Special/Specific units = blech.

[Venger]

This concept, ladies and gentlemen, sucks.

Why? Because the key to Civ is in it's malleable nature - my Civ is what I build it to be. But when you introduce Civ specific advantages, you lose that power to shape it as you see fit, and now have to play with what they see fit...

Now mind you, if we were talking about simply graphical special units, then hey, that's great, it's a visual feature along with city style that doesn't do anything but change looks. But why on earth should only the German player be able to build the Panzer unit? If he get's to build the Panzer, does he also have to build the Auschwitz wonder? If they make a Panzer, a Sherman, a Challenger, a T-34, special just for each country, so be it, as long as it gives no one civ a tactical advantage. My concern is that sure, the German's made a great WW2 tank, but the German Civ in the game may bear no resemblence at all to the real nation, save the name...

I'm all for American F-15's, as long as it doesn't give me some unrealistic advantage based on my Government type. I may want to play the Americans, but that doesn't mean I should get an F-15 improvement or a Slave labor wonder. So special unit looks for flavor, sure, but special units that convey advantage, no...

Venger

[Mister Pleasant]

I'll say it again.

The idea of civ specific stuff doesn't bother me in principle because when I face off against the greeks, I want to face off against the Greeks. Yeah, yeah - if the Greeks had started off in the Mojave, they would be more like the Anasazi. This is the necessity of origin problem in philosophy. In some other possible world though, if the Greeks had a different origin (started in southwestern US or even on a contintent not in the real world) are they still really the same Greeks? Would Alexander the Great's parents have met in such a world? Surely Alexander's (biological) parents are necessary to his existence. So look on the bright side, sure the Vikings would not have been masters of the sea if they did not originate from Scandinavia, but if some group originated from some other place than Scandinavia, would they really be vikings?

If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'? The civs in CTP 1&2 were pretty bloodless and very abstract. So ask yourself if you prefered the robust factions of SMAC or the abstrations of CTP2.

[Cyclotron]

Robust? I played SMAC recently, and it is anyhting but robust. Unbalanced? Yes. Uninteresting? Yes. But not robust.

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd disagree. SMAC was a robust game. Much better than Civ2. The only problem was SMAC is in the future and doesn't deal with history, but the specialness of each faction makes it that much better.

Not that I'm for special units for each civ, but SMAC was a more robust, better game.

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Mister Pleasant on 05-01-2001 06:12 PM If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'? The civs in CTP 1&2 were pretty bloodless and very abstract. So ask yourself if you prefered the robust factions of SMAC or the abstrations of CTP2.

Why call them Germans if they aren't from Germany, which is as much a geographical distinction as any other? The reason is you assume simply some basic, superficial historical info from them - city style, city names...that's about it in Civ2. Period. The Americans can build the Pyramids, the Sioux can build Michaelangelo's Chapel, etc...

To me, special units should fit in the superficial realm - they ought to resemble the source, but they should not beget any special benefit to that Civ. It's the equivalent of only letting the Egyptians build the Pyramids...

Venger

[St Leo]

If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'?

So that memory-friendly city names can be used.

------------------
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/
petrazi@sprint.ca

[ancient]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-01-2001 08:53 PM I'd disagree. SMAC was a robust game. Much better than Civ2. The only problem was SMAC is in the future and doesn't deal with history, but the specialness of each faction makes it that much better. Not that I'm for special units for each civ, but SMAC was a more robust, better game.

scowls ooh i dont like you,,,, civ2 is better than smac.. smac hurts eyes,,

[ancient]

quote: Originally posted by St Leo on 05-01-2001 09:02 PM If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'? So that memory-friendly city names can be used.

ee a your completly right.. you play the civ you like because you like it in real life.. but only now you can controll things you dont like about it..

[Gammaray fan]

So giving Vikings a special ship will be ridiculous if they start off in a landlocked desert. There is an easy solution to this. Although I am totally against civ-specific units (read my post FIRAXIS PLEASE READ: a solution to the Panzer problem) if they are to be included, simply make it so that even on a random map, the computer would place starting cities for each civ, and decide what civs they will be by geographical location. Therefore, Vikings will only ever start next to the sea, Mongols will only ever start on plains etc.

[Mister Pleasant]

Yes SMAC hurt my eyes too, but ...

I've played games where Morgan became the endgame power and games where he had one city defended solely by his allies. Same with the Gaians, the university, the Believers and yes, I even had games where the Hive were easy to take out. Bonuses make your initial choice more interesting.

The addition of borders alone puts SMAC beyond Civ2. The computer's ICS strategy with sea cities, the completely unintuitive set up (what the Hell is the Temple of Planet or the Living Refinery? Sorry, I can't relate), the way the environment works (or fails to), and the graphics drag it down back below civ2. BTW, if you disable sea cities, SMAC is almost as good as Civ2.

