Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Opinion: Unique Units == Fall and Rise of Civilizations + Firaxis, Read.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Opinion: Unique Units == Fall and Rise of Civilizations + Firaxis, Read.

    "What do you mean nutcase?" You ask.

    Well, look at it this way. We wanted to represent superiority of certain nations over others at different points in time, Right? "Right" you answer with a puzzled look. Now, what can be done to present it?

    A) Special random leaders that appear randomly in civlizations. "But wait" you say, "This is already in Civ III!" AHA! I yell making you jump in surprise. So they did implement it.


    What do we know about the Rise and Fall of Civilization historically? We know the Romans and Greek were leaders of the ancient world since they had Phalanxes and Legions. We also know that they faded away later, when Arabs, Franks, Mongols and Vikings became powerfull. "Yes" you say. What hapenned later? "New civilizations appeared and were strong: The English become a united powerfull nation, and so did the Chinese and Spanish. And after that, Germany became strong in the end of the 19th century. After that Russia began gaining power because of stalin's 5 year productivization plans. And after the 40s, the most Powerfull nation became - US.

    Now how can we mimic that? I ask. "We could give each civ dominant in a specific age a special stronger unit". AHA! I yell again, making you fall from your chair. "That's right" You say, "This is exactly what Firaxis has done! Yey to Firaxis!"

    Hold your horses! I say. Think about it. "Wait, but isn't it a bit fixed?", You ask. "Shouldn't we as Civilization players replay history instead of renacting it as it was?". Indeed.


    Firaxis are giving us Fall and Rise of Civilizations. But it's a permanent historical one. Just like in Civ 2, Japanese were always militaristic, and the Greeks were always expantionist and the Babylonians always perfectionist. However that created a situation which made some civs to be powerfull for the whole game. Unique units allows rise and fall of civilizations, while sucrificing "real" uniqueness by allowing each Civ to take it's path randomly.

    I think it would be better to implement using the Leaders and Artists and SCientists that Firaxis did. I think that if we had a set of random picked personalities for Civilizations, that would change a number of times during a set game it would be better and more random. Why must Romans be the strongest of the classical age civilizations every time I play?


    The bottom line is, Firaxis did implement what we asked for. They did it in more ways than we thought possible. Yes, I am annyed by unique units and unique civs. And I'm sad that my random personatlities that change during one game offer didn't get in the game. I think it didn't even get in the list. Mainly since I didn't know how to get it there (*hint* *hint*).

    But the main point is that Firaxis have listened and tried to do everything like we said. Sure, some of the implimentations are in ways which might hinder other gameplay issues for several people (including myself). But remember when they said "Don't just say: I want rise and fall of civs. Offer how to implement it"? They meant it. I didn't submit my random changing personalities idea, so Firaxis used their own. I can't blame them for it. Well, sure I can, but I won't .


    So, what I hope now, is that people will understand that Firaxis do listen, and we can make a change. Also, there is a reason I bolded my suggestion. Firaxis, if you read this, and haven't made the AI yet, use my Idea. I understand you can't take Unique units out, now that you've told everyone about them, and hey, who knows, it might turn out cool. But my idea is cool also.

    ---------------For FIRAXIS------------(Cut Here)------------

    Personalities
    Each civ, should have a set of, say 5 different leaders, with their own tendencies. Let's take the romans for example:
    Caesar: Militaristic Expansionist.
    Neuron: uhm... A bum (would make empire get small and broke)
    The Pope: would make a perfectionist theocracy.
    Garibaldy: militaristic, rational
    Someone else: Ok, so I don't know that much about Roman leaders

    In the beginning of each game, each civ randomly picks one leader. During the game, the leaders randomly change, at random intervals, also caused by random events. Meaning:
    Every 50 turns there is a 10% chance for a leader change.
    When losing the Capital there is a 40% for a leader change.
    Every 2000 years there is a 50% for a change.
    When loosing at war there is a 25% chance for a change.
    And so on.

    There is no need for all 5 predefined civs to appear in a single game. It can happen. There is also no restriction as to the number of times one leader can be chosen. Example: Rome starts with Caesar, around 300 AD changes to Neuron, Then at 1200 AD changes back to Caesar, then back to Neuron in 1850, until the end of the game.


    This is a change between 5 pre difned sets of goals, for each civilization, which can happen several times per game and should happen at least once or twice. Effort should be put so the leader doesn't ususally change too often as that would certainly make a civilization loose (One leader will buildup army, the other would disband it and start economic growth, the next will kill economic growth and starts bulding settlers. That way no leader will have real effect on the Civ as his work is soon cancelled by another leader and the Civ is stagnant.).

    This isn't too difficult (I imagine) and will contribute allot to the rise and fall of civilizations, to the randomality of each game, and mainly to the replayability which is a key feature.


    --------(End Cut Here)-----------

    I was glad to share my view, and possibly bring peace between Firaxis and the fans here. I was also glad possibly contributing my idea to the greatest Civ game ever (Firaxis, *hint* *hint*).


    You've been a great audience. Thank you.

