quote: You guys want every civ to be the same? Is that how it is in reality? I'm all for civ-specific unit/abilities. Most of you say you want it to be historical, but you want every civ the same.

Is this a joke? I hear people saying, "but I want Civ2 to be realistic, and have cultural identity, and I don't want bland civs!"

People who say this obviously miss the point. Civ-specific units create bland Civs! If I want to rule in the modern age, I will always be Germans so I can get panzers or whatever. The game will degenerate into "oh, he will get panzers later on, so I better deal with him now." All you realism fans should at least see this as silly and unrealistic!

Cultural identity? Civilization allows you to create this cultural identity yourself, with your decisions. I can't imagine anyone who has thought about this issue more than 30 seconds deciding that indeed, cultural identity is better when somebody forces it on you. Stupid!

Realism, huh? Well guess what, Civ is about making your own history, not reading a history book! Is there something in the English genetic code that makes them have longbows? No. Some german "panzer gene?" No. Obvioulsy, people who say this is realistic have no concept of what realism is and just want to repeat earth history. Some of us, you know, want to MAKE OUR OWN history! That is what Civ is for! These "bonuses" are based on environment, and are not somehow imprinted into a civ.

And for all you ******** who still like this idea: I hope you'll have fun with a tribe of landlocked vikings who can't build their special unit for no reason other than the stupidity of Firaxis. I will be mocking you from afar, playing a good and balanced game of Civ2 where I decide my fate, not the game companies. You suck, Firaxis!

It's that simple.

So you'd choose a civ according to your favorite strategy.

For example:

I might want to play the Americans. But I very seldom make use of airplanes. This puts me in a PENALTY.

I like to use tanks and dilpos. The game would FORCE me to choose Germans or, say, Russians.

I like to play Greeks. I NEVER engage in conquering the world war in ancient times (Sorry Alexander ). This puts me in a penalty too.

You say: choose a civ that DOES NOT fit your stategy and be challenged.

I say that this goes against the philosophy of civ where all civs have equal changes and it is ONLY YOUR strategy that determines the outcome.

Civ is all about strategy. What kind of fool would choose a civ that puts him/her in a strategic disadvantage? I expect the AI (or MP) to challenge me.

You say: unique units make civs unique and you don't want to have «bland» civs.

If you are looking for historical accuracy open an encyclopedia. This is civ where the Zulus can nuke you on the head in 2005 A.D., Americans roam the earth in 4000 B.C. and Babylonians throw parties when they discover Fusion Power.

YOU determine the uniqueness of a civ by the way you are playing and by the way the game evolves.

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-29-2001 08:39 PM LOL!!!! I think the game with be GREAT with this twist on things, and if you don't trust Sid, you haven't been paying attention the past 20 years, have you?

Sid (may very well be close to but) is not God

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Firaxis that made Alpha Centauri? And wasn't that AFTER Civ 2?

I think we all trust Sid but that doesn't mean he can't make a crucial mistake...!

Also, I see a lot of you people saying unique civs are ok as an option.

But can you imagine the amount of effort that Firaxis will have to put on unique units? And then make all this effort... optional? If UU (unique units) are on I think that we'd have to suffer them.

And I don't want to scew the game up by making arbitrary alterations to the rules.txt or whatever.

I sincerely doubt the special units will be absolutely destabilizing, they'd just be there to give an extra edge to each civ at a certain point. It's not as if suddenly when the discovery of mobile warfare, the Germans will automatically roll our dozens of panzer units, thus wiping out the globe, I'm sure they'll be expensive, and if wouldn't be too effective to build too many of them.

quote: Originally posted by JamesJKirk on 04-29-2001 09:47 PM I sincerely doubt the special units will be absolutely destabilizing, they'd just be there to give an extra edge to each civ at a certain point. It's not as if suddenly when the discovery of mobile warfare, the Germans will automatically roll our dozens of panzer units, thus wiping out the globe, I'm sure they'll be expensive, and if wouldn't be too effective to build too many of them.

Not destabilizing. But when I can have an edge in modern warfare (the tank being the arm of choice) why wouldn't I chose ONLY one civ that does give me that (even small) advantage?

And all civs do not have democracies in the end game.

quote: You cannot have balanced civs with unique units. It's that simple.

This is just so wrong it's laughable. Yes, it's MUCH MUCH harder to make a game with unique civs, units and techs. And in the hands of MOST companies, players find huge whole to exploit. But a good company can (and does) take this approach a makes a masterpiece.

Bottom line in that Sid is in charge of this thing and he'll make sure it's balanced. And no doubt after you get used to these design upgrades, you'll look back on Civ2 and see just how flat it really is.

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-29-2001 06:24 PM Zylka: Your wit is stunning. Looks like you'll be playing Civ2 then. Too bad. Maybe you should have been more active around here when it mattered instead whinning like a little wimp now?

No way Yin! I didn't feel the need to be around here when I assumed the players representing this board would be logical thinkers who didn't just wander over from a game of Red Alert. Looks like my assumptions were right if radical dudes such as yourself are calling the shots around here!