Well, there you go. If the Vikings start in the desert, they just won't be Vikings will they? 'Viking' would become merely an easy to remember placeholder. But gee, wasn't that a big complaint with CtP? That CtP civs were bloodless placeholders? It just goes to show you can't please everyone all of the time. The solution is simple - civs with special sea units always start on a coast. Is this really a problem.

Again, I have to say: wait and see. If the game sucks, fire up Civ2. Frankly, I'm dissapointed that Firaxis elected to stay with worker units as opposed to a public works system. But there you go - the only way to get everything you want is to program your own damn game. And no consensus could ever be created on what civ3 should look like.

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Mister Pleasant on 05-02-2001 04:01 AM Well, there you go. If the Vikings start in the desert, they just won't be Vikings will they? 'Viking' would become merely an easy to remember placeholder. But gee, wasn't that a big complaint with CtP? That CtP civs were bloodless placeholders? It just goes to show you can't please everyone all of the time. The solution is simple - civs with special sea units always start on a coast. Is this really a problem. Again, I have to say: wait and see. If the game sucks, fire up Civ2. Frankly, I'm dissapointed that Firaxis elected to stay with worker units as opposed to a public works system. But there you go - the only way to get everything you want is to program your own damn game. And no consensus could ever be created on what civ3 should look like.

My original reply got screwed up and I don't feel like typing it again...suffice it to say any Civ should be able to achieve any goal, and not be locked out of any technology. The reason to play the Aztecs is not to repeat their time on earth, but to shape them into a race withing that game universe...the Romans went under, maybe I can do better than that, and not giving me the ability to research a Panzer or F-15 because those units belong to another Civ sucks...

MEC2
[This message has been edited by Venger (edited May 02, 2001).]

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Mister Pleasant on 05-01-2001 06:12 PM I'll say it again. The idea of civ specific stuff doesn't bother me in principle because when I face off against the greeks, I want to face off against the Greeks. Yeah, yeah - if the Greeks had started off in the Mojave, they would be more like the Anasazi. This is the necessity of origin problem in philosophy. In some other possible world though, if the Greeks had a different origin (started in southwestern US or even on a contintent not in the real world) are they still really the same Greeks? Would Alexander the Great's parents have met in such a world? Surely Alexander's (biological) parents are necessary to his existence. So look on the bright side, sure the Vikings would not have been masters of the sea if they did not originate from Scandinavia, but if some group originated from some other place than Scandinavia, would they really be vikings? If you want the German civ to bear no resemblance to the real Germans, then why call that civ 'Germans'? The civs in CTP 1&2 were pretty bloodless and very abstract. So ask yourself if you prefered the robust factions of SMAC or the abstrations of CTP2.

because the "Real germans" were different in different periods of time, and could have ended up diff in the 20th c if things had gone differently in history.

I can play as english on a real world map and build naval wonders, emphasize trade, go republic, demo, establish colonies around world.
OR i can quickly settle in Northern France, and expand across the continent from there, and play as a land power. If I do so, does it make sense to give me Enlgand's historical naval advantages? The whole point of such a strat would be to explore, in civ terms, the potential of england had she won the 100 years war, and developed as a continental empire. Similarly what if the Hanseatic League had colonized eastern North America, instead of England - would 20th c germany have ended up the same way? (Hint - if anyone other than Prussia had emerged as dominant power in Germany, Germany woudl have been different - most so-called "German" great power charecteristics were really Prussian)

LOTM

[joseph1944]

Guys look at it like this. You are one of 20 people working on what is suppose to be one of the greatest game ever made ( Civ 3 ), and each day you ask your PR man (Dan M) to brief the team on what is being posted on the Apolyton Site each day, how would you feel?
Not every thread, but most of the threads has had negative comments on almost every aspect of the game. The Firaxis group that is working on the project are trying very hard to make a great game and all they hear is negative comments. Last year was really great because we were asked to provide a list of things that we wanted in Civ 3. Most of those comments were positive. Some of you should go back and read some of the request before you tear the game down.
So in the end, 8 civ's is OK with me, so is number in city screen, so is future tech., so is Unique Units, and probability just about any thing else they put into the game. Oh just in case someone said I'm a new guy on the block, I have been around for a while.



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

[Cyclotron]

Joseph, some of us aren't as happy as you would seem to want. So-called "negative comments" are actually quite beneficial as long as they are not directly insulting. We call it constructive criticism. If you don't want to voice your opinion, fine... but the rest of us want to make a difference and get a game we want to play, and not just assume everything will take care of itself.

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

[Roman]

Well said cyclotron7, after all, that is the purpose of these forums.