UNITS (ver1.1): Hosted by JT

[Utrecht]

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!


Not all of us WANT the Unit workshop. I believe that it introduces a level of complexity that Civ games simply do not need.

Honestly,

How many "non-standard" units in SMAC did you use???? After I played with them, I just used the defaults because it was easier and I did not want the micromanagement.

Civ 2, CTP way works fine.

[Mo]

RE: Spies
After further consideration I would keep the spy and diplomat as units. I would eliminate that you have to place a spy in your city for counter espionage, I would rather have it handled like I mentioned above, with the money allowance. If the spy unit stays is there really a need for the offensive espionage money allocation? If it stays would it just improve your odds of suceeding?

[Carolus Rex]

Bell,

I'm not against upgrading, I just think the current system is working fine. It's definitely easy.

I agree 100% with Utrecht's post. What is Civ really about, what is so addictive with it? It can't be designing your own units from scratch, that's for sure.

The SMAC workshop (any workshop?) may be fun the first few times, but then...

Difficulties telling which unit is which, bad graphics to allow customizability of units, no (or very little) gain in gaming experience.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Carolus

[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited May 25, 1999).]

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Utrecht writes:
How many "non-standard" units in SMAC did you use????

When I first started playing I used them quite a bit, and now I use them exclusively, because I turned off the autodesign. I always end up with more varied and more useful units if I design them myself than if I let the game do it for me.

[JT]

THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED

[JT]

THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Let's agree to disagree: it's obvious that we are not going to be unanimous on the requirements of, or necessity for, a workshop.

Yes, you can make a workshop totally unworkable by attempting to define and include every conceivable unit and component. You can also make a workshop unnecessary by so narrowly defining the possible combinations that they are indistinquishable from a small number of set units.
But to say that either case makes a workshop system unnecessary or unworkable for the game is wrong: you are simply indicating that you can't properly define a workshop system that would work in the game.
To take some of the specific straw man arguments advanced:
1. Cannon, Catapults, et al are weapons that have a built-in Chassis: they cannot be mounted on another ground unit chassis because there is no technology contemporary with them that provides one. The only way to move them strategic distances (game map distances) is to tow them behind animals. Period. They can be mounted on Ships, and they could be mounted on a Railroad chassis (if your Tech development is so skewed that you have nothing better than catapults to mount on a railroad chassis, that's another problem entirely). When you get Motorized (wheeled self-propelled vehicles) or Mechanized (tracked self-propelled vehicles) Tech, then you can mount any of the Bombardment (Artillery, Cannon, Howitzer or Battlefield Missile or whatever we end up calling it) Units on those chassis, and get either obsolete or modern mobile artillery units.
The Submarine chassis is limited, in that it is slower and has a lower overall capacity than any surface ship chassis. That is the case with WWI or WWII submarines, which apparently is the model for CivII subs. BUT what if I Upgrade the submarine chassis with Underwater Hull - the modern sub hulls optimized for underwater speed - which is only possible after you've got Nuclear Propulsion. Now you can increase the capacity of the sub chassis, mount extra things on it, or use the capacity to create a Cargo Sub or Amphibious Assault sub: all modern options you don't have in any of the games now.
You could provide Civ-specific special units. Problem is, the variations in capability among modern combat units and equipment come about because of specific requirements, usually related to geographical situations. For example, for modern/WWII era, you could give German Civ better tanks and short-range bombers (historical) and the Americans Long Range Bombers. But the USA developed long range bombers because they were isolated by oceans from all potential foes: what does a player with Germans do if his Random Map puts him on an island half a map away from his enemy?
He should have the option of taking his Airframe-Cargo chassis, making it more expensive by adding 4 or 6 engines instead of 2, optimizing for range (instead of Attack or Defense Factors) and building the type of bomber he needs in That Particular Game.
And, by the way, have the option of naming/designating it.
Stealth, Reconnaissance or Spying Ability, Nuke carrying capability: these are examples of Special Characteristics which each type of chassis will have a varying shot at - and yes, it is not difficult to define that a Chariot or Horseback chassis cannot carry a Nuke!
Or is that a bad example. After all, there were BackPack nuke weapons developed, shouldn't we give the player ALL the options?
Answer: No. The backpack Nuke is already covered in Special Characteristics for Spies.
Non-Military Units, if included (and I personally think they are a Good Thing if done right) cannot fall into precisely the same categories as military units, by definition: if included, the Corporate Branch, Abolitionist, Lawyer, etc, each represent a wildly varying number of people, equipment, and capability.
Mind you, another look should be taken at the interaction between 'military' and 'non military' units. What is the real difference in effect, in game terms, between Production being stopped by a lawyer's injunction or a guerrilla's military action?
Simple answer to the Unconventional Warfare units is that most of their "weapons" would not be available to the military Chassis. Being Unconventional, they might not be subject to the kind of purposeful design that went into military units and weapons in any case: how do you design an Abolitionist?

- or is that another loaded question?

Bottom Line. I can live with a Properly Designed set of Given Units if that's the way the game goes, but I personally think the variations of design in both modern and premodern units by country and conditions are better shown with a Design Workshop/Armory of some kind.
I also think that, like SMAC, any game with a Design Workshop should be designed so that those gamers not interested in that aspect of the game can play happily with 'standard' units. Geez, I want this sucker to SELL large numbers of games so they keep designing more and better ones, and making a game playable only by certain types of players is not the way to go: flexibility always!