 |
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Wonders...
Thats it
The wonders represent specificc civs becoming specialists at certain things. Seafaring civs have magellen etc.
In real life, the english would have had the seafaring wonders
That way civs choose their own specialisation
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus
|
|
As many of us said a hundred times before: unique civ benefits are fine . . . as an OPTION.
I fully agree with you, Zulu. If I am to gain a unique civ benefit, I want to EARN it . . . not get it automatically.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I concur - Have unique civs - but only as an option. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Salvius
|
|
Dayton, OH, USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Just wanted to voice my agreement with the "have them, but only as an option" position.
For full-scale, epic, historical games, I agree that Civ-specific bonuses make little sense. However, I can see a couple of potential uses for them in scenarios:
1) Small-scale scenarios. For example, in an American Civil War scenario, only the Union should be allowed to build, say, Abolitionist units, and only the Confederacy should be allowed to use slave labor (however that may be dealt with in the game/scenario). Note that the Confederacy could be allowed to actually abolish slavery (to gain favor with England, if that were included in the scenario), but I think they'd have had a tough time finding very many strong abolitionists who were also strong Confederate loyalists.
2) Non-historical scenarios. The obvious example would be a Middle-Earth scenario: The forces of darkness would have access to orc units, dwarves could build cities in mountains without starving, etc. In a not-even-fictionally-historical Star Trek scenario with all the ST races starting on one planet (!), Vulcans might get science bonuses, Ferengi might get trade bonuses, and so on.
There might even be some limited justification in full-scale historical games. I've heard it argued that one reason the Japanese samurai fighting style is so different from the European knighthood fighting style was that the steel ore in Japan was of higher quality, which made for better swords, which made armor less effective, which forced them to develop a style based on speed, accuracy, and dodging & parrying, rather than on encasing themselves in armor and going toe-to-toe. I'm not sure that Civ3 will simulate a fighting-style level of detail, but that's just the first example that came to mind. Since (if "true") this is a cultural/technological difference that was dependent on available resources, the only ways to simulate it that I can see would be either a civ-specific tech or bonus (assuming pre-determined starting locations), or tying a tech, unit, or bonus to local natural resources. While that would be WAY cool (Elephants, anyone?), it would also be very hard to balance, especially for random worlds (and would probably require more than one or two resources per terrain type).
I view the Civ games as "What If" tools. That may be as simple as "What if I were in charge of Rome?" or "What if the Japanese were pyramid-builders?", but one interesting experiment would be "What if one group of people were inherently better at [something] than all other groups of people?" How would this alternate history have been different from (or similar to) our own?
Anyway, in short: Unique civs good for scenarios, probably bad for standard full game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salvius on 03-17-2001 12:56 AM
Just wanted to voice my agreement with the "have them, but only as an option" position.
For full-scale, epic, historical games, I agree that Civ-specific bonuses make little sense. However, I can see a couple of potential uses for them in scenarios:
1) Small-scale scenarios. For example, in an American Civil War scenario, only the Union should be allowed to build, say, Abolitionist units, and only the Confederacy should be allowed to use slave labor (however that may be dealt with in the game/scenario). Note that the Confederacy could be allowed to actually abolish slavery (to gain favor with England, if that were included in the scenario), but I think they'd have had a tough time finding very many strong abolitionists who were also strong Confederate loyalists.
2) Non-historical scenarios. The obvious example would be a Middle-Earth scenario: The forces of darkness would have access to orc units, dwarves could build cities in mountains without starving, etc. In a not-even-fictionally-historical Star Trek scenario with all the ST races starting on one planet (!), Vulcans might get science bonuses, Ferengi might get trade bonuses, and so on.
There might even be some limited justification in full-scale historical games. I've heard it argued that one reason the Japanese samurai fighting style is so different from the European knighthood fighting style was that the steel ore in Japan was of higher quality, which made for better swords, which made armor less effective, which forced them to develop a style based on speed, accuracy, and dodging & parrying, rather than on encasing themselves in armor and going toe-to-toe. I'm not sure that Civ3 will simulate a fighting-style level of detail, but that's just the first example that came to mind. Since (if "true") this is a cultural/technological difference that was dependent on available resources, the only ways to simulate it that I can see would be either a civ-specific tech or bonus (assuming pre-determined starting locations), or tying a tech, unit, or bonus to local natural resources. While that would be WAY cool (Elephants, anyone?), it would also be very hard to balance, especially for random worlds (and would probably require more than one or two resources per terrain type).
