 |
| |
|
|
Sn00py
|
 |
From New Zealand
Aug 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
This time round I am not interested in just posting what I think should be added in Civ4, I do think that this is a waste of time and almost a pointless read for Firaxis.
If I were Firaxis, I would probably be much more keen on reading ideas that have been thoroughly thought through, explained very well and connected it with the actual gameplay essense of Civilization 4.
Since I am very interested in this Unit Workshop Idea, I am very willing to create graphics (Interface, icons, whatever) to demonstrate this idea in action and how it could be a great feature for Civ4.
However, I am going to need some help. I will just post what was said in another thread so you understand what we are talking about first.
=====================================
Imagine it, when you get a new tech, or you are going to war, and you need to design a new unit for your new war, then you simply go into the barracks window or whatever,
1st select human/vehicle/aircraft/ship
2nd you select its armor, you could select anything from bronze to steel or titanium, all depending on your tech, and you could select its thickness. The thicker it is, the heaver it is.
3rd you select its offensive weapons, obviously what you get depends on the techs you have, some are light, some are heavy, some are weak, some are strong, each with their own advantages and disadvantages with themselves and against opponent units.
finally, if its a vehicle or aircraft, you select its engine type, or if its a sail ship, you select how many sails it has (I dunno! SOMETHING!).
And then once all this is done, the game calculates everything together, and tells you what terrains it can and or can't go over (coz maybe its too heavy, etc) how fast it can go, how far it can go, its offense and defense strength and of course, its costs.
=====================================
So what I need frome people are the types of material that can be used (bronze, steel, etc) types of weapons (defensive and offensive), what type of "vehicle" can these weapons fit on? what sort of weight does each weapon have, that sort of thing.
How should this Workshop run? Is it all on one screen? or is it a step by step screen, should it be a very very simple task to do? Anything you can think of.
I am hoping to create our own little Unit Workshop, I'll be posting screenshots of it, and probably even having a small working model (just for display and test reasons).
I'm not trying to create something FOR firaxis. I am just doing this to see how good this feature could be and to truly help Firaxis out with this idea. Rather than just say "Oh, I hope they add the Unit Workshop".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
123john321
|
|
I would like it, but only a( if I don't have to use it, there are already premade unitls, and b( if I don't have to reseach it serpterly( or I'd NEVER bulid untils!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
i'll give a simple example.
you'll start off the game with a simple solder chasis, capable of carrying a primary weapon, a shield, and perhaps an item.
so you have a structure something like this:
[Unit Name]
- Primary Weapon
- Shield
- Item
then, each tech would allow you to build ITEMS. for example, bronze working would allow bronze spears and broze shields, and iron working would allow iron swords. each ITEM you can build would have A.D.M values (or another system of stats) associated with it.
the base unit (warrior) would be 1/1/1. give him a bronze shield (+1 defense) and he gets 1/2/1. an iron sword (+2 attack) makes him 3/2/1. etc, etc. each part of the unit would also have a COST, which is VERY IMPORTANT. if you need a lot of defenders NOW, you won't give them the iron swords (as they're worthless on defense) and the unit would cost, say, 10 shields cheaper.
so techs would give you different items to add to units, and would eventually add different "chasis", or "unit types", like horseback units with a base of 1/1/2. give them iron swords they'll be 3/1/2, etc etc.
you could make items chasis-specific if you wanted to, as iron swords might not be as effective on horseback as, say long spears.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
I am against having a unit workshop in Civ, though I loved it greatly in SMAC.
Part of the joy in Civ is the "recreating history" feel, and somehow tinkering with units in a workshop just doesn't feel like it has the same majesty.
A drawback of this sort of system in Civ is that you will essentially be "designing" the same units that would be viable if they came prepackaged. In SMAC this was countered by leaving good units out of the list to let the player discover them. Then, when the player discovered them the game was set out of balance because the AI coldn't design or build its own units.
If we give the AI the ability to design intelligent units, then the "auto-design" feature would design every good unit, and we would be left with "stock" units that look clunkier than they would if units were not "designed."
And let's face it... after a while you build the same units all the time anyhow.
Also, unit design workshops leave out the ability to smoothly implement unique units, which was well liked in Civ 3 and would not likely be on Firaxis' list of things to do away with.
And Uber KruX... the unit wihtout a sword being cheaper to build... well, that's in the game without unit design. Careful design and balancing are what is needed, not a workshop, in my opinion.
As a side note of sorts...
