Civ Specific Units

[Grumbold]

I'm not sure but oil is such a key resource that I personally would not allow any modern motorised, sea or air units without it until nuclear powered sea vessels become possible. In its day iron was probably equally important before deep mining techniques basically gave it to everybody. Incidentally, I assume Civ won't even attempt to distinguish between surface, midlevel and deep/undersea mining lodes that become available as tech improves?

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-14-2001 12:21 PM Incidentally, I assume Civ won't even attempt to distinguish between surface, midlevel and deep/undersea mining lodes that become available as tech improves?

I'd say thats a safe assumption, creating actual distinctions would be more realistic but way too much of a pain with micromanagement. However having new resources occasionally appear (triggered by technology say) as happened in SMAC when new resources were "discovered" would be reasonable, but such resources should be treated identically to past discovered resources

[Grumbold]

Having new resources appear as tech is gained would be fine. I wouldn't expect them to be treated any differently unless they already have ocean oil rigs factored in as different from oil exploitation on land.

[Theben]

LoA, do I have to tell you how annoying your last post was?

quote: As mentioned elsewhere, one can make a good comparison between special units and wonders. Imagine if wonders were in the game, but only predetermined civs could have them, for instance when the Egyptians get Stone Building, suddenly they are given the Pyramids. Then, since a lot of people don't like this, the company includes an option to turn off wonders altogether. What a shame that would be, because the company went through all the trouble of coming up with these wonders, doing all the art, playbalancing them, and then with the stupid decision of having the wonders be predetermined, ruin it. Having wonders turned off isn't a great idea, either. This is EXACTLY what Firaxis is doing with special units. If this happened with wonders, would you say you're "more than satisfied" or "perfectly happy" with that?!? I think not!

My sentiments exactly. It would be greatly irritating to have such an idea in game that I must accept as is or turn it off. What happened to "customization"?

quote: Some people are saying well, that may be true, but there's no way Firaxis is going to change things now. Think again. If Civ3 is gonna be released in early 2002, which it probably will be, they have the better part of the year to finish the game. Last we heard, they are only 50% done, and in some reviews they've publically stated how they are still tweaking with how some major features will work (leaders or culture, for instance).

Indeed, the last review (apparently 2 weeks ago) stated that they were still toying with the idea of whether or not to include a "corporate win". Now to me a completely new and different endgame option sounds like a LOT of codework, to either put it in or (less so) remove it. To tweak the game to allow variation of unique units shouldn't be nearly as much work!

Vote for 3rd option!

[Grumbold]

Hurrah. It looks like believers in the third way are massing. My castle is amply stocked for a long seige, you are all welcome to join me on the ramparts. I promise all the beef has been carefully inspected, although my stocks consist mainly of grain and poultry thanks to the recent government led barbecue parties around the country.

Minor techs are one possible choice. Minor wonders are another. Having each one only available to the first player to pick it or free for all to choose from is yet another choice. The status quo is not!

Death or victory! Froth, rant, quotes from ancient battlefields etc ....

------------------
Searching for unique Civilisation growth not predetermined racial templates

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Harlan on 05-14-2001 11:48 PM As mentioned elsewhere, one can make a good comparison between special units and wonders. Imagine if wonders were in the game, but only predetermined civs could have them, for instance when the Egyptians get Stone Building, suddenly they are given the Pyramids. Then, since a lot of people don't like this, the company includes an option to turn off wonders altogether. What a shame that would be, because the company went through all the trouble of coming up with these wonders, doing all the art, playbalancing them, and then with the stupid decision of having the wonders be predetermined, ruin it. Having wonders turned off isn't a great idea, either. This is EXACTLY what Firaxis is doing with special units. If this happened with wonders, would you say you're "more than satisfied" or "perfectly happy" with that?!? I think not!

share your concern, but i doubt from what ive seen that UU's will be as key to gameplay as wonders. Of course this depends on how play styles evolve. they say the zulu impi will be a spearman (warrior?) but with 2 movement. Doesnt sound like much, but im sure some of the hard core players here will be discovering new strategies based on such a unit.

LOTM

[polymths]

To me, simply different names and graphics would be a sufficienly distinguishing touch. Having actually different units might simply seriously unbalance the game.

If the "Panzer tank" has greater MPs or more FP or HPs or whatever than the standard "tank", that difference can really be quite unbalancing!

Therefore even if minor techs or some other way was found such that unique units were not pre-destined, it would still be an issue from that regard that only one Civ can get it.

As an extreme example, the most powerful unit is the "howitzer" in Civ2. Imagine that only one Civ could get it (via pre-destination, minor tech, minor wonder, whatever) and how that would seriously unbalance the game!

So philosophically I have two qualms:
1. Pre-destination (Why are units "pre-destined" when wonders are not?)
2. Balance (If only one Civ can get it, does it provide an overwhelming advantage to that Civ?)

[Bereta_Eder]

First let me say that I am vehemently opposed to unique units no matter the option.

Now.

I was thinking that they must have tried to balance the civs with weak - pre-paleolithic unique units with other bonuses.

Do you rememeber that Jeff from Firaxis said that there will be an option to turn off uniques AND other civ differences?

So if you play Romans or Greeks and are stuck with a legion or (maybe) a phalanx then maybe Romans and Greeks would get HIGHER (say) culture bonuses that would make the citizens happier.

In contrast the Germans that have the Panzer might get a penalty in the number of happy people by making say democracy more unstable in the Germans?

Maybe this bonuses - penalties only last for the duration of the unique units of each civ?

What do you think?

[Grumbold]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-15-2001 03:47 PM So philosophically I have two qualms: 1. Pre-destination (Why are units "pre-destined" when wonders are not?) 2. Balance (If only one Civ can get it, does it provide an overwhelming advantage to that Civ?)

That is why my preferred option is for minor techs or mini wonders that are not predetermined or exclusive. Each nation with the appropriate advances could build or research one of -for example- three different units. So iron working allows you to go on and choose a 2-3-1 legion, a 3-2-1 berserker or a 2-2-2 cataphract unit. Whichever one you choose, it does not affect any other nations ability to build any of them, just your ability to build the other two. In the event playtesting fails and one choice proves to be too powerful, patches/mods can either tone down the unit or switch all the Ai's to favour its use. Hopefully different situations will see you needing those different units. A WW II choice could be a better plane, tank or ship. If you are an island nation the ship chould be the best choice but that won't limit your opponents into only being able to pick the tank or plane.