I view the Civ games as "What If" tools. That may be as simple as "What if I were in charge of Rome?" or "What if the Japanese were pyramid-builders?", but one interesting experiment would be "What if one group of people were inherently better at [something] than all other groups of people?" How would this alternate history have been different from (or similar to) our own?
Anyway, in short: Unique civs good for scenarios, probably bad for standard full game.
|
I have just started to play scenarios, and my sense is that any addition to the tools available to scenario builders would be welcome, as the existing ones make it difficult to model some historical (and other) situations.
I continue to believe that it unique civs (other than earned benefits) should be excluded from the basic, default game.
Lord of the Mark
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BRENNANonTHEmoor
|
|
croton,NY, Westchester
Feb 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
true
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wazell
|
 |
Fine Land
May 2000
time: 07:12
|
|
It's true that preset civ-specific bonuses won't do any good. However it could be realistic if each game had prehistory, so civs wouldn't start from scratch. Instead, before a game starts, there is an area on the map from where human race starts. Then every civ goes wandering around and they start off where they happen to be at 4000BC, and you're in control. Obviously you can't see where the bunch of settlers known as your civ have wandered before start, but the advantages and disadvantages they get are set by what they did in prehistory, and their starting position.
For example if some civ spent a lot of time in desert they could survive with less food, and those living seaside get naval bonuses. If they had to use boats to get their location, they probably have map making or equivalent, and so on. What this also means, is that continents which are isolated from others by large bodies of water are completely uninhabited, cause no one could get there.
And another thing. Elephants shouldn't be some civ-specific bonus, neither cannot they be built everywhere. They should only be buildable in tropical cities located on jungles and savanna. Neither shouldn't horses be available for everyone; there was no horses in pre-Columbian America.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 04-03-2001 10:21 PM
Lets say you just finished reserching Armored warefare. Now you can research a minor tech called Panzer Tank or something like that. It would give you say +x% over other tanks and mechanized ground units. Therefore, 'superpowers' can existe because they have time to research all of these minor techs
|
Hey, that ain't bad. With one addition: this "Panzer Tank" tech should only be available for a limited time after you first discover Armoured Warfare, so that it becomes a question of research time-vs-military benefit. That way, a research juggernaut wouldn't be able to race through the military techs, then go back and pick up all these "enhancement" techs. You can rationalize it by saying, if you don't research these advanced tactics now, your armies will formulate their own tactics and become set in their ways.
Then comes the question of how to prevent a civ from picking up a lot of these "enhancement" techs. Perhaps a hard limit of, say, five enhancements per civ? A floating limit of three? By floating I mean that if your enhancement becomes obsolete, you're allowed to choose another. A "negative prerequisite" system, where if you have X enhancement, you're not permitted to research Y? That one would be tough to balance, though.
In the end, I'd settle for a modified form of SMAC's social engineering, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
About civ difference, how about my silly proposal I wrote some days ago:
quote:
A bit complex, but can be used to add some early settings to the game:
Every Civ starting with a nomadic tribe (not able to settle down into a proper city, wandering around a bit meeting early tribes, will let you start early diplomatic actions (join tribe) or early battles (crush people and enslave them, pillage their gold), explore early or hunt a food reserve.
So you have some early turns (random range 10-20 before game start) with limited rules, just to chose the way you will lead your borning Civ.
You'll achieve very early tech (that pre assigned in Civ2), achieve early reputation (bloody or pacifist), gain first momentum in resources, money or food. Then usual game will start 
You are forging your Civ, so you must face decisions mutually exclusive.
You can skip this only to have a random quick start, but you probably want to keep control, so you'll see the "intro" every new game.
|
Given the game intro rules limit, Firaxis can add quoting, animations and musics action-related, more easily than inside the full game, pumping up the "epic feeling", helping to hook players into the game, and given some Civ difference NOT PREDEFINED, but matured from players early actions.
