 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
i play with them on.
I think they're great. tailoring a game towards a civ's specific abilities. Like if I'm not religious, do I wait for republic or democracy or monarchy to change. anarchy is pretty crushing if at the wrong time. and the units. if I am iriqoius, I have to attack early to have them be of use. if germans, I can bide my time (quietly) before strking. fun
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
Besides my first game, I have always turned UUs off.
Why?
Start with a level-playing field. Uniqueness comes from the different PLAY styles. My civ will have strengths and attributes due to the way I run it, not because of some inherent "genetic" code. This borders on being a morally repugnant notion as well. The Germans naturally make better tanks? The French are genetically endowed with superior musket-firing abilities? So technical know-how and an industrial base, both being based on the player's playstyle, have nothing to do with how powerful tanks are? You can build barracks and train your musketmen into a more disciplined fighting force, but for some reason, they're inferior to the French, well, simply because they're not French? WTF? Those scientific Russians have cheap libraries and free advances because??? Forget about putting more taxes into research or building more improvements!.. the Russians have an edge, not because they concentrate on science more or manage science better than me, but because.... well, Firaxis needed a way to "spice up" the game.
If I have a powerful offensive civilization, it is because I concentrate on taking the initiative. If I want to run you over with tanks, I'll get the techs, build up my industrial production capacity, build the tanks, and the infrastructure to get them over to pound on you, thank you very much. I won't just pick "Germans" b/c I know my Panzers can dust your tanks in a certain era. If I have a science heavy civ, it is because I choose to concentrate on that. If I have an expansionist civ, it's because I went settler-crazy.
Uniqueness should come from the player's choices throughout the game, not from some artificially imposed constraints. The game should have the flexibility and replay value to make each game different because players choose to use different tactics based on the changing game conditions.
Resorting to these predetermined UUs seems like a cheap way to increase replay value. Personally I think it DECREASES strategic value. It limits the play style by funneling choices down the same path. Gee, you're Chinese? Well, I wonder when you're going to expand! Oh, you're Greek? I guess I'll pick another target for ancient conquest. The only choices you make are at the start up screen. Think about it.
Try playing a game with them off and see whether or not you are more free to choose your civs direction. Those AIs aren't nearly as predictable now, are they? The Aztecs won't always do a jag rush, the Persians won't typically sit back til immortals. You, the player, won't always do the same thing, resorting to the same tactics as the last time you played with this civ. Thus you will make your civ as good as it is, because you are a good player that adapts and plays well, not simply because you got samurai first and went on a ho-hum killing spree.
Alright, end of rant. I doubt I'll change any minds, most folks seem to play with it on without any qualms. That's why I'm happy Firaxis made it an option. If they ever took that away, it would probably push me to the dark side of these forums.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
Captain, I understand and respect your arguments, but I suggest that you're missing part of what Firaxis was trying to do with this concept.
For whatever reason, throughout the course of history, different cultures have, of course, developed certain strenghs and weaknesses... not that we know why, but it is certainly true.
Much of human history has been defined by the interaction of those different characteristics. Now, the mechanism and impact on gameplay may be in question, but I think Firaxis was trying to create a situation where those cultural differences could come into play. This started before Civ3, and the current game represents an effort to further the concept. It's not meant to be a "genetic" thing, but rather a differentiation thing.
I think (IMHO), that you would be happier with a more sophisticated application, where unique characteristics, traits, units, etc., arose organically through the play of each civ, human and AI, in a given game. So would I, probably, but I would imagine that that would be much much more difficult to program.
I haven't tried the level playing field yet, but I will, both to test the enjoyment of gameplay, and to prep for MP (my belief as to why it's there). I recommend that you try turning civ-specific on... you don't have to play a circumscribed game according to your UU or traits, believe me, and neither do the AI civs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
|
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
For whatever reason, throughout the course of history, different cultures have, of course, developed certain strenghs and weaknesses... not that we know why, but it is certainly true.