    EDIT: I wan't to clarify that the main goal of this thread is my idea of how Unique Units contributes to the Fall and Rise of Civilizations. The personalitites thingy I'm promoting is just a byproduct. I bumped my thread on that issue...
    [This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited May 12, 2001).]

  • #2
    That would be Garibaldi

    ------------------
    Its okay to smile; you're in America now
    "Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini

    Comment


    • #3
      quote:

      Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 05-12-2001 03:47 PM
      That would be Garibaldi




      thanks.

      Comment


      • #4
        Good idea, very difficult to make it work in the AI. Computer would have a fit trying to get 7-15 civs to coordinate a coherent long-term strategy when leaders are changing left and right.

        Instead of changing leaders instantly, why not have the civ AI simply change orientation gradually over a period of time. Remember, those leaders only lived for a 50-70 years, and held power for even less. They didn't really change the historical (100-500 year span) orientation of their civ.

        A gradual change might be something like this:

        1. Peace-loving Indians found civ. Meet Zulus. Get their assed kick.
        2. Indians pump out more military units. Still get ass kicked.
        3. Indians become more militaristic. Civ orientation changes.

        or

        1. Zulus found civ, kick ass, conquer territory.
        2. Zulus build military, economy stagnates.
        3. Zulus meet other civs and realize their economy is backward.
        4. Zulus re-orient from militaristic to more economistic.

        Then you could have the Meiji Restoration!
        :::Krypter:::
        Sic Semper Tyrannis

        Comment


        • #5
          quote:

          Why must Romans be the strongest of the classical age civilizations every time I play?


          Who says this will result because of unique units? YES, the Romans might get a boost, but nothing says this will make them strongest of the classical age...
          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

          Comment


          • #6
            Sirotnikov:

            I have always keept my fingers crossed for the Rise-and-fall feature together with some clever anti-ICS and anti-BAB preventions. I have not time with a lengthy reply just now, but I have read your post and I can see what you aiming at. My only hope is that they dont "overdo" it though - this one must be tweaked carefully and with some afterthought - and also; fine-tweakable through the Rules.txt files.

            [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 12, 2001).]

            Comment


            • #7
              quote:

              Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-12-2001 05:10 PM
              Who says this will result because of unique units? YES, the Romans might get a boost, but nothing says this will make them strongest of the classical age...

              Having an attack / defense unit with better stats is surely a good way to promise a serious boost.

              Comment


              • #8
                Krypter, I didn't mean for the AI to change every 50 years. I meant that it should change from 3 to 6 times in one game.

                Otherwise, the greeks will always build a zillions of small cities, and send destroyers against my naval fortress

                Comment


                • #9
                  Quote from Firaxis site:

                  "Great nations can produce gifted leaders from history, each one capable of leading your civilization to martial glory. Whether helming* an army on a distant battlefield or passing their personal experiences onto future generations of soldiers, these towering figures can single-handedly alter the course of history."
                  * Helming = Helping?

                  It seems to me that these gifted military leader-units can be used in at least two different ways: either...
                  [*] boost the strenght of any single army by its own presence in it, or... [*] stay within any city and "rub off" íts experience on military units produced from that city.

                  I dont think that these leaders instantly changes the ADM-data for each and every unit within that empire. That would totally unbalance the game. It ONLY changes it under above two conditions - and ONLY for a certain period of the timeline. At least this is what I believe they mean.

                  [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 12, 2001).]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Maybe, but it still gives some help to the civ they are hosted in. This gives some civ a small edge on competition.

                    And I was interested so I checked:

                    Hemling (v.t.): To steer, direct.
                    Random House Webster's Electronic Dictionary

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      quote:

                      Having an attack / defense unit with better stats is surely a good way to promise a serious boost.


                      How serious? If it is simply a +1 to defense or attack is it really a serious boost?
                      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        quote:

                        Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 05-12-2001 07:41 PM
                        Maybe, but it still gives some help to the civ they are hosted in. This gives some civ a small edge on competition.


                        Yes, I agree - but my point is that they shouldnt go any further then that, because it would unbalance the game. I DONT want to meet standard-looking AI-armies/units that suddenly are A: 3 times as powerful (definitly too much), and B: I dont have a clue why im suddenly losing. Besides; the human player is perhaps more likely to effectively take advantage of this feature then the AI is.

                        Some kind of visibe unit-flag is needed so one can see that this unit/army is leader-inspirated; better combat-value. Also the increased combat-value should give you an distinctive edge - yes. But only so much; only to that army/those produced units; and only within specific ages. Finally; army-leaders should perhaps only boost land-units; navy-leaders only sea-units; airforce-leaders only air-units...

                        Thus my previous comment:

                        "My only hope is that they dont "overdo" it though - this one must be tweaked carefully and with some afterthought - and also; fine-tweakable through the Rules.txt files."

                        [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 12, 2001).]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          quote:

                          Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-12-2001 07:59 PM
                          How serious? If it is simply a +1 to defense or attack is it really a serious boost?

                          Hmmm... think of Musketeers against.... anything else you have had before that time period. :d

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X