 |
| |
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
FIRAXIS seem to be determined to implement civ-specific units such as the German 'Panzer tank', which will be tougher than normal tanks. Clearly the idea is that they will act as 'specials' to spice up the FUN of the game. Much of the civ gaming community are opposed to such preset 'specials', saying it is contrary to the 'strategy' ethos of civ.
REST ASSURED, there is a solution to satisfy both camps. Here it is:
Introduce an extra element into the science/luxury division of tax revenue. The extra element can be called 'practical science'. The game could start off with the slider bar set to 50% science, 50% practical science, 0% luxuries. The practical science level would determine the strength of any unit (or perhaps even effectiveness of building?) that the tech currently being researched by 'science' yields. Thus if you wanted a better tank, you would increase practical science and decrease science. Thus the trade off for a better unit would be that it would take longer to research it! With no unit workshop, this would be a simple, but effective way to allow each player to customise the power of their units depending on circumstances which are always UNIQUE TO EACH GAME. Thus if you picked the Germans, and started on islands, you would not be stuck to using an arbitrarily preselected 'Panzer tank' - completely useless in the situation, and you could instead spend longer getting a better battleship. (the increased time could be regained by spending less time on something less useful in the situation ie. tank - this would prevent a civ from making all their units strong. They would have to make a tradeoff - to THINK, and to PLAN)THIS IS STRATEGY!!!!!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NotComingDown
|
|
Århus, Denmark
Apr 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
Cool idea!! Let's hope they at least include it in v4.0!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
belusa
|
|
Brussels, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
Nice idea! You really have to think what you're gonna build and how good/strong you want it to be ... I like it!
Lawrence of Arabia, what do you mean by "minor tech idea"? Can you explain what it is supposed to do? Thanks!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Erka
|
|
Sweden
Apr 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
This is a great idea! Unique units are OK, if ANY civ
can get them due to hard work during the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
I think this would be a great solution.
It would be both fun and practical.
I know I would like to be able to do that in Civ III.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Arabia,
I understand that you're minor techs could work just as well. In fact, the effect would be almost the same, but you would have less control over the power of your units - its just yes a strong tank or no strong tank. Additionally, it would introduce too many units in to the game, because you would have to have a new unit for each new strength of unit, whereas with my 'practical science' model, you still only have the one tank unit. (Perhaps, you could name your unit if it is more powerful than average - that way opponents can tell if you have a stronger than normal unit)
Still, the main reason not to go with minor techs, is because they can be so easily edited into the game by editing the text files. (In fact I edited in minor techs in CTP and now always play with them) 'practical science' however, is not so easily done and thus would represent a step forward from any thing mods could have done in previous civs. Remember Civ3 should be a CIv3 no civ2.5!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Maximus,
I understand your concerns about jacking up the practical science at the end of the game but I will show you how this actually saves the game...
Currently, you can research only the techs that will get you to the end game or even just gunpowder quickest, at the expense of techs like religion etc. However, there is no real penalty for doing this, with the result being that the player who does this ends up with tanks galore, while everyone else in on musketeers. Sid has already decided to make the player THINK before doing this by making 'less important techs' like religion (which are now called the arts) have buildings which can give cultural bonuses. Thus he is introducing a penalty for those who go straight for the tanks and planes in the endgame. 'Practical science' merely reinforces this trend by MILITARILY penalising those who rush for the best units in the endgame. Now, not only will 'rushers' have no 'cathedral etc' but they will be faced with a more tangible consideration of whether they really can afford to face ultra powerful enemy knights with their poor excuse of one (because they have spent minimal time on practical science). This relative need for powerful units changes EVERY GAME, and thoughout EVERY STAGE OF THE GAME, constantly keeping the player thinking and not just blindly going for the endgame every game. THIS IS STRATEGY!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Arabia,
OKAY point taken, but this severely limits the number of choices that the player has to make between 'better unit or faster tech', with the result being that the player only has to think about this issue in a few places or even not at all (if they decide researching a couple more minor techs isn't going to hurt them all that much). With the 'practical science' model, the player has to think throughout the game. And as I said before, you're suggestion could be easily implemented by the player or someones mods.
(By the way, I believe that the crusader unit should be one and the same with knights. Crusaders are still knights, the only difference is that circumstance forced West Europe to develop tougher knights to counter the Muslim threat. THere is no reason why Europe will face the same situation in a civ game, or more importantly not face the situation in some other time period where any arbitrarily implemented 'minor techs' may not have covered. (Stronger warriors, archers, triremes... who knows what situations could force a player to develop) Practical science is the only way to cover every possible thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Arabia,
Now I see where you're coming from.
"But the minor tech one is better because it seems unlikely that every building or unit that you build will be special. I think that only with certain techs it should be possible."
Fair enough. this could be catered for in the 'slider bar' model, by fixing the practical science at 50% of the total science - (eg. if I had 20% luxuries, I'd have 80% total science, so there would be 40%practical science and 40%science)
This way, practical science level only plays a role in techs which yield military units.
BOTH MODELS ARE VERY SIMILAR. the only DIFFERENCE is that (assuming the bar is fixed for non unit techs as discussed above)...
The MINOR TECH model is more basic (yes strong unit or no), and will only apply to a handful of units which are deemed by FIRAXIS to be worthy of stronger versions. This I believe is the flaw. Every player, NOT FIRAXIS, should decide depending on each game circumstance, whether there should be a stronger version of a trireme, or archer etc. Just because in Earth history, the Germans found it beneficial to have a stronger tank (Panzer) doesn't mean that a civ player would.
