. 500 pages. They tabbed it, marked all over and read it like a Gamer Feedback Bible.

Now, just because they seem to be going with a minority view on some controversial issues, does that mean they didn't listen or something? Maybe, juuuust maybe, the minority is right here. Ever consider that possibility? And maybe the majority will play the game and say:

"You know what, I'm awfully glad Sid was willing to take some risks and follow what I realize now were awfully damn good ideas."

[Cyclotron]

In addition, Yin: Those 64 civs are only the exact same if you play them that way. We're not talking about realism; we are talking about gameplay. I personally feel that you civ should earn and develop that benefit, not just have it bestowed upon you like a gift from heaven. Like I said, those 64 civs are static if you play them all the same... if you take a different strategy to each one, and try different styles of play, I think that those 64 civs won't seem like one another, or even different because of their abilities... they will seem like your civs, that you created with your own decisions and your own mind. And that, my friend, is what Civ is all about.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[yin26]

I understand your point. But how often does the COMP play a different strategy? For the most part, those 64 civs are played by the COMP exactly the same way most every game. Sure, if we all played against each other, I'd be on your side. But I want computer opponents with different tactics AND different units (to a reasonable degree) to keep ME working to watch them closely and adjust my tactics accordingly.

Now, if you never want YOUR civ (or COMP civs) to have any unique bonuses or units, I am more than sure Firaxis will give you the option to turn it off. If they don't that would be a mistake considering the majority opinion.

I still venture to say, though, you might darn well enjoy the way Sid pulls this off. Only time will tell...
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited April 30, 2001).]

[Jon Miller]

I agree iwth Cyclotron

Jon Miller

[Zylka]

Fine Yin. Have fun according your life on what "Gamespot" tells you, and keep looking up to your hero Sid. No need to arrive at your own opinions. After all Sid will make sure everything is allright, he's Sid. Know something? I know what Sid is doing here and I DON'T like it, my oppinion is not going to change because "he knows what he's doing".

..yet I agree Sid knows a liiiitle bit more than me about making games (refer to previous sentence). He also knows a little bit more about making money these days. Ask someone what "selling out" or re-introducing an old product with unfitting bells and whistles means.

I'm glad you were the first to dismiss with the "I'm not even going to waste time on your ignorance anymore" method. Very original, you sure showed me

Have fun with Alpha Centari 2!


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

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-30-2001 09:54 PM And maybe the majority will play the game and say: "You know what, I'm awfully glad Sid was willing to take some risks and follow what I realize now were awfully damn good ideas."

This certainly is a possibility, Yin. But I consider it equally likely that you guys will play the game and say, "boy, Firaxis didn't do a very good job with that. Why ever did I want these silly unique units?"

Both scenarios are entirely plausible, but you can't blame a guy for speaking on what he knows. My experience is that this is a bad thing, and yours may be that it is a good thing. That's fine.

Yin, promise me you'll stick around long enough for me to buy this game and play it a bit... so at that time we can actually analyze this issue. In the mean time, all we can do is spout our opinions, so spout I shall!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The essence of Civ is to recreate history. To do this, you start with a generic civilization which you can modele to your style. It can be different each time you play because each time you can change styles. This is counter to AoK where when your the Brits, your forced to build Longbowmen to match up against the Teutonic Knights or whatever other UU. I just don't see how giving the Germans pazers at the beginning of the game will let you play that civ to your own style. It puts you down a certain path, just like AoK. UU are good, but not the way we think FIRAXIS has implemented it.

In the List i think that this was inclueded by Im not sure.

After the discovery of Armored Warefare, you have the option to research the tech called 'Panzer tanks'. If you want this UU, then you can research it.If you don't, then you don't have to. Each game, when you get to this point, you have the option to take it, or leave it. If you take it, its gives you an edge in armoured warfare, but you may fall behind in other aspects. Do you want to fight a war now and use this new tech, or wait for more advanced units? This choice in itself is more of an option than if you have panzers at the beginning. You will still have to look out to see which UU the other civs are using against you, but you still have the choice. Historically, the Babylonians were killed off a long time ago. In civ2, they can survive into the 21th century. This may seem wacky, but its alternate history. If they can survive that long, why not also let them research Panzer tanks? Why limit the Panzers to a single civ? This is my primary objection to UU assigned to certain civs. At the dawn of civilization, anything is possible. Did the German civilization know in 4000 BC that they were going to develop Panzers 6000 years later? No! Why give UU to civs, why put each civ down a certain path, when unpredictability is what civ is all about. i fear that veteran players of civ3 will learn how the AI uses panzers, and then the novelty has worn off because they know how to conteract. But if a whole different civ develops Panzers, you might know how to react to them.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Cyclotron]

I think that the only bonuses should be those that the player wins for himself. There is simply no other choice that is not completely destructive to Civilization strategy.

Which would you rather have? The "strategy" of picking one race or the real strategy of developing your Civ over time?

Civ-specific units that are bestowed no matter what at the beginning of the game will be the worst thing to ever befall this game. They are eliminating your own strategy for less "bland" Civs. What a joke!