As a big supporter of army combat, that is to say a system more similar to CtP than Civ, I see lots of potential for army design, with "stock" units. A good Firaxis designed set of units - with combat situation bonses (pikes vs. horse, for example) and a vast array of historical units - could make army design a much more interesting minigame than simply deciding how many attack points you want on your attacker, and what "chasis" you want it to ride in on.
Just my two cents worth, anyhow.
Regards,
Fosse
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sn00py
|
|
From New Zealand
Aug 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
I am against having a unit workshop in Civ, though I loved it greatly in SMAC.
Part of the joy in Civ is the "recreating history" feel, and somehow tinkering with units in a workshop just doesn't feel like it has the same majesty.
A drawback of this sort of system in Civ is that you will essentially be "designing" the same units that would be viable if they came prepackaged. In SMAC this was countered by leaving good units out of the list to let the player discover them. Then, when the player discovered them the game was set out of balance because the AI coldn't design or build its own units.
If we give the AI the ability to design intelligent units, then the "auto-design" feature would design every good unit, and we would be left with "stock" units that look clunkier than they would if units were not "designed."
And let's face it... after a while you build the same units all the time anyhow.
Also, unit design workshops leave out the ability to smoothly implement unique units, which was well liked in Civ 3 and would not likely be on Firaxis' list of things to do away with.
And Uber KruX... the unit wihtout a sword being cheaper to build... well, that's in the game without unit design. Careful design and balancing are what is needed, not a workshop, in my opinion.
As a side note of sorts...
As a big supporter of army combat, that is to say a system more similar to CtP than Civ, I see lots of potential for army design, with "stock" units. A good Firaxis designed set of units - with combat situation bonses (pikes vs. horse, for example) and a vast array of historical units - could make army design a much more interesting minigame than simply deciding how many attack points you want on your attacker, and what "chasis" you want it to ride in on.
Just my two cents worth, anyhow.
Regards,
Fosse |
I appreciate your in depth answers Fosse.
I don't wish to counter-act people with their arguements, but I do want to make sure that we have thought this through thoroughly before flushing it down the toilet.
1st of all, one of the problems for Firaxis is the unit creating, it seems to take them a long time, and probably even takes up a lot of computer resources the more units you add, I'm not sure on Firaxis' reasons for not supplying most units in history, but one of the great powers of the UW is that Firaxis only has to develop the base unit (i.e. Human, Hull for the ship, body for the plane, etc) Then Firaxis' has to simply create each weapon that will fit in the hands/back/body/hull of the base unit. Just like the way Diablo works. Of course, to get this to work properly, they would have to make the units 3D - so similar to Rise of Nations units, but I hope that if Firaxis were to go down that line, that the graphics would be 10x better!
To your 2nd reason, I do understand that flaw. But the scenario's I am seeing are that people will face an opponent unit they are having trouble with. So you go to the UW to try and develop a unit that would counter-act that unit, that unit could end up being very costly, or it could require a resource that you don't have a lot of, or maybe you are able to produce a lot of them with ease, and so your opponent has to build something to counter-act your units. This whole feature results in Civ's creating their own unique units; its also historically accurate that not every civ will have the same unit.
By the way, it would be very cool if you could name this type of unit that you create, but if you create a unit that has already existed, (like a Phalanx for example), then the unit you created automatically gets named "Phalanx".
You wouldn't build the same units every time, because there would be so many variations and problems (resources?) that would encounter you. Also, you may try a different way to build a unit to counter-act a unit that you have seen in a previous game. What I do see in the future is people discussing how to build a unit to best attack another unit or defend, whatever. Lots of variations!!
I understand the micromanagement flaw also, but like I said, I don't think that's going to be such a huge problem. Let's not remind ourselves of SMAC - I found that to be tedious to use; I do think that the UW can be done better to cut down on micromanagement. I think it would be a simple 1, 2, 3 step process, and its done.
Last edited by Sn00py on 19-12-2003 at 15:59
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sn00py
|
|
From New Zealand
Aug 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
Fosse,
I don't actually know a lot about the SMAC UW. But I am clear as to what I think Civ4's UW should be like. (to a certain extent).
And yes, no stupid units like from CtP.
Ok, like I said, I don't know much about SMAC's UW, but I invision it being much easier to differentiate unit from unit. For example, a sword is a sword, there are no variations of it. So when you come across a unit, and that unit is a human and is carrying a sword and a sheild, you should know straight away what sort of unit this is, (roughly) - obviously it will take a few games to get to know the items in the UW. But since its civ, and not some far out space game, it's going to be logical that a sword is more powerful than a club.
