30-05-2001 16:38									#1
	c168 WHY CIV-SPECIFIC UNITS ARE A GOOD IDEA Support Apolyton

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/168_specificunits.shtml

by Snapcase

quote: Perhaps the biggest controversy that has arisen out of the recent previews of Civilization III is the issue of whether to have the proposed civilisation-specific units in the game or not. By "civilisation-specific", I mean units that are at one stage of the game or another only available to one of the players, or "civilisations", rather than to all players like regular units are. The issue may seem minor, but can in some specific cases.....

	30-05-2001 17:29									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

First I wanna say that I do like the idea of civ-specific units, it can bring something good into the game.

But I have two things against these units I now want to add to Snapcaeses column.

1. Longboat for Vikings is good. But Vikings disapeared and what Civ-specific unit should they have in 1942 during WWII???

2. Creating these units and balancing the whole system in game-development takes time for FIRAXIS. So if there is a deadline and these unit's don't excist in plans by now, I hope they won't be included. (And I hope that they make everything nice in the game and so postpone the release until everything is vrelly done.)

quote: About the author: Snapcase is a guy without an Apolyton T-Shirt

Sereious flaw...

	30-05-2001 18:04									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Your arguements are good but if you replace Civ-specific with Civ-selectable then exactly the same holds true, only more so. A unique or slightly different unit type should be picked because it is the appropriate thing to choose at the time of need, not because it came up as your fixed or random draw at 4,000 BC. Nor should getting a dinky boat in 800 AD somehow prevent the Vikings from excelling at tank technology if they are a major player over a thousand years later.

The problem with making certain hard coded dedicated units is that each one has to be very carefully examined to make sure it provides flavour without being game winning. To do so means it is extremely hard to produce many of them for each one must be approached and tested independently. That makes the burden of introducing more than one special unit per civ (and more than 16 civs) intense. A more generic and flexible system that allowed any player to expend additional effort to improve a basic unit in clearly defined ways would allow each civ access to a much larger pool of potential customised units. I applaud Firaxis for going as far as they have gone but they really need to go further to make Civ III the game it deserves to be.

	30-05-2001 18:08									#4
	Some thoughts on the column Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Civ-specific units give personality to individual civilisations

True but that could be done by customizing the graphics without making the units unique in any other way. Just as they did with the cities in civ2.

quote: with civ-specific units the tactics of the different civilisations are bound to be different

Well, It could be done with different AI settings too...

Another thing is that civs will have special units at different stages of the game, viking longships might give an advantage in the 10th-11th century while few german tanks will be produced at the time (well not until one is pretty good at it )

	30-05-2001 18:59									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Jeje2: 1. Do the vikings need a WW1-specific unit? (I know, I know, the vikings are probably out.) In the example of a Civ-specific unit given since I wrote this article three weeks ago, it says the Impi will be a spearman unit with a movement rating of two. This means the Zulus will be stronger in that time period, but it doesn't mean everyone else will be weaker! If the germans have their Panzer tank, and everyone else has a normal tank, the germans will have the advantage but the others will still be on equal footing. Different people will chose different civs based on their unique units, so them falling in different time periods is a challenge rather than a problem.

2. They do. It's been pretty much confirmed.

Grumbold: Personally I perfer the hard-coded units, for several reasons outlined in the article. Making game-beating units is nearly impossible in the first place in Civ, because what makes a game-breaking unit? One with which you can conquer your neighbours right from the start? One that can provide an ideal defense while you pursue a perfectionist strategy? One that's fast and can discover ahead early to let you pursue an exploration policy? One which is good for escorts to your colonies for your trade and resource oriented tactic? A very late game unit that allows your small, hardy civilization to convince everyone else of your military might? A special bomber unit that disrupts others' spaceship plans? There are so many ways to win a game of civ, and if your neighbours try different ways on you that's an interesting and constant challenge, whereas pick and mix units will most likely mean the one AI (I don't think there will be more than one) will build the same damn things every game. Again, look at SMAC where you could pretty much build what you liked, yet the AI always built the same damn stuff.

Krop: I tried to address both these issues in the column. I think "personality" is much more than just looks, don't you? And AI variations were tried in SMAC, with little success, IMO. Most differences were simply down to the SE variations.

Thanks to everyone who sent me e-mails regarding this column, I'd encourage you to post the contents in this thread. Some of the ideas were very good!