Wonders are not enough, also because they are built too late to influence early part of game, and because too often you must pick any wonder that AI Civ left on the table (don't mentioning when you conquer a Wonder and gain a bonus "by shortcut").
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by optimus2861 on 04-04-2001 07:36 AM
Hey, that ain't bad. With one addition: this "Panzer Tank" tech should only be available for a limited time after you first discover Armoured Warfare, so that it becomes a question of research time-vs-military benefit. That way, a research juggernaut wouldn't be able to race through the military techs, then go back and pick up all these "enhancement" techs. You can rationalize it by saying, if you don't research these advanced tactics now, your armies will formulate their own tactics and become set in their ways.
Then comes the question of how to prevent a civ from picking up a lot of these "enhancement" techs. Perhaps a hard limit of, say, five enhancements per civ? A floating limit of three? By floating I mean that if your enhancement becomes obsolete, you're allowed to choose another. A "negative prerequisite" system, where if you have X enhancement, you're not permitted to research Y? That one would be tough to balance, though.
In the end, I'd settle for a modified form of SMAC's social engineering, though.
|
------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral PJ
|
 |
Southeast England , UK
Dec 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
What your forgetting is that with civ bonuses you can select or customise the civ that best fits your playing style.
Its just a personal taste issue it seems so maybe they should put an option in to turn it off for die hard civ fans.
I liked the Master of orion and SMAC civ bonus/penalty system, it gives
you different challenges with each species/civilisation making you want to play the game again after you've won.
Its also great that it means each civilisation is different to conquer,
some with lots of money you need spies and courthouses to prevent you being bribed against, against enemies with natural wall defences (like the Hive that all were underground and had Walls) you need to bribe them more or use wall penetrating weapons .. airpower.
Wonders aren't that good, as once you've captured the enemies wonder they
are no longer given that bonus which seems very unrealistic if we're saying wonders can simulate the differences in civilisations.
In reality there are big differences, some civs like the germans have till recently been orienated more towards barbarism and less cultural avenues perhaps, and they've always been industrious.
Persians could be more affected by religions to simulate the power of Islam which came to them and other mid east areas.
America could have more free speech and its benefits/problems.. problems in the way that the constitution could lead to gun control being weakened maybe and more affected by internal rioting and strife (such as the civil war) etc.
I think the Minor tribe simulation could act like the Cold war, with small countries joining one or other superpowers and serving them effectively, AND these minors could contribute good bonuses , as with Chezkoslovakia (or some spelling like that) being a powerful industrial centre for the USSR its Skoda works producing lots of powered units .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
What YOU are forgetting, Admiral, is that all of your examples are mere snapshots from history.
quote:
some civs like the germans have till recently been orienated more towards barbarism and less cultural avenues perhaps, and they've always been industrious.
|
Barbarism? Prussia brought luxuries to Europe, like the first european-made porcelain. What about all the great German composers? Your example here is based on two radical regimes (smaller still, two radical PEOPLE) who changed Germany. It seems obvious to me that these examples of "barbarism" are based on the German leader, not their people.
quote:
Persians could be more affected by religions to simulate the power of Islam which came to them and other mideast areas.
|
Isn't this simulated by having a Theocratic government? If I want to make the Persians communist, why can't I? You are talking government, now.
quote:
America could have more free speech and its benefits/problems.. problems in the way that the constitution could lead to gun control being weakened maybe and more affected by internal rioting and strife (such as the civil war) etc.
|
This is a joke! All of these were decisions made by the people at the time, and were not the result of some mindset that permeates their entire history. If I led America, and never allowed the slave trade to happen, would I still be affected more by internal strife? Of course not! Everything you describe their is also America as a Democracy. Those above examples refer to Democracies in general.
So, all in all, it seems your examples only prove that an attitude, tendency, or "special ability" in a Civ is the result of the leader's conscious choices. The decision to start a war... to allow slavery... to choose a different government. These are obviously choices made by the ruler... why should the computer make those choices for me?
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2001 16:05
|