Much of human history has been defined by the interaction of those different characteristics. Now, the mechanism and impact on gameplay may be in question, but I think Firaxis was trying to create a situation where those cultural differences could come into play. This started before Civ3, and the current game represents an effort to further the concept. It's not meant to be a "genetic" thing, but rather a differentiation thing.
I think (IMHO), that you would be happier with a more sophisticated application, where unique characteristics, traits, units, etc., arose organically through the play of each civ, human and AI, in a given game. So would I, probably, but I would imagine that that would be much much more difficult to program.
|
Certainly. You've put it quite well, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't begrudge that UUs exist, I just don't think it was implemented well.
I am not sure that it would be all that difficult to make it more organic. For instance, they could have simply added a Building requirement for certain units (certain bldgs are already prerequisites for other bldgs, why not units?). Then, we have the flag which makes certain types of bldgs replace each other (such that you can never have more than 1, I think the default game has the different power plants replace each other ). Just make the UU dependent on the bldg. Thus you could only have one kind at any time. Make the bldg a small wonder. This would prevent different ones in different cities. Admittedly you could build them in series and then have different UUs, but the cost of the small wonder would account for the benefits gained. Remember that they've now lost the ability to produce their last type of UU so they'd better be sure about wanting to switch.
All the structures are in place, all a firaxian has to do is toggle them on - unless of course they've hardcoded it so only bldgs need prereqs and units don't. I wouldn't be surprised considering how many hardcoded limits there are in the editor.
I have to admit that the civ-specific traits would be very useful for scenarios, esp. alien ones, or specific historical eras. Then I would admit that there might be some "genetic" codes or at least for a certain era, a civ had certain dominant skills (e.g. the commercial netherlands in that era). UUs are great for scenarios - but we don't have any yet. I remain adamant that over a 6000 yr regular game, civs should be able to change and flexibility is critical. Again, I'm glad it's an option to turn off or on according to our likes and dislikes.
Right now, I'm in the process of designing a mod that will take care of some of these issues. Doubt it'll be done anytime before the summer's over, but I must admit, modding is sometimes more fun for me than playing the game.
Theseus, I know I don't have to play a certain way - I just think non-UU games are "freer'. I know that when playing as the aztecs, I almost always use an early rush. otherwise, it's "wasting" my UU. As a roman, I beeline for iron for those legions. horses for the Iroquois, and so on. the gameplay isn't bound by UUs, but it has strong "tendencies". I know I said I've only played on UU game, but its not totally true, just only 1 full UU game. The rest I quit after the novelty of UUs wore off.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
I think it'd be interesting if you completely conquer a nation like Germany, later on during when they'd get there UU(if its before), you have a chance of developing it then. Just a thought, you could also give each civ 3 UU and then make it random which 1 hes able to make over the course of the game. This would prevent set strategys based around one UU, and make it more interesting too. Could even base it off number of citys/current military/take various factors into a fact for making why they needed and developed that unit. |
That's a pretty cool idea, getting another civs uu if you eradicate them. that would force me to finish people off rather than just having the ai do my dirty work for me.
quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
And btw, i've never had a spearman kill a tank in Civ3, but one of my phalanx's on a hill and in my capitol took one out in Civ2(suprised the hell outta me cause I hadn't noticed the tank comign and thought it was gonna be wiped out). But besides for that single time, I haven't seen it anymore. |
In Civ2? Surely something like that would never happen in Civ2, what with hp and firepower etc. Civ2 has the perfect combat system, and there is no way a 3000 year old spearman could defeat a tank. I would watch your back. Your blasphemy has been duly noted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Denday
|
|
New Zealand
Apr 2002
time: 17:19
|
|
I turned it off and cant get it back on
:sad:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:19
|
|
Do you ever turn off the civ-specific abilities and units?
NEVER!!!
I can't imagine a game of Civ III without civ-specific attributes. If you want that kind of game, play Civ II instead.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2002 18:40
|