One problem I foresee is that people may find it either frustrating, or really cool (because civ's 'discovery' essense is one of its greatest parts). And that is... How will people know exactly how strong a unit is in offense or defense? Well, I don't think people should know, but I do think that there needs to be a feature in Civ4 that allows you to gather information from other Civ's. I'm not sure, but I think this is historically accurate?
Ok, and about the items/pieces of the units, such as weapons, defensive armor, etc, I think that since each one won't be of high polygons, and that each one will be small, I am quite certain that the amount of work needed wouldn't be as difficult as it may seem.
Unique Units, well, you are rewriting history, so a lot of units you make will be unique in your game - not just one unit! I do understand that people like the fact that only the Romans can build the legion. Well I don't think that should stop Firaxis from allowing such a feature.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sn00py
|
|
From New Zealand
Aug 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
Sn00py,
Can you explain please what do you think is possible to achieve by unit workshop, which is not possible to achieve without it? Counters to the units? You still can have it through research of the specific units or unit upgrades (like in most RTS) without having to design the units. What else? Saving the development time? I do not think that it is true ether, because you still have to have a number of visually distinguishable units, only now the number is much larger. I just do not get it! |
What is not possible? Ok, one of the things I did not mention was clothing. I'm quite certain it would be easy for Firaxis' artists to draw clothing (Just like the way Sims does it) for the human models. Firaxis and modders (you people) could create any unit you liked by simply drawing the clothes of the unit - the entire model does not need to be done. You kill a few birds with one stone here. 1. LOTS more human units and 2. VERY easy for modders to customise their own human units.
Darkcloud,
I understand what you say about there being different swords, and so why not allow the ability for modders to put in their own items. None of the items need to be 3D, because they're too small. All you need to do is simply create the art for it (don't need to be a 3D artist!) and import the item, and now you have a new weapon in your UW which you can use.
You don't research each and every item - that isn't going to work. Simply, one technology provides all the items from that tech.
Don't want to spend the time creating units? But you spend time doing everything else? UW is not meant to be an annoying thing, it's meant to be a fun and interesting thing. When you discover something in Civ3 you get new things to play with like wonders, do you not spend the time to find the right city to start building it? Do you not make sure that the city is building this wonder as fast as possible?
Are you really just scared of SMAC's UW? Besides, it's not as if you're going to spend your time in the UW a lot. Like I said, it will be a simple 1 2 3 step process and it shouldn't take longer than 5-10 seconds!
"a: know what the units should have been in the past"
So in your games the Egyptians have ALWAYS built the pyramids?
Come on, I want real arguements 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
I see just one problem involving upgrades.
Let's say you give two units armor; one has plate mail and one has chain mail. Ok, I can see defense being different from that.
Now, throw in a rifleman. As far as I am aware, no riflemen ever wore armor, mostly because it does absolutely nothing against rifle bullets. To riflemen, there would be essentially no difference between chain and plate.
Thus, any armor (and probably weapons, too) would have to be dynamic in some regard. This is especially important when you consider that riflemen don't wear armor, but are probably a lot better at defending a position than pikemen are. Riflemen must then get a bonus from either their weapon, or something intangible like their disciplne or organization.
If the game was all done in one era, a straight system of +X for this armor, +Y for that would work, but unfortunately it isn't.
The simplest solution I could see would be:
1) Have weapons give defense bonuses as well. This works not only with guns, but with weapons like pikes, to explain why they kick horseman ass.
2) Divide armor into types, i.e. simple vs. medieval vs. modern: Medieval infantry and musketmen ignore simple, like what a spearman would have, riflemen ignore simple and medieval, and nobody ignores modern (ironclads, tanks, mech inf.).
Still, this is a lot of complication to be added. I'm starting to wonder if a workshop is such a good idea after all given how much balancing would be needed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
|
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sn00py
And thanks for the help also cyclotron7. I see your point, yes it is very very unbalancing. I like the idea of giving weapons defense.
Or maybe a 'tactical defense' instead? Like you said, the riflemen's advantage is that they have an organised way to kill their opponent. Obviously the more modern the game becomes, the better the tactics are going to get, so maybe one of the options in the UW is how tactically trained are the units you are creating? The higher you train them, the more it costs. But maybe you need to say whether the unit is an offensive unit or a defensive unit before you start the creation? |
I would do something like this.
