|
hHydro
|
|
Vancouver, Canada,
Nov 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I think I speak for a good percentage of people if I say that the Units Workshop in SMAC was a great idea, but had some flaws that could have used some serious reworking. (Although of course some people seem to despise the idea altogether and want their units modeled in stone as in Civ2.)
Most of the previous threads on Unit Workshops have proposed radically different ideas. I think instead only a few easy tweaks could give us a really flexible and intuitive system.
Problem 1; All units look the same with different weapons.
-Solution: I'm assuming that we will undoubtedly be able to choose a 'building architecture' type as in Civ2 (roman, oriental, etc.). Assuming the units still use a 'paper doll' style like SMAC, simply base the graphic for the 'chassis' on your architecture choice. If your cities all look roman, the infantry 'chassis' should also look roman. As you develop different weapons, they would then easily be 'dropped' onto the infantry graphic. Armor as well. Imagine a 4-2-1 oriental unit represented by Japan as a shogun-ish type holding a steel sword and bronze shield, while a 2-3-1 unit in England might be a anglo saxon figure with a pike and an iron shield.
Then for a 'knight' you would just have a second 'mounted' chassis which is essentially a similar figure on horse. Voila. Drop the same weapon and armour graphic on him and you've got your 4-2-2 unit. =) If Firaxis feels like totally polishing the workshop off, then as you begin different ages, the chassis types could also update along with your cities. For example, when a 'romanesqe' civ hits rennaisance, the infantry chassis might go from a Roman Legion look to a more colonial medditeranian look. Once you hit 'industrial revolution' the Units would update again to look more like your military units of the last century or so.
Problem 2; Generally the other main complaint is the AI for autosuggesting items very quickly fills your build list up with tonnes of units with names that don't immediately suggest what that unit's abilities are.
-Solution: Actually, one thing to point out is that as SMAC was mostly 'future tech', most confusion with the names stems from the fact that it's not obvious whether 'Impact Rover' is better than 'Chaos Rover'. Even if CIV3 used a near identical naming convention, units like "Iron-age Pikemen" and "Zealous Mounted Archer" are going to be clearer because we understand from a historical perspective that pikemen are a defensive unit with a bonus against mounted units, and that a mounted archer is going to get slaughtered by the incoming 'Veteran musketeer".
But the main problem is solved by improving the Autodesigner. Let's say you discover gunpowder, the autodesigner could pop up showing your basic musketeer, and ask you if you want to save any additional 'tweaked' designs. If not, you move on with a single mouse click. If so, you can quickly make your changes, save and move on. This way the autodesigner doesn't make a different variant for every available special ability.
I know some people don't like the unit designer, and I'd be interested to hear reasons why other than the two I have covered. All in all though, I find that the flexibility in the SMAC workshop far outweighed the monotony of the unit graphics. It's this flexibilty that lets you 'pull the rabbit out of the hat' and design non-conventional units in a non-conventional situation. 9 times out of 10 you wouldn't even bother putting a colony pod on a needlejet chassis, but that one time where do it in order to grab an island in the middle of nowhere for use as an airbase, makes the game that much more interesting.
Same thing in Civ3. You may usually just use a normal cannoneer team, but in one particular game, say a neigboring Civ is going nuts with 'monk' units converting your units. Why shouldn't you be able to pay extra to man your cannon teams with devout followers? ("+2 vs probe" in SMAC terms.)
Just my 2 cents of course.
|
09-12-2000 03:40
|
|