Get rid of Unique Civs

[tniem]

I know that this was a major discussion when Civ III was in the design phase, but I feel that it is important to bring it up again with the advent of RoN. Please Brian get rid of Civ attributes based arbitrarly before the game is released!

Lets look at what he said in the video about civ attributes.

1) Russia's unique attribute is that if you invade their territory you lose strength due to the environment.

2) Japan's unique attribute is that each city can build ten cars instead of five (or at least that is what it sounded like he said on the video).

Now does anyone find this realistic? Yes Russia does have an imposing territory that has been used as a weapon on Earth. But any people given that territory would have the same thing. In the game, the Russian tribes will not be always placed in a tundra, they could be put in a Bermuda type climate and still have the same attributes.

Likewise, Japanese production came about due to complex social interatcions. Had they not occured, these production abilities would not be there.

This seems way to fixed. In my opinion it is a bad idea. I have not been happy with their use in Civ and do not think that they will be a good idea in RoN. They work in games like AoE or AoK because it is more focused on a shorter span of time but in games that are across all of time their effects are contrived and not that fun. It would be better to have random attributes or ones that evolve from choices made during play such as earning points to pick a new attribute (or some similar system). But fixed attributes? Come on Brian, you can do better than that.

[simwiz2]

agreed, especially about the time-span. I know someone who has EE, and he says that a major problem is that the fixed bonuses become worthless later in time. For example if a certain civ has a +2 arrow range, they won't be much use in the WWII era. In games that span a long period of time, fixed bonuses end up having goofy results.

[Inverse Icarus]

i believe we should have a list of special abilities per civ before we judge.

the abilities could be general and span all the ages...

and i dont think its 10 cars per city... im not sure but i thought i heard bars.

[tniem]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i believe we should have a list of special abilities per civ before we judge.

But even if they are general and span the length of time they are still based on our earth's social interactions and climates. Rewriting history on a different planet would lead to different results and it is why I am not for predefined unique civs for a game of this epic scope.

and i dont think its 10 cars per city... im not sure but i thought i heard bars.

O.k. that makes more sense, I didn't think it could possibly be cars. But even still, it appears bars are some type of production thing. Well, just because historical social interactions caused a strong industry in Japan in our society, it may not be the case in a different history. It is just to fixed and does not lend itself to rewriting history.

[Brian Reynolds]

Some nation power comments/clarifications--

* Nations tend to have one central core "theme" for their power, not a whole array of miscellaneous powers.

* We've tried to strike a balance between the Nation powers that you get "for free" at the start with the geography/territory based Special Resource powers you get for controlling e.g. Aluminum or Horses or Silk, and with the Wonder-of-the-World powers you get for undertaking particular special efforts.

* You also get "powers" based on your level of research in various Library categories... e.g. having more Commerce as opposed to having more Civics, etc.

Some players like Nation powers, some don't. The big "pro" in favor of it from a game design point of view is letting players begin the game by making an important strategic choice; a secondary consideration is making the different nations (which look quite different visually) also "play" differently. But I understand why some players object and I think we've improved on the "just turn off the Nation powers with the checkbox" concept by also having the Resource & Wonder powers: you retain the concept of having "powers" based on geography/territory and on particular efforts/choices you've made in the game.

Brian

[JMarks]

Thanks Brian.

However, what people like tniem and me fear most is that in having that check box to turn off special schtuff, the in game evolutions won't occur the same way if they didn't exist.

That is, civs should develope their traits, not be given them. eg Greeks don't get a hoplite unit as a default. That wouldn't make much sense in open country. However, due to surroundings, like superflous mountain/hill sides and little place for horses, phalanx tactics and hoplite armor comes into being. These evolve again when combined with cavalry tactics (Alexander da Great) and when facing other units like elephants and camals.

the same should go with other traits. If your people have access to bow materials, and of course if you push that use (like the British and their longbowmen) you get great archers with better range or acuracy. If you get horses and archery, you can combine them to make superb cavalry archers. To make it interesting, civs can master all or parts of those aspects. So if I'm in a wooded area and push the archery part, I could get say +2 range bonus in archery, while someone else can get better accuracy. Same could apply later on with other developments. Germans can focus on tanks and get +2 armor or something, while the Americans can get them for25% less or something. Of course when I use these names, I don't mean those civs persay. Rather since we're basing this on history, I mean their social and national interactions which developed them, since there is no way to reduplicate their history, and you wouldn't assume the players will even attempt, much less the AI. Or mabey I should have said that the other way around. If you have civ attributes or units, don't sacrifice the hole aspects we're talking about. And no watered down version, because surroundings, natural and humans, are your history, not predetermined atributes.

Thanks for listening to my rants. Keep up the good work.

JMarks

[One_Dead_Villy]

I agree with tniem and others on this issue and been arguing for that on RON Pantheon, but also I would like to see some civ specific abilities or someway to display some uniqueness. I liked EE for that no civ is cut out of any line but only guided by strategy and the civ bonus choices they themselves choose. But it also leads to a bit of blandness especially in light of everyone having the same look.

I think there is a balance somewhere. I certainly agree that the russian civ advantage is more environmental then cultural...in that regard I think a bit of cultural based civ specific attribute is acceptable, and would be enough. Although its understandable that sometimes its hard to come up with a game element for somethings or some cultural aspects may even be more a stereotype then reality.