A regular starts as a 1/1/1. They're just soldiers. Each level you add of training would add +1 to their attack and defense; training is universally applicable, or at least it should be here. Even if one unit had never seen the other before, they still would have discipline and unit cohesion that would keep them from immediately falling apart under the new weaponry.
I don't think that more highly trained units should cost more, but I do think they should require additional shields (thus, time) to produce. That's a bit besides the point, though.
A further problem is that armor does not only protect you when you are defeding. Swordsmen with chain mail are still equally protected by that chain mail when attacking. If armor gives only defense bonuses, you will see a lot of inflated defense units. Personally, I think armor should raise HP rather than defense, but then we would not be able to make weapons and armors dynamic, so that idea is out.
Now for an example.
Let's divide all armors into three categories.
Armors like leather and bronze would be ancient armor. Iron chain, iron plate, etc. would be medieval armor. Armor plate, like on tanks, would be modern armor.
Let's take a regular pikeman, a base of 1/1/1.
He has a pike, which we will say gives him +1 to attack and +2 to defense. It gives him a further +2 to defense against cavalry.
Reasoning: A pike is a large and unwieldly weapon to charge with, but it is phenomenal at keeping others away, especially horsemen.
He has iron plate mail, a medieval armor. It gives him +2 to attack and +3 to defense.
Reasoning: Armor still protects you when you attack, but the great weight of plate mail would certainly slow down tactical movements, lessening their usefulness and maneuverability on an advance. Thus, it is mroe useful for defense than offense.
His total is now 4/6/1, and 4/8/1 against cavalry. If he was elite, he would be 6/8/1, which isn't too unbalancing (he's not that much better than a regular, although he's still better).
Now, let's do a rifleman.
The rifleman is also a regular, so he starts as 1/1/1.
The rifleman uses, amazingly enough, a rifle. The rifle is powerful in both offensive and defensive roles, but is probably most effectively used stationary when positions can be held and covering fire maximized. I give it a +8 attack, +10 defense.
The rifleman is now a 9/11/1. "Wait a minute," you say. "That's not much better than a pikeman! He could attack an elite pikeman and have a nearly 50% chance of losing!'
Well, that's where the armor types come in. The special ability of the rifle is that it ignores ancient and medieval armors. Against the rifleman, the pikemen gets absolutely no bonuses for his armor. That elite pikeman drops from a 6/8/1 to a 4/5/1, something much more easily handled by the riflemen.
Get the idea? Now, I agree, this is complicated, and I'm not making any judgements on that. Any ideas for simplification are welcome.
Last edited by cyclotron7 on 20-12-2003 at 07:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
|
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
Let's do this thing Jamski style.
I'd have a list something like this:
ARMOR
Ancient Armor
Leather/Hide: +1/+1
Bronze armor: +2/+2
Medieval Armor
Iron chain: +2/+2 (better than bronze because of type)
Iron plate: +2/+3
Modern Armor
Steel skin (halftracks, etc): +2/+2
Steel plating (tanks): +3/+3
WEAPONS (shields, where applicable, are assumed as part of the weapon rating. weapons in italics ignore ancient armor, weapons in bold ignore ancient and medieval armor)
Stone axe/club: +1/+1
Bronze Spear/Lance: +1/+2
Shortbow: +2/+1, unit bombard
Iron Sword: +2/+2
Pike:* +1/+2, +2 defense bonus vs. horse
Longbow:* +3/+1, unit bombard
Morningstar: +3/+3
Musket:* +4/+5
Flintlock Pistols/Carbine: +5/+4
Rifle: +8/+10, unit bombard
Machinegun:** +8/+14, unit bombard
Repeating Rifle: +10/+12, unit bombard
Submachine Gun: +13/+13
Chaingun:*** +14/+18, unit bombard
Tank Cannon:*** +14/+12, bombard all
Modern Tank Cannon:*** +18/+16, bombard all
*: for foot chassis only (no horse or mobile)
**: for either foot or mobile chassis (no horse)
***: for mobile chassis only (no foot or horse)
A horse chassis gives 3 movement, unless with Iron Plate armor or Bronze armor, in which case it gives 2. It also adds 3 to attack.
A mobile chassis gives 5 movement, unless with Steel Plate, in which it gives 4. It also adds 4 to attack.
