Special/Specific units = blech.

[Youngsun]

I second that, too. Without constructive criticism, we're going nowhere. People's diverse opinions should be accomodated and that's what this forum is all about. Discussion, debate, suggestion and criticism all helps to make the forum healthy and robust.

[Ubersandwich]

I can see both points. Yeah, It would be nice if the civs were more than just placeholders, that each one had a unique feel to them. On the other hand, it would kind of suck to have my special unit be the Panzer if I chose to play Germany and wanted to take a different road then that of a warrior.
I suppose there could be two answers to this: One, having the unique units be unique only in animation and not implimentation. (As mentioned earlier in this thread)
Two, Having a HUGE tech tree that has many paths to reach the endgame, yet impossible to cover for one civ. Alas, this seems quite complicated and too late to implement (unless somthing is already in the works, I am unsure. It is quite difficult to discern what is actually in the game, as opposed to what people wish to be in the game.)
None the less, although I am far from being a dittohead for Firaxis, I am confident that this newest incarnation of the Civ series will not disappoint. Unless we get ourselves wipped into an unrealistic frenzy (I have spent too much time on Black and White's bulleten board recently...yikes.)

[tniem]

The best way to deal with unique civs is to have each nationality have certain tendencies. These tendencies would lead to the public opinion of a country which would determine the AI's strategy and shape a human's strategey.

For example, Germans would tend to be agressive and militarily oriented. This could lead in the game to the AI player following his people's feelings and starting multiple World Wars or simply lead to an agressive diplomatic stance. While on the other hand, the English would tend to be expansionist tendencies. This would mean the country would like to form overseas colonies if possible, but the AI would adapt if it could not expand. Instead maybe they try to win the space race.

See, I think unique civs, nationalities, and public opinion could all be great additions to Civ III if put together in a nice package. It would put a nation into a normal type of strategy but give the AI tremendous flexibility - even if it is almost impossible to program.

[joseph1944]

My main concerns are that I don’t want Firaxis to stop feeding us info because of the criticism. Remember these programmer are people with feeling trying to upgrade a game that is consider to be one of the best ever made.

------------------

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-04-2001 09:10 PM The best way to deal with unique civs is to have each nationality have certain tendencies. These tendencies would lead to the public opinion of a country which would determine the AI's strategy and shape a human's strategey. For example, Germans would tend to be agressive and militarily oriented.

Well maybe Hans doesn't want to play his country as aggressive. What does Japan get? Feudal tendencies (pre Industry)? Aggressive tendencies (WW2)? Pacifist tendencies (post WW2)? Do they get an economic bonus (to 1985) or no economic bonus (pre WW2 and post 1985)?

quote: This could lead in the game to the AI player following his people's feelings and starting multiple World Wars or simply lead to an agressive diplomatic stance. While on the other hand, the English would tend to be expansionist tendencies. This would mean the country would like to form overseas colonies if possible, but the AI would adapt if it could not expand. Instead maybe they try to win the space race.

Civ 2 already gives them preconceived tendencies - but only for the AI. You are free to play the Mongols as a peaceful Civ if you like...

quote: See, I think unique civs, nationalities, and public opinion could all be great additions to Civ III if put together in a nice package. It would put a nation into a normal type of strategy but give the AI tremendous flexibility - even if it is almost impossible to program.

I agree, but they should be specific on government and Civ type, not Civ name. So a Capitalist Democracy could have certain traits, but that isn't limited or special for the Americans only.

Venger

[Warm Beer]

As far as Civ specific units go, does anyone know if Firaxis is planning on having only one specific unit per civ, or a whole line (keeping with the German example the Teutonic Knight eventually being replaced by the Panzer, of in stance.)?

[Mister Pleasant]

If the modern American unit is the F-15, then what would the other period units be?

(1)Industrial Age: Cowboys? Special Ironclads? Protosubmarines (Hunley-type vehicles)?
(2)Medieval/Renassiance/Age of Enlightenment: Puritains (non-conventional attack: annoy!)? Minutemen? Irish and Chinese work gangs (more efficient than normal workers)?
(3)Ancient:guess we have a problem here.

Maybe Firaxis should have tried this:

When captured, cities retain flag of previous owner.

Angry English cites that were captured from Iroquois revolt into Americans or Canadians (or both if enough go at once).
Angry Spanish Cities captured from Aztecs revolt into Mexicans
Angry Spanish cities captured from Incans revolt into Peruvians

Perhaps the rule could be that when the above civs are obliterated from the map - then these new civs pop up if the Brits or Spainiards hold any of those cities.