	30-05-2001 19:27									#6
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Snapcase There are so many ways to win a game of civ, and if your neighbours try different ways on you that's an interesting and constant challenge, whereas pick and mix units will most likely mean the one AI (I don't think there will be more than one) will build the same damn things every game. Again, look at SMAC where you could pretty much build what you liked, yet the AI always built the same damn stuff.

The one thing I can say with confidence is that if Civ III features AI of a similar standard to SMAC it will be a poor 1 player game no matter what other extras they have piled into the box. If the game is to live up to its claims of customisability I would expect a version of SLIC code that can be used by modders to address any holes in AI behavior that slip through the programmers fingers. It has done wonders for CtP but unfortunately too late to affect its sales potential.

I am concerned that under most circumstances those civs given early age land-based specials will be able to use them to greater effect than any civ given a naval or late-era special simply because effective early expansion is key to long term success in an exponential game where there are no reverses of fate. That, after all, was the whole point of ICS which they are so eager to eliminate. Double speed spearmen should be able to hot-foot it over to a neighbouring Civ and box it in, preventing any workers or settlers from expanding while being far more defensible if counterattacked than horsemen or chariots are. Still, I feel we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue

	30-05-2001 19:40									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I think "personality" is much more than just looks, don't you?

Nah, I'm very superficial

	30-05-2001 20:08									#8
	To be somewhat more serious Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Returned to the column and noticed "What happens if the Vikings end up in a desert or the Germans on an island? Won't their specific units force them into a specific mould?" Sure, Civ isn't the most realistic game about the history of the world and maybe it shouldn't be either. But i can't stop myself when I want to add that a civ's choice of weapons is a result of their environment and situation not some sort of national soul, gene or culture.

Not wanting to go further into marxist theory but you get the picture. If you start on a small continent seatravel and technologies will be a priority and will also affect you game strategy and thus specific units might or might not be of any value.

If one really wants to implement specific might be to make you chose your speciality in game, ie there might be defining moments (entering a new era perhaps) when you have to chose witch way you want your civilization to go and what special abilities you want. Thus you would be able to chose if you have a seafaring nation or a unit good at defense or with camel-troops or mountain-troops or whatever possible.

	30-05-2001 20:27									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Shh. Snapcase doesn't want to hear that.

	30-05-2001 20:52									#10
	Tired of ads?

yeah well, the truth hurts

	30-05-2001 21:03									#11
	Suffering from ads?

I just think it's not a good idea, that's all. Having the PC determine your speciality for you depending on your initial surrounding is more plausible in terms of gameplay mechanics, but would be damn confusing for most players. Picking your specialities would almost certainly result in half a dozen exactly similar AI sides...

	30-05-2001 21:19									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Not that I'm that keen on the idea of specific units in the first place but if it's confusing for the player then they shouldn't be able to play the RTS either. If all the AI's chose the same way then there's something wrong somewhere. Either programming or the strengh of different units.

	30-05-2001 21:26									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

First off, Snapcase, I think that Civ specific units decided by the computer are a load of ****.

That being said, I will try to ignore this obvious prejudice of mine as I point out the big flaw I see in your (and Firaxis') ideas.

Your "obvious advantage" sounds like an obvious disadvantage to me. The problem is that yes, CSU do make Civs more distinctive... but, unfortunately, they also make each civ be identically distinctive. What I mean is this: You say that the Vikings will be raiding me by sea, the Germans flooding me with panzers, etc... I think that's horrible. I could care less about Civ distinctiveness... what I want is civ variety. I want the Germans to be a warlike agressive Civ one game, then a trading empire the next, then a dangerous diplomatic sabotage machine the next. I want Civs to act differently in every game according to what happens in that game. If they start on an island, I want them to be isolationist, militaristic, and a huge sea power... If they start surrounded by other nations they conduct a lot more trading and negotiations. I don't want to play every game where the Germans are somehow predestined to swamp me with panzers every year 1940 or so. I want the Germans to decide what is best for their civ, and then do it. A Zulu Civ that says "cool, now we have impis, let's become warlike and raid a bunch until they become obsolete" is not a civ. It's a sickening repetitive behavior pattern that manifests itself in every single game, throwing any kind of strategy or logic to the winds. If you want distinctiveness, play your civ distinctively... and push Firaxis to make an AI that makes distinctive judgements based on their distinctive situation. Because underneath CSU, you still have the same identival civs... just with a few different units. There's really no difference, and you should be able to see that CSUs fix nothing and make nothing distinctive.

