 |
| |
|
|
BigJMoney
|
|
North Carolina
Sep 2003
time: 05:22
|
|
Whenever I play Civ3, I often wish the Unique Units were a bit more unique. The conquest mode in the final expansion does a good job with some of them. I hope for cIV they make an effort to make them more enjoyable; even if it does mean more attention directed towards balancing. I have some ideas, and I can only give examples. Take a few to see what I mean:
Rome: same legionary; can also build roads, outposts and fortresses
Carthage: war elephants, same as before; +2 hitpoints (start and max)
Russia: A modern era infantry unit that must disguise itself as the infantry unit from any Tribe that is currently at war. Also has slightly higher attack and defense. (the purpose of this unit is to allow russia to fight wars 'through' other Tribes; the idea is that Russia is equipping that tribe with better weaponry)
New Civ - Israel: A warrior-priest/judge unit that functions defensively as a spearman with a small defense bonus, but also negates the possibility for the city to culture-flip. (the idea is to keep some of these guys around into the modern era; ie. do NOT upgrade!)
Anyway, these were some brainstorms I had; I'm sure someone could do better. Yes, I got the legionary idea from Civ3: Conquest, it is not originally mine. It was what gave me the idea that the Civ series can do a heck of a lot better with their UUs.
=$= Big J Money =$=
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigJMoney
|
|
North Carolina
Sep 2003
time: 05:22
|
|
That's a neat idea too, but if they do that, it isn't 'Civilization' any more. I'm sure that most fans would be disappointed with that. Still a cool idea though, since it gives you more freedom to create your own, custom Civilization.
=$=
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
How is it not 'Civilization' anymore, when you consider that Civ 1 & 2 had no unique units, whatsoever?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigJMoney
|
|
North Carolina
Sep 2003
time: 05:22
|
|
I stand corrected. I never played those games.
=$=
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
I agree that UU's are unbalancing. You can disable them in civ3, though, so they aren't that much of a problem for those who dislike them.
Your proposal makes the units even more powerful, and I agree that having unique units based on something like building a wonder would be more interesting than based on initial civ. Who cares about the American advanced fighter or the German tank when you probably took over half the world by that time if you could build mounted warriors?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
The problem with these gifts for "first to get advance..." is the same problem with wonders, they unbalance the game, it gives the leader presents for being the leader. Imagine one player getting every special unit from the renaissance to modern.
Rather they should be given with performing feats that take time, like in Call to Power 2, first to sail around the world you get +1 movement on ships for a limited time, or you could get a special unit to build relative to the age youre in. Youre the first to recapture a city you get some buildable unit, again relative to the age youre currently in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
You can also create a system of wonders which are mutually exclusive. For instance if you created a wonder allowing to create UU1 then you can't build other wonders which allow to create other UUs. This means being a leader would let you chose which unique unit you get, and not let you gain all of them.
I agree that feats in CtP2 are nice, but there is only the circumnavigation of the world that is worth talking about since the others are just "first to discover gunpowder" or other techs. Although there is also conquering back one of your cities which makes citizens happy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Theres also first to conquer by force feat, but thats kinda being the leader, or at least having enough power to kill a whole civ is plenty powerful. Also building a certain building in many cities feat, if you were an aggressive player you wouldnt build those.
I like the idea of mutually exclusive wonders though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
I like the UU system, because it highlights differences in tactics or army structure that did make real differences worldwide.
Personally, I would prefer a combat system more akin to SMAC's, and then in which civs got certain bonuses throughout, like better at sieges, after, or more powerful, cavalry, better defense with infantry, so forth and so on, so some civs would tend to try for different types of strategies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
patcon
|
|
To my mind, the biggest problem with UUs is when you have a civ whose UU requires a certain resource, but you stuck without access to that resource. I can't count the times I've played the Celts (for reasons of family heritage + cool traits) and there is no iron in reach. No iron = no Gallic swordsmen = 1 very angry Irishman.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigJMoney
|
|
North Carolina
Sep 2003
time: 05:22
|
|
Yeah, it's hard for me to be objective about this, because I love Civ3, and I can't even imagine playing the game without UUs. I don't mind the idea of being able to get them by being the first to meet a kind of criteria or what-not, because it adds more to the idea that you are changing history, and creating your own unique version of a civilization.
Maybe they could combine that idea with what they did in Alpha Centauri (as another poster mentioned). This way, the different tribes would still be unique from each other, but you have the customizability options as well.
An example I can think of would be this:
Germans
Tribe ability: Gains slightly increased productivity during war-time.
If the germans wanted -- I don't know, let's say that the armored UU in the game is the 'Panzer' tank or something -- then they would have to meet whatever requirements are necessary to be able to gain the Panzer, after which they would be the only Tribe to be able to use it. The way you balance this kind of system is simple; you can only have a certain number of UUs. It's not like wonders where you can keep building and get all of them. You simply try and complete some kind of 'quest-like' task in the game and you gain the ability to use the unit. This would help with the resources problem, because, if gathering petroleum was one of the taks necessary for unlocking a Panzer, and you don't have petroleum, you will simply find another UU to try and unlock.