If you guys scroll down the forum list of topics, it looks like a lot of complaining to me... much of which is justified! Firaxis has made some poor decisions that have many people asking "why?" and Firaxis doesn't seem to have an answer. Truly, "why?" Friaxis? Why ignore people wanting more Civs? Why ignore the many people who recognize the danger of co-called "unique" civs? Why, Firaxis? I'll tell you why: This isn't Civ3, it's SMAC 2. The same engine, looks like. The picture gets clearer: This game is going to suck. I've given my input, and many other people have too... and have been ignored. Well, when it comes out, and it DOES suck, at least I won't have myself to blame.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[yin26]

cyclotron7: I was here when the forum started, and I'll be here a long time after Civ3 is released. I think you are absolutely right: I may well totally dislike the way things turn out. As you rightly mention, we must both play the game now to see...

[Chronus]

Okay, I'm not exactly sure what all this hub bub is about. Is this an argument over Unique vs. Generic civs, or is it REALLY an argument about whether unique civs can be turned on or off with a "switch".

I think most of us "generic civ" folks would have no problem with unique civs as long as it is optional. Everybody is yaking as if it's going to be one way or the other (and, yes, I understand that SMAC can leave us with this impression). So then, can we all agree that making unique civs as an option is a good thing? And since there doesn't seem to be any official announcement, can we all wait and see if Sid (the master programmer, etc., etc.) will make it an option just as it is in AOK?

Voice our opinions? Yes. But it's a bit too early for all this whining and crying (not to mention silly).

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-30-2001 12:08 PM Civ-specific units that are bestowed no matter what at the beginning of the game will be the worst thing to ever befall this game.

What are we talking about here? Civ-specific units ONLY?

What I voted against in that "Civ-specific" poll, was the whole shebang: specific science-, trade-, production-, happiness-, combat-benefits/trade-offs for each and every damn Civ (ala SMAC). That I didnt like.

Still: if its checkbox optional I guess I can live with it. Barely...

If we instead are talking about civ-specific units ONLY; Well, then whats the big deal? The only thing I would recommend then is some easy way to determine the ADM-data for that forreign looking unit - for example by right-clicking the unit. I hate to be forced to load, and scroll through the civilopedia each and every time. Rightclick ADM-data is helpful for scenarios also - especially in SciFi & fantasy-scenarios with often very strange and indefinable looking units.

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

[Cyclotron]

Well Yin, I will buy it no matter how it turns out... First of all, I really want to see the final product... and second of all, Lancer's IHN declared me the second-best Civ3 player ever, and I can't pass that opportunity up!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Imran Siddiqui]

First off, we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how this will be implimented. The Civ3 forums seem to be suffering from people who jump too soon to conclusions. I suggest a wait and see attitude.

Secondly:

quote: Civ is all about strategy. What kind of fool would choose a civ that puts him/her in a strategic disadvantage? I expect the AI (or MP) to challenge me.

*cough*SMAC*cough*

Also, addendum to second point: For those that think this is SMAC2 or Sid 'selling out', you really don't get it, do you? Compare Civ1 to Civ2. I think all the new information we've recieved about Civ3 (which is still only 50% complete) shows that Civ3 from Civ2 (or SMAC) is a MUCH BIGGER jump than Civ2 from Civ1. Where were you saying Civ2 was a sell out? And if this is SMAC2 (different starting point, btw... you might have missed that), then so be it. I loved SMAC...

Thirdly:

Sid is the best game designer on the planet. If anyone can make anything work it is him. If it turns out to suck, Sid is 'man enough' to take it out of the game. It's SID we are talking about!!! While I do not like the idea of unique units, I'll see what Sid comes up with. I know I'll buy it, since Sid has never disappointed me.

And, Fourthy:

Zylka, do you know how annoying you are? Did you just come from Red Alert time? Yin, while I don't agree with him on everything, is a well respected poster who led the bug search in SMAC and led 'The List' project. You are nothing compared to him. While I do not agree with him here, I respect his view and see where he is coming from, and I don't have to call him names or question his intelligence. And, yeah, I'm a Deity.. though I don't see why Chieftans and Settlers can't join the debate.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Chronus on 05-01-2001 12:51 AM Okay, I'm not exactly sure what all this hub bub is about. Is this an argument over Unique vs. Generic civs, or is it REALLY an argument about whether unique civs can be turned on or off with a "switch".

I agree! A while ago I understood better all the grunts against the original larger issue of SMAC-faction style benefits/trade-offs, although that also, an most certainly will be 100% optional ala AOK, IF its implemented that is. I however havent heard any final confirmations on this bigger version yet. Besides: if its optional; well, that means exactly what its says: OPTIONAL - a completely free choice. Dont like it? Dont choose it.

But the comparibly minor issue of civ-specific units? Hell, thats even easier for Firaxis to make that optional. Remember the huge selection of game-preference checkbox options in SMAC? Its likely that Civ-3 is going to have a similar broad range of checkbox options in Civ-3. And the text tweak-files are also likely to be even more advanced, extensive and accessible then the Civ-2/SMAC counterparts. So what the heck is all this fuss about?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 01, 2001).]

[Il principe]

I agree with the last post of Lawrence of Arabia