	30-05-2001 22:04									#14
	Remove this text

First of all, thanks -- I really appreciate that someone laid this argument out for me. I hadn't really followed the different sides. It would seem that Firaxis is going to offer both "hard-coded" units and "civ-specific" as a start-up option, no?

So in theory, since the whole thing can be scrapped by the end user before any game, the complaint that finally goes unanswered is the one that says Firaxis is prolonging the development of the game by implementing a feature that nobody is going to want to use.

Hmm, well I suppose somebody wants to try it out, so the final problem becomes SOME who don't look forward to this as anything but a mistake will have to wait longer than they would like for the game.

All in theory, of course, maybe the game is developed beyond where we think and that time spent on this feature is a sunk cost. Meaning, water under the bridge.

All told, thank you for an enlightening and provocative column!

	30-05-2001 22:09									#15
	Remove this text

snap says that historical accuracy has never been one of civ's strong points.

I beg leave to disagress. Civ is in fact one of the most historically accurate games there is!!!! You have simply been defining historical accuracy too narrowly.

No civ's combat model is not accurate - its decades behind the wargame state of the art. Its economic model is inferior to imperialisms, its model of city happiness pales next to city builders, its tech tree has numerous problems, and its govt forms are simplistic.

BUT civ gives a better view of the larger issues of history than any PC game i know of. The interaction of domestic and international politics, the conflict between terrain and strategy, the tradeoffs of war and economic and social development, are better illustrated here than in any grognard war game. Even the tech tree is magnificent, with its underlying Hegelian philosophy - things proceed dialectically from their opposites!!!! Only a successful monarchy can generate representative govt forms - a demo provides the research to reach commie and fundie. Industrialization creates pollution, but pollution ruins production - but sufficient production and tech advance can reach the environmental techs that pre-industrial society was incapable of. Capitalism generates communism - like industrialism and environmentalism, they are not opposites but different sides of the historical dialectic.


But perhaps the dialectic must be applied to the civ series itself. Civ and civ 2 were landmarks in "macro-historical" gaming. But the day of civ is over - it is being surpassed, by period specific games like EU. CSU's may be inevitable in CIv 3, but they are a sign of the decadence of the civ series - it may yet produce fun games, but it can no longer provide intellectual insights, as Civ2 did. The historical moment is passed. We can probably look forward to the application of the EU approach to other time periods - eventually someone will ask the 6000 year + historical questions again, informed this time by the playing of EU type games. It may even be done by one of the alt civ projects now in development. But it will not be done by Sid Meiers or Firaxis - they are too successful.

LOTM

	30-05-2001 22:39									#16
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

well why not let the computer choose for the AI the speciality based on surrounding, and let us choose ours ourselves.

or why not a kind of joker/wildcard unit that can be customized and evolved as the times change, to suit our situation? i mean historically that's what happens, right? unit types evolved and improved. like english longbowmen, for example. or turkish jannisaries.

let the player be able to adapt and evolve the special unit.

	31-05-2001 01:45									#17
	Got spare money?

Cyclotron: just tick the "randomise civ-specific units" box. Surprise, Surprise, Simple. As for your second point, I heartily disagree. Any attempt made so far to make totally distinct AI personalities has failed. Civ-specific units will force them to adapt different tactics, as "you should be able to see", but which I will quantify, unlike you. The AI, which is one AI, let's not kid ourselves, will look at what's available and use it to its advantage. If the same things are always available it will do the same thing. If different things are available it will do different things.

LOTM: Thank Sid you're not in development. It's not a historical simulation, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not realistic. I mean only seven 6000-year empires? One, government-sponsored advance at once? No internal politics? It's not realistic at all! But it's fun. They went towards realism in Civ 2, which was a bad move. Now they're moving back towards Civ 1 and the ideals it embodied. Hooray!

Iskandar Reza: I just don't think it'd work, that's all. All units would be customised in the same way by the AI.

	31-05-2001 02:14									#18
	possible solution Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Couldn't a simple solution to the problem involve the game recognising the surroundings and giving special units according to the terrain (such as alpine skiers in terrain such as modern day Switzerland) so that players have an increased bonus when fighting on home soil. In contrast enemies would have terrain difficulties when attacking empires with significantly different terrain (such as the German defeat in Russia and difficulty for the allies to cope with Jungle warfare in WW2). This could give a much better feel to the game and solve the problem to useless special units.