I think it would make for a neat game dynamic, because it puts the ball in the court of the player who is able to pull off researching the UU he wants; giving him some control over the game for a period of time. It also helps other players gauge the game. If their spy tells them that the Germans are working on unlocking the Panzer unit, they can figure that war is eminent... and if they can stop them, or beat them to it, they might even be able to halt the war before it begins.
=$=
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Senethro
|
|
I am completely for fixed civilization traits as they add variety to the game.
To be honest, I would be happier if the traits affected the game even more. SMAC, with less factions had more variety. Compare Miriam and Morgan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
I am completely for fixed civilization traits as they add variety to the game. |
How does their being fixed add variety? There is more variety if the English are good with ships when they are near the sea and good at something else when they aren't. If you can change the abilities, you add more variety to the game. Traits = more variety. Fixed traits = Less variety.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Senethro
|
|
To be quite honest, I was just using similar sentence construction and vocabulary to the guy above me : /
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
That's the problem: You can't say "the Germans are better in science than most other people" without saying "most people are less able to do science than the Germans (and a few others, of course)". And besides it's unrealistic: During some times of their history, there have been many good scientists in Germany, but during other times, they weren't better than other people. Human individuals may have traits that make them special - whole people don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
What is the difference betwene playing the English and the Germans right now besides UU's and civ traits, boh of which are for all intents and pruposes fixed?
Honestly, what was the difference between playing the Romans and the Chinese in Civ2, besides graphics? There was none, as all civs played the exact same way. That is a lack of variety.
Adding difference between civ adds variety. |
I am not against difference between civ, I am saying it doesn't have to be fixed. You could pick your traits when you start the game, and stick with the traits, and let the traits be random when you run the game the next time. A civ that builds the Pyramids is different (or should be) from one that doesn't. The behaviour of the ruler should vary from game to game, too. Unique units which are available based on environment/achievements instead of starting with the name 'chinese' add variety.
I would like a civ that starts on an island to be better with ships than a civ who starts on a continent. I don't want to have the English be good shipbuilders in the middle of the desert.
The think I am discussing is "fixed". That's what this thread is about, about UUs not being fixed the way they are in civ3. Sure UUs and traits add variety, but why can't they be random, obtained through picks from the start (the way you choose your picks in MoM, Galciv and how many other games) or obtained thanks to in-game history (being on an island, deciding to build exclusive wonder X)?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
I am not against difference between civ, I am saying it doesn't have to be fixed. You could pick your traits when you start the game, and stick with the traits, and let the traits be random when you run the game the next time. A civ that builds the Pyramids is different (or should be) from one that doesn't. The behaviour of the ruler should vary from game to game, too. Unique units which are available based on environment/achievements instead of starting with the name 'chinese' add variety.
I would like a civ that starts on an island to be better with ships than a civ who starts on a continent. I don't want to have the English be good shipbuilders in the middle of the desert.
The think I am discussing is "fixed". That's what this thread is about, about UUs not being fixed the way they are in civ3. Sure UUs and traits add variety, but why can't they be random, obtained through picks from the start (the way you choose your picks in MoM, Galciv and how many other games) or obtained thanks to in-game history (being on an island, deciding to build exclusive wonder X)? |
But Civ is NOT making up a universe like those games- that is the problem- why should there even BE a pyramids, or in fact ANY BUILDING we have, if in theory, you could have a society were for example there was never any religion?
Civ as a game is hemmed in by certain parameters of history, and as such you simply don't have the freedom of a game like GalCivs were you can make up everything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
patcon
|
|
I like the idea of getting to be whatever "nationality" I want (so I can be true to my peeps- the Celts), but establishing the traits I want to be based on what I do during the game. I like the idea of being able to become the kind of civ your situation demands rather than being locked into a particular set of traits.
All civs start with the same core abilities. "Gateway" advances would be linked with certain traits and lead your civ to become that kind of culture. The first 2 gateway advances you discover determine your 2 basic traits, although there may need to be a rule such as "the first X civs to discover this gateway gain the trait". Some advances would be trait-linked and easier to discover for those civs. Certain "revolutionary" advances could either force or allow trait shifts.
At the dawning of a new era, a new set of gateway advances appears. Civs would immediately acquire the gateway advances for their traits and the next gateway advance discovered would add another trait. Perhaps the number of traits a civ is allowed to have may need to be capped at 3, so that in later eras you might be faced with the decision "Your people have discovered W, which allows you to become a T(W) culture. Your culture is currently T(X), T(Y), and T(Z). Do you wish to embrace the new spirit of T(W) and abandon one of your antiquated beliefs?"