Which all gives us some basic unit stats (keep in mind the +1/+1 base):
Warrior, stone club and leather: 3/3/1
Spearman, bronze spear and armor: 4/5/1
Archer, shortbow and leather: 4/3/1
Swordsman, iron sword and iron chain: 5/5/1
Longbowman, longbow and iron chain: 6/4/1
Pikeman, pike and iron plate: 4/6/1 (4/8/1 vs. horse)
Heavy infantry, morningstar and iron plate: 6/7/1
Musketman, musket and iron plate: 7/9/1
Rifleman, rifle and no armor: 9/11/1
Infantry, repeating rifle and no armor: 11/13/1
Machinegunner, machinegun and no armor: 9/15/1
Marine, submachinegun and no armor: 14/14/1
Horseman, bronze spear and leather: 6/4/3
Knight, morningstar and iron plate: 9/7/2
Dragoons, flintlock carbine and iron chain: 11/7/3
Cavalry, repeating rifle and no armor: 14/13/3
Hummvee, machinegun and steel skin: 15/17/5
Cavalry, submachine gun and no armor: 17/14/3
Tank, cannon and steel plating: 21/15/4
Modern Armor, modern cannon and steel plating: 26/20/4
Halftrack, chaingun and steel skin: 21/21/5
How's that for a start?
Last edited by cyclotron7 on 20-12-2003 at 13:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sn00py
|
|
From New Zealand
Aug 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
Hmm...
Do you think that this could be tested in Civ3?
So if I gave the Musketmen Chain Mail Armor instead of Iron Plate, the Musketmens defense will only be 5 and not 9?
Would Chain Mail be cheaper than Iron Plate? It seems that some armor will become obsolete completely.
If I wanted to, I could create a horsemen unit with a machinegun. Now what happens when this unit attacks the Pikemen? Obviously the horsemen is going to have a much higher chance of winning right?
Last edited by Sn00py on 20-12-2003 at 10:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
|
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sn00py
Hmm... |
First off, Sn00py, thanks for the comments. Definitely, the thing any system needs is to be torn apart as much as possible to see if it is still standing afterwards. 
quote:
So if I gave the Musketmen Chain Mail Armor instead of Iron Plate, the Musketmens defense will only be 5 and not 9? |
No, chain is +2/+2 while plate is +2/+3, thus the musketman would go to a defense of 8.
quote:
Would Chain Mail be cheaper than Iron Plate? It seems that some armor will become obsolete completely. |
Yes, chain mail would be marginally cheaper, as it affords less defense. Some armor will go obsolete, and that's the idea; obviously chain mail is going to be irrelevant in the industrial age when everything can pierce it.
Chain mail will also not be obsolete for a bit because, unlike plate mail, it does not reduce horse movement from 3 to 2. Rulers desiring a more mobile knight force may be willing to take a hit of one point on defense for a cheaper and faster knight.
quote:
If I wanted to, I could create a horsemen unit with a machinegun. Now what happens when this unit attacks the Pikemen? Obviously the horsemen is going to have a much higher chance of winning right? |
First off, the machinegun is noted as a weapon for foot or mobile (tank) units only, not horse units. If you mean the submachine gun, let's see...
A pikeman vs. a horse is a 4/8/1. If we make a cavalry unit with no armor and a repeating rifle (14/13/3), or one with a submachine gun (17/14/3), that would certainly win over a pikeman, especially considering that rifles and machineguns ignore the pikeman's plate, making him only a 2/5/1 for the duration of the battle. A defense of 5 is not going to stand long against an attack of 14 or 17.
Last edited by cyclotron7 on 20-12-2003 at 15:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
|
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
In response to MxM
Let's face it, if we totally remove all time it takes to do things and just look at the end results, we don't need a unit workshop. You could easily sit down and list every last unit combination I've put down, make each one of those a unit, and be done with it: no unit workshop.
But costs aren't 0. In my pitifully short list, there are 7 pre-gunpowder weapons, and 4 such armors. Assuming each unit has a choice of one weapon and one armor (including the possibility of no armor), that's 35 combinations. Note that 35 is just the number of foot based, pre-gunpowder units.
The unit workshop appeals to those people who want a much greater variety of units without the need for a massively long list. By letting the player make quick selections on a screen and then use those templates, a player could conceivably manage hundreds of different unit combinations very quickly, drastically reducing the time it takes to build a unit.
I haven't decided whether I need the extra variety or not. I used to argue against unit workshops when we were having these same discussions about Civ3. However, I never miss a chance to help think things up, as this discussion over Civ3 is what orginally brought me here. I'll reserve judgement on whether the system is valuable or not for when I see a good and balanced model.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-12-2003 01:00
|