Will 5001

	31-05-2001 02:15									#19
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

My greatest problem with those civ-specific super units is they lead to totally absurd preventive counter-strategies, such as: 'We must kill the Germans before 1900, because if they survive into the 20th century they will be unstoppable.'

	31-05-2001 02:56									#20
	Remove this text

quote: Cyclotron: just tick the "randomise civ-specific units" box. Surprise, Surprise, Simple.

Irrelevant. You still have the same Civs doing the same things, only now they don't have the same name. Meeting the "germans" or the "zulus" or the "french" is irrelevant, if CSUs are random. This is because my complaint is really against "the panzer civ" or "the impis civ,"
because that's not distinctive at all. The name doesn't matter; It's the fact that there will always be this recurring ability of a recurring civ that will use the same recurring tactics and you must use your same recurring tactics to deal with them.

quote: As for your second point, I heartily disagree. Any attempt made so far to make totally distinct AI personalities has failed. Civ-specific units will force them to adapt different tactics, as "you should be able to see", but which I will quantify, unlike you.

You contradict yourself. If "all attempts" to do this have failed, that must include SMAC's specific units... but then you say that CSUs will solve this? Please explain...

quote: The AI, which is one AI, let's not kid ourselves, will look at what's available and use it to its advantage. If the same things are always available it will do the same thing. If different things are available it will do different things.

I belive your article gave examples of how you'd like to see the Germans flooding me with Panzers, the Vikings raiding my coasts, etc... Personally, I want to have the Vikings equally adept and equally likely to attack me by land, depending on their situation. Why would the Germans ever start a sea war if their sole advantage was in the Panzer? CSUs limit strategies, because no fool would attack on an equal footing when they can always be ahead. Why even bother with a sea assault, or air attack, or even infantry support if I am the Germans?

You were right the first time, Snapcase. CSUs are the worst idea ever to be proposed for Civ3.

	31-05-2001 03:19									#21
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Have you even played SMAC? It didn't have unique units. It had "leader personalities". And let's just say the second point is where we stand in total disagreement- I want the AI employing more than one tactic to attack me. You obviously just want one, steamlined, idealised tactic which, after you learn to defend yourself against it, means the game is over for you.

	31-05-2001 04:08									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Civ-specific units are an interesting concept. After long thought, i have decided that i dis-like them. They could either ruin (if badly implemented, which i doubt will happen) or not play much of a part in the game.

the concept of CSU are good, but i feel they should not be "civ"-specific units, and instead, units that reflect what you civilisation is good at. The zulus' impis were only better than their spearman equilievelents because they were useful to the zulus, who fought over large stretches of african savannah, with little cover - They needed to get to battle quickly. To me the european spearman was also better than the impi, given they fought over the rolling green hills, covered with trees etc. where it wasn't possible to win by running at the opposition. What i am saying here is that both teams will whip each others ass's if playing on home ground.

The trouble with this is that in civ this is very hard to implement, and will probably just confuse the game.

With the current information concerning the CSU and how they will be implemented, i know i will be turning them off for my games.

	31-05-2001 04:28									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I want the AI employing more than one tactic to attack me. You obviously just want one, steamlined, idealised tactic which, after you learn to defend yourself against it, means the game is over for you.

Actually, I want that too... you are right that this is where we disagree. I think that CSUs would make for only one tactic per civ, which I do not want. Could you explain to me how a single civ would increase its tactics of attack if it had one clear advantage, on one unit, on one medium, in one age? How does that make for more than one tactic by the AI? I read that you wanted to be attacked by hordes of impis, raided by masses of longboats. You know, that's called using only one strategy, and that is what CSUs would do. Why build mech. inf. if I can clobber you with panzers every game?

	31-05-2001 04:55									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: PC-IGN each of the game's sixteen civilizations will have a unique unit that fits in a particular era

Does this mean that each Civ gets four unique units, one per era? This would eliminate a lot of problems with regards to Roman Legions versus German Panzers when picking which civ to play. Maybe you get a unit per era, as technologies are also divided into four eras. Why not units too? Firaxis hasn't made any definitive statement with regards to unique units other then they exist.