Human Player has choice of which empire to become. (Choosing the Newbie empire gives a score bonus perhaps). Thus some empires cannot be chosen initially but can be "unlocked" later. Including Appropriate name changes for the cities involved. Its the only way to capture the flavor of the western hemisphere, and frankly I'm tiered of Civ games being so anti-western hemisphere.

[Mister Pleasant]

Here's another idea - when American cities get unhappy and revolt, who pops up? The Confederacy! That's right, give Jeff Davis a good whuppin'. Guess their special unit would have to be special ironclad or a hunley-like protosub (that moves on rivers too).

Maybe latter day "barbarians" should be named after terrorist groups. Somehow, the Magyars or Vandals just don't sound very scary in the modern age. But Sendero, ELF, Zapatistas, Basque Separatists, the IRA, and the Michigan Freemen do sound a little scary. These could even be specific about the civ they appear near.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-04-2001 09:10 PM The best way to deal with unique civs is to have each nationality have certain tendencies. These tendencies would lead to the public opinion of a country which would determine the AI's strategy and shape a human's strategey. For example, Germans would tend to be agressive and militarily oriented

Like the Austrians ("let others wage war, you happy austria, marry")
Or the Bavarians? Or the Hanseatic League? Or like the BundesRepublik?(modern Federal Republic of Germany, for the less well-informed)

LOTM

[Kc7mxo]

this is silly. making judgmeent's about baisc cultural tendencies will only get the game classified as rascist. i want my civ to be what i make of it, not defined by its special abilties.

if they are going to have unique advantages to each civ, first they should be too powerful. second they should be RANDOM. utterly and compeltly random. Otherwise you're expecting them to make judgements on various races.

What would the aztecs get, special bonus to sacrifices? How about giving my ancestors ( the germans ) concentration camps. Or us americans a special cia unit that will betray everything our country stands for as long as he's on foreign soil. See where this is going?

On the other hand, how abotu if hey're made in a different fashion. Perhaps a civ can get barracks a little cheaper, or another civ gets an extra unit of trade for every two he already has on a square. Anyone played Master of Orion? Yes. Like that.

Of course in MOO there were some traits that were simply TOO powerful.

Personally, i think civs should bewhat you amke of them. The names ARE just place holders. Have any of you had a REAL game (not a scenario) of civ where this hasn't been true? I haven't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: We call it constructive criticism.

It's only constructive criticism if you know what the Hell you're talking about. But you don't, I don't, no one does! Let Firaxis tell us how these ideas work instead of being Chicken Little yelling 'the sky is falling' because of a throw away piece of information in some preview.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-06-2001 01:03 PM Like the Austrians ("let others wage war, you happy austria, marry") Or the Bavarians? Or the Hanseatic League? Or like the BundesRepublik?(modern Federal Republic of Germany, for the less well-informed) LOTM

I believe that I have heard 16 civs will be in the game. Tell me do you really believe that the nations, organizations you have mentioned are among the top 16 empires in world history that will be included in the game?

I certainly do not, my apologies to those offended.

And do I believe that Germany has a historical tendencies, yes I do. Over history I do believe that my ancestors were Militaristic and Agressive. Hey Germans destroyed Rome and the culture formed England and other nations. So, yes I do believe tendencies of a culture can be found by looking back at a nationality's history.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-07-2001 05:08 PM I believe that I have heard 16 civs will be in the game. Tell me do you really believe that the nations, organizations you have mentioned are among the top 16 empires in world history that will be included in the game? I certainly do not, my apologies to those offended. And do I believe that Germany has a historical tendencies, yes I do. Over history I do believe that my ancestors were Militaristic and Agressive. Hey Germans destroyed Rome and the culture formed England and other nations. So, yes I do believe tendencies of a culture can be found by looking back at a nationality's history.

The other "nations" i have mentioned were all GERMANS. Historical accident that Prussia ended up unifying Germany. And, no the BAvarians, Austrians, ec were no more aggressive than any other European people. And the BundesRepublik IS Germany today. Germany WAS aggressive 1871 to 1945. A germany that was Prussian, that had a peculiar development due to its late unification, and that was highly influenced by the just the sort of racialist ideologies I am struggling against here.

LOTM