[tniem]

Brian, so you have built in a developement of civs throughout the game?

If so, I am glad that this is in. I think that developing civs is an important piece in the strategy that you are looking for in this game. Is this going to be based mainly on research or is some of it going to be based on terrain and/or how the game reacts to your decisions?


I am still not in favor of pregame civ attributes, but I do understand why they are in the game. As long as their is some other uses of attributes in developement during the game I will probably be happy. Good luck with everything and thanks for coming on the boards.

[lord of the mark]

Well you know what i think of unique civs in a 6000 year (or all history) historic game - ie they are unrealistic, dont belong, take away from building your own civ, (and are implicitly racist)

Ive recently been playing AOE on random maps, and i can see what unique units and attributes do for the strategic aspects of a game like that. But for me AOE is so unrealistic, that when i play it on random maps (as opposed to a campaign) that i see it as basically an abstract strategy game in historical dress. A variation on chess. (well, er, uhmm) Civ 2, without being an historical simulation, illustrated grand historical - philosophical themes, which is why i thought adding unique attributes was a travesty. I hope people enjoy civ3, and i may yet buy it someday, but it has clearly left the path of being the ultimate game about human history.

about RON I am torn

On the one hand - its RTS, so do we really expect a deep game??
On the other - EU, city builders, etc have shown that there is no contradiction between RT and depth - and this is BR, after all
On the other - BR indicates there will be unique civs - combined with the AOE/aok look, etc this does not bode well.
On the other - BR acknowledges that many of us have issues with the unique civs, and seems to indicate that the game will be deep and play well without them.

It seems that BR is, marketing-wise, trying to have it all - the EE/Civ3 crowds, as well as those of us looking for something deeper. I dont know how well he will succeed. I can only hope. I have no doubt that he will release a good game (as i believe firaxis did with Civ3) I wonder if he will release a GREAT game.

Lord of the Mark

[Sava]

I like the idea of unique nations. Just be sure to include an editor with the game so I can make my own!

[Kataphraktoi]

agreed, especially about the time-span. I know someone who has EE, and he says that a major problem is that the fixed bonuses become worthless later in time. For example if a certain civ has a +2 arrow range, they won't be much use in the WWII era. In games that span a long period of time, fixed bonuses end up having goofy results.

most EE players only play a few ages at a time.say stone-bronze only....

i believe we should have a list of special abilities per civ before we judge.

the abilities could be general and span all the ages...

and i dont think its 10 cars per city... im not sure but i thought i heard bars

cars? bars??

That is, civs should develope their traits, not be given them. eg Greeks don't get a hoplite unit as a default. That wouldn't make much sense in open country. However, due to surroundings, like superflous mountain/hill sides and little place for horses, phalanx tactics and hoplite armor comes into being. These evolve again when combined with cavalry tactics (Alexander da Great) and when facing other units like elephants and camals.

the same should go with other traits. If your people have access to bow materials, and of course if you push that use (like the British and their longbowmen) you get great archers with better range or acuracy. If you get horses and archery, you can combine them to make superb cavalry archers. To make it interesting, civs can master all or parts of those aspects. So if I'm in a wooded area and push the archery part, I could get say +2 range bonus in archery, while someone else can get better accuracy. Same could apply later on with other developments. Germans can focus on tanks and get +2 armor or something, while the Americans can get them for25% less or something. Of course when I use these names, I don't mean those civs persay. Rather since we're basing this on history, I mean their social and national interactions which developed them, since there is no way to reduplicate their history, and you wouldn't assume the players will even attempt, much less the AI. Or mabey I should have said that the other way around. If you have civ attributes or units, don't sacrifice the hole aspects we're talking about. And no watered down version, because surroundings, natural and humans, are your history, not predetermined atributes.

but i think this is beyond our capabilities right now....

[Crazy Dog]

This means every civ will look the same and feel the same....


That's bulls***! I mean u don't have Greek legionaries (phalanxes, but not legions) or Egyptians with European architecture. I mean, that's unrealistic.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Crazy Dog
That's bulls***! I mean u don't have Greek legionaries (phalanxes, but not legions) or Egyptians with European architecture. I mean, that's unrealistic.

But when you are simulating history what leads to the use of phalanxes instead of chariots many times has to do with terrain and values. Terrain is going to be different in random maps and values as lord of the mark insists (I do now believe rightfully) is inheriently racist. So what the game really needs is some type of evolving civ bonus system that gets points from terrain and your value choices. That way you would have some degree of differences in the civs without them being predetermined and forcing a sterile view of history.

[One_Dead_Villy]

ya a evolution system based on the geography would be right. although the unique techs like russian winter etc kinda complicates this idea. i suppose we could pretend in a game that no matter where Russia gets put that their side of the map is winter wonderland.

but maybe one way to guide research and cultural development is maybe to have local geography make it cheaper for certain research to be done. Like lots of plains would let cavalry and wheeled research cheaper or faster.

[child of Thor]

some kind of editor would be the best way to please most people, still you need to remember this game will cover a huge span of history in about an hours game time, so will it really matter?