Of course the questions become "could the AI handle this flexibility, would the AIs end up being too similar to each other, would it be too much of an advantage for the human player?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
But Civ is NOT making up a universe like those games- that is the problem- why should there even BE a pyramids, or in fact ANY BUILDING we have, if in theory, you could have a society were for example there was never any religion?
Civ as a game is hemmed in by certain parameters of history, and as such you simply don't have the freedom of a game like GalCivs were you can make up everything. |
I can turn your argument against you. How realistic is it that England starts not on an island? It is not, therefore England should always start on an island.
The map you play on is not (necessarily) the world map, and civilizations are shaped by the place where they live and grow. Civ3 doesn't reflect that, and in this sense is a very bad simulation.
You can, in Civ2, replace your tribes name by whatever you want, in addition to renaming every city. You can effectively make your own world.
Why couldn't traits be determined by the place you start in instead of by the name of your tribe? The same for unique units.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Trifna
|
 |
of anchovies
Jul 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Max Sinister
That's the problem: You can't say "the Germans are better in science than most other people" without saying "most people are less able to do science than the Germans (and a few others, of course)". And besides it's unrealistic: During some times of their history, there have been many good scientists in Germany, but during other times, they weren't better than other people. Human individuals may have traits that make them special - whole people don't. |
So is it racist/supremacist if I say that the guy next to me is not as good as I am in music or science? I say: Each one his tools and his will to use such tools, influenced by different circumstances/environments.
You say that "whole people don't" as a dogma here... I am sorry to say that I DID saw a difference between people of different countries while travelling: in some countries people cooked more (many hours a day? It's NORMAL that they get better than me at it), in some others food was just "to survive". For some a few deaths was less of a deal (historical influence here I think), in some others receiving guests has its formalities while in some others it was done lightly with "bring a smile"-philosophy, and in some others the guests' comfort were of upmost importance... The question is more "to which extent", and to see that all humans are from a same tree so branches don't go kilometers afar. I do agree, though, that this is changing and has to do with a whole bunch of factors which create the influence of the people around you, which were influenced themselves. And to which extent is it an important factor? This I'm scratching my head in front of the question... it's weird to see how humans are always so human but often get to different results nonetheless.
I personally believe that cultures and all that has to do with environmental factors: the precedent generation's influence (the past) just as what someone lives (the present).
One of the most surprising examples I saw? When Putin managed the crisis in the theatre by sending gas which killed hostage, Europeans (and America also i think) were all scandalized by the civilian sacrifice, while Russians thought the sacrifice was worth it. Russians have a whole history of hardship and sacrifice: First World War, Second World War, Soviet Regime... but also long before that. Other example? Isolated countries have certain tendancies, well-adapted to their situation. The USA have a history of isolationism-expansionism based on different factors forming their view of the world and adapted to their situation, etc.
All these influences are limited, but still existant. Is it done realistically in Civ3? That's another question, but maybe it cannot be done by now (it's not examined easily at all in reality neither. Is it to start with?!).
Last edited by Trifna on 27-02-2005 at 16:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigJMoney
|
|
North Carolina
Sep 2003
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
You have no idea what Civilization is, then. |
No, I don't have your understanding of what Civilization is.
It doesn't accomplish anything in this community for people to to create elite caste systems where only members of the community who have experienced the first games in the series have relevant opinions. No, I have a unique opinion from yours, since my objectivity has not been influenced by playing the first two titles in the three stage evolution of the civilization series.
I'm not saying your opinions aren't valid. Quite the contrary; your opinions are extremely important, as are mine.
As additional information, I have played Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.
Now, let's stay on subject. Making emotion-based reactionist statements like General Ludd can throw a good thread off track.
-----------------------------------------
Hm, I find it interesting that a few people view acknowledging unique talent as 'racist'. However, even if it is true, I don't think it's going to influence the decisions of game developers -- at least not for a long time. I think it's also interesting how some players would like to see the game go in a completely different direction than other players. I wonder how the development team is going to address that. For instance, some of us want to see some 'historical traits', even if not historically accurate, continue to show in the game, while others want to be able to invent their own 'historical traits'. One thing I like a lot about Civ3 is the way it mixes it up. It gives you some ability to exist in a kind of fantasy world, but that world is partially limited by bits and pieces that were taken from the history of the real world. I don't think Civilization will (or should) strive for 100% historical correctness, but I also don't think they should just chuck history and go with a complete fantasy game. I mean, come on! If they did that, they might as well not even use the civilization names any more. Sure, England doesn't always start on an island every time you play, but if that bothers you, it should also bother you that it even has the name England. It should be a fantasy name. I don't think this is the direction the developers would want to take the game in, but I suppose we'll see. Don't forget that Atari is involved now; this might seriously upset some people.
=$= Big J Money =$=
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-02-2005 04:36
But perhaps not so that if the Egyptians conquered half their continent during the first 2000 years, get to keep a militaristic trait, if they haven't touched a knife since...
|