	31-05-2001 05:03									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Snapcase LOTM: Thank Sid you're not in development. It's not a historical simulation, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not realistic. I mean only seven 6000-year empires? One, government-sponsored advance at once? No internal politics? It's not realistic at all! But it's fun. They went towards realism in Civ 2, which was a bad move. Now they're moving back towards Civ 1 and the ideals it embodied. Hooray! .

Reread my post. I am quite aware of civ2's abstractions and simplifications. Please name for me one game that deals with large scale macro-history in a more realistic fashion. Being a game is does not mean it should not be historically accurate. A good history game should be fun AND historically accurate. Just that the historical accuracy in Civ2 is so different from that in a grognard war game some folks cant recognize it.

Are they concioulsy moving away from the Civ2 Brian Reynolds ideals? I think i'll hold off buying it, in that case.

LOTM

	31-05-2001 05:09									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 Actually, I want that too... you are right that this is where we disagree. I think that CSUs would make for only one tactic per civ, which I do not want. Could you explain to me how a single civ would increase its tactics of attack if it had one clear advantage, on one unit, on one medium, in one age? How does that make for more than one tactic by the AI? I read that you wanted to be attacked by hordes of impis, raided by masses of longboats. You know, that's called using only one strategy, and that is what CSUs would do. Why build mech. inf. if I can clobber you with panzers every game?

It wouldn't. Each civ would have one strategy against you. Sixteen tactics. compare this to Civ2, which had a maximum of two or three strategies, all basically varations on a theme.

	31-05-2001 05:37									#27
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Snapcase I read your article carefully. Nothing you said changed my opinion about unics.

As for strategy, if unics are all they have then how are we going to have 16 different startegies when the only thing that will be different is knowing that the Zulus are going to break my nerves building Impis en masse?

If Firaxis had concentrated their time on improving the AI instead of balancing some stupid Impis with.... Panzers (that's a laugh) things would be much better for Civ 3.

Much better for us but maybe not much better for Firaxis.
Because when you shout on your advertismenets about unics the populace will be hooked. We will not but we are the minority of dedicated civ players.

If they shout improved Ai we would be enthousiastic but the populace will just not understand.

Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 31-05-2001 at 05:51

	31-05-2001 09:19									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Some very good points and rebuttals in your column, Snapcase - you almost had me convinced.
But the most solid arguments so far have been Grumbold's, Kropotkin's, and Cyclotron7's.

The main sticking point is that any unique advantages should be gained by the choices you make in how you rule your empire (that is, how you play the game). It should not be predetermined, whether by hardcoding to a name or randomized, just by selecting a civ name or clicking a box. I should be able to adopt my playing style to meet the challenges of the circumstances.

Civ 2 already had a good system for this, though it can definitely be improved. For example, if I was an island player, I would not only build lots of ships, I would build port facilities to make my ships veterans. This is a deliberate strategic choice I make, to concentrate resources on producing vet ships and maintaining those ships and facilities - instead of being able to build dragoons or whatever else (opportunity cost). But that's my choice and I could adapt my style where necessary, instead of being locked into some unique unit, hardcoded or randomly preselected. If I later built up colonies on a large continent, I might cease shipbuilding, sell some port facilities, and adopt a land-based strategy. Or whatever. Keep it open-ended - restrictions should come only because of playing choices you make dynamically, not statically.

	31-05-2001 13:00									#29
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 1. Longboat for Vikings is good. But Vikings disapeared and what Civ-specific unit should they have in 1942 during WWII???

Jeje2,
What about the finnish ski-infantry? They did a helluva good deal of damage to the Bolsheviks during the WW2 era...

	31-05-2001 14:25									#30
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Rollo_CH Jeje2, What about the finnish ski-infantry? They did a helluva good deal of damage to the Bolsheviks during the WW2 era...

LOL
Should have figured that out for myself...


Now we then get to the question on how many special units per race we want?
Also if we take WWII and the German versus American tanks there are reasons to differencies. One of them being that German didn't have have some special metal alloies that USA did have. => USA grenades had a much better penetration rate than German. So Germans had to compensate with bigger grenades leading to heavier tanks etc. (OK, this has been told to me by a WWII panzer freak, hope I remembered it correctly)

So what I wanted to say is that is it special units or just units adapted to local recourses? (Ups, I started this message with an oppisite goal in mind What happened? )