EXAMPLE: Russians have small forest empire. No access to iron. They are about to be attacked by Germans, who have iron and therefore knights. THeir best defence therefore, is not knights (because they can't build them) but tougher archers. Using the minor tech model, they may not be able to because FIRAXIS looks at history at doesn't find that this situation every arose. If it did the history books may be filled with tales of the glorious Russian super archers, but they are not because this did not happen in real history. In civ history is made! Players will undoutably not make the same history as in the real world, and thus every game should see different civs specialise in different units - they should not be arbitrarily decided. THIS RESTRICTS THE FREEDOM OF THE PLAYER TO CREATE THEIR OWN HISTORY.
You say, "it is unlikely that every unit you build will be special". YOu are certainly right. With the 'slider bar model' a player that tries to make super units of everything will most likely be wiped out by a nuke while he's still got knights. You are right in saying only a few units that each civ built were superior in strength in the whole of history. However, the question of 'which ones were superior Panzer, ROman legion etc.' should not be decided by FIRAXIS through arbitrarily included minor techs, but should be up to the player to decide for each game of civ is different, and most importantly, DIFFERENT FROM HISTORY.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Arabia (or should I call you Lawrence),
I'm glad that I have convinced you. 
I have though about your question on how to represent stronger units and have come to three possible solutions.
1) Powerful units could be represented by a different image. eg. powerful legions would be represented by a different coloured breastplate (gold rather than silver?) (A unit could be considered powerful if it was discovered with the practical science level at or higher than 75% of the total science - eg. 20% luxuries 60% practical science 20% science)
2) 'power bar' above the 'health bar' that displays how strong your units are according to the practical science you put into them. eg. you set your practical science bar to 30% science to 20% luxuries to 50%. The bar would be 60% coloured in, because it is the proportion of practical to normal science that counts - not the luxuries!
3) Powerful units could have a gold circle next to the health bar clearly signalling that it is a powerful unit.
I would say that out of option 1. and 3. three will be better because it is clear, doesn't require extra development time to create new images for tougher units, and does not risk confusing the player at to what the unit is. As for option 2, it has the advantage of showing you exactly how powerful the unit is, but creating another bar above the unit may make it look less pleasing visually. I don't know. I'd say its a trade off between options 2. and 3.
Feedback, comments?
Just as an aside, I think it might also be a good idea to be able to name tougher units. eg. you discover tank warfare with heaps of practical science. A menu pops up asking you what you want your tank to be called, default is 'tank', I'm the Germans so I call my tank 'Panzer tank'.
Feedback, comments?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:12
|
|
I highly doubt Firaxis will go for the "practical science" idea, because it complicates the economic model, and I'm sure they'll try to keep things simple and elegant.
Here's another way to fix the civ-specific unit problem. Option 1: people who want to play with special units the way Firaxis describes it, fine. Option 2: if you don't want them at all, turn them all off. In addition, have a third option, to work like this:
Each civ can only have one special unit. but none start out with any. If you are the first civ to reach a tech that gives a certain special unit, you can choose if you want the special unit that comes with it, or not. You might choose not, if you're angling for a different special unit that you like more. Eventually each civ ends up with one and only one special unit. The civ or civs that are far behind may not end up with their top priority special unit, though- a price for falling behind. Given that there's a max of 8 civs in a normal game, and 16 special units presumably, every civ should get a special unit that suits them, even if its not their number one choice.
So, for instance, if you're on an island, you might beeline for the Longship. If you're a land based civ, you might beeline for the Horse Archer (imagining the game has a Mongol specific special unit). But if you don't plan on going to war in the middle ages, you hold off and aim for the Panzer later on. And so on. This makes a lot more sense than say, the Germans have an inherent ability to build better tanks, a destiny foretold thousands of years in advance, even if they're in a situation where Panzers are useless.
With this option, there would be all kinds of fun strategy. Do you go for an early special unit and shoot your wad early, or go for a later one, when maybe you won't even last that long? If you're slightly ahead of a competitor, do you take a special unit just to deny it to them? It would be kind of like having an ace in the hole, ready to be pulled out when needed the most. It also means that the civ that gets the special unit was really the one or ones that excelled the best in that technology. It makes military players have to excell in science much more than when you have a predetermined special unit. It might even help a player that's fallen behind catch up, cos it would be likely the technological leaders would pick special units early on, leaving the player that's fallen behind some great late game units. The possibilities are so much more interesting than having the situation fixed.
Having these three options will make everyone happy. It shouldn't change Firaxis' playbalancing: if all the strengths of the special units balance out in option one, they should balance out in option 3. It would require a little bit of extra programming, esp. in having the AI pick an intelligent special unit for their geographical/strategic situation, but I think it would be well worth it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Great idea Harlan!
I like the simplicity of your idea, however, I think it should be combined with the benefits of the 'practical science' model - a sort of dumbed down version of it, so that the AI can handle it better. (I don't know what you meant by it complicating the economic model!?)
EXAMPLE: when you start researching a tech that yields a military unit, a menu pops up asking whether I want 'low practical research', 'normal', or 'high practical research'. If you click low, the research is done quicker, but the unit produced is weaker in att/def/hitpoints. Normal is self-explanatory, and 'high' would produce a 'special' unit with increased att/def/hitpoints. This combined model does away with a slightly complicated 'practical research bar', and replaces it with a clear cut choice, that even the AI should be able to handle! As for limiting the number of 'special' units that a civ can build per game, I'm not sure. It sounds like a good idea, but may be restrictive...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Lzprrst,
I'm glad you like my idea. Since Firaxis will more likely listen with more responses, could I have more responses...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Ranger,
Please expand. How do you propose that your three types of research affect the game?
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2001 09:32
|