You like my ideas? I've got more! Perhaps every civ can get pre-set citizen attributes, such as larger & stronger heart arteries for the Aztecs because they lived high up in the hills where breathing is tougher (this would decrease the likelyhood of Aztec heart attacks in battle, and they could also start out with better disease ratings in the demographics). Who knows, the civ with the stongest type of people could even use technological advances to eventually shoot laser beams out of their eyes! After that, we could make the Russians prone to Nuclear Meltdowns (we all know how chernobyl went!), and the city of San Fransisco will go through Earthquakes every 4 turns so you'd better think about renaming that place, bucko!

Of course we shouldn't stop at pulling reference from the real world, so the sky's the limit! Just think of how cool it would be to control a mythical sea race that can only function underwater. If you're a buttoned down conservative such as myself who prefers building on land, you can still access imaginative civs such as the Oompa Loompa's (who are extra good at using the sweets resource). Just watch out you don't get gobbled up by the ferocious Wang-Doodles, because 150 gold ransom is yours for capturing their leaders!

1. Pull your head out a second and go read the List. I appreciate that for a Spaz to focus that long will take TREMENDOUS focus.

2. See how many people argued for unique civs and units (this will require numbers higher than 10, but I'll help as needed).

3. Make a conclusion (again, higher brain function...I'll be glad to make the conclusion for you when your head begins to hurt to much).

4. Next time consider actually making your opinions (pissy rants) known when it actually matters, which it no longer does in case that thought never occured to you.

If I remember right, Brian Reynolds (that surely know some bit about Civ II equal race and SMAC diversified) explained in an interview how game mostly introduced "hard coded" unique traits to game factions a few years ago (Starcraft, Warcraft, Command & Conquer), but now the way to go is to put back the choice into the players hands.

We can live very well with unique units if they aren't "preassigned" to a Civ, but they depend from a player style of play, e.g. player chose a tech tree minor research, so "trade" a special unit instead of another benefit, e.g. a better chemical laboratory to research a bit quicker.

Those aren't flat options, are deep choices. These wouldn't be predefined civ strong and weak points, these would be yours decision effects shaping your Civ. During WW I British developed first early tanks, but between the two World Wars the Germans developed better the concept, then in WW II their blitzkrieg tactic, moulded around Panzer mobility was a winner, until the Ally catched up.

I understand that someone can suppose to draw the best path to gain all the more useful special units, but that can be made less obvious: in peacetime do you still chose Panzer or a better laboratory? Bread and butter or Cannons? Choices.

I hope Yin26 and all the others that vote in favour of Unique units will like this approach, because it save their urge for Civ difference without the limits of prebuilding factions. Others, like me, would enjoy the freedom of a personal path to the Civ.

Is it really too late for a Civ III tweak as mine suggestion?
Let's hope not, or let's start looking around for something else where to put our money: I just discovered a nice restaurant downtown, and may be my wife will love more a romantic lunch then a Civ III game or two; end of this game can be greater, you know

I'm also sure they are going to have an option to include or exlude this special units. That way they will make everyone happy.

For playing earth map with fixed starting position, I think the pre-given bonus really makes sense and no doubt it will add extra depth and fun. However, for playing a random map, I think pre-given bonus is utter non-sense. It simply doesn't fit into ever changing factors and variables.

Which would you rather have? The "strategy" of picking one race or the real strategy of developing your Civ over time?

Civ-specific units that are bestowed no matter what at the beginning of the game will be the worst thing to ever befall this game. They are eliminating your own strategy for less "bland" Civs. What a joke!

If you guys scroll down the forum list of topics, it looks like a lot of complaining to me... much of which is justified! Firaxis has made some poor decisions that have many people asking "why?" and Firaxis doesn't seem to have an answer. Truly, "why?" Friaxis? Why ignore people wanting more Civs? Why ignore the many people who recognize the danger of co-called "unique" civs? Why, Firaxis? I'll tell you why: This isn't Civ3, it's SMAC 2. The same engine, looks like. The picture gets clearer: This game is going to suck. I've given my input, and many other people have too... and have been ignored. Well, when it comes out, and it DOES suck, at least I won't have myself to blame.

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-30-2001 12:08 PM Civ-specific units that are bestowed no matter what at the beginning of the game will be the worst thing to ever befall this game.

What are we talking about here? Civ-specific units ONLY?

What I voted against in that "Civ-specific" poll, was the whole shebang: specific science-, trade-, production-, happiness-, combat-benefits/trade-offs for each and every damn Civ (ala SMAC). That I didnt like.

Still: if its checkbox optional I guess I can live with it. Barely...

I seem to have hit close to home with the hostility of your response. Was I right in guessing you wandered over here from a game of starcraft or red alert? Please leave your preference for those low attention-span games elsewhere.

Bottom line is, the majority of players DON'T want civ specific changes. I don't care if more than 10 people are for it (seems like an exaggeration in itself), because 90% of the players don't. Yourself and a few groups of newbies may want it, so go make "exciting" disparity scenarios when civ3 comes out instead.

I know it's hard for someone with your "reasoning" to understand and furthermore accept, but a HUGE majority of players know this is stupid and don't want it. Go crawl back to your insignificant minority hole and stop flooding these forums with newbie babble.

Thanks,
Zylka

I think there are some things that should be clearified before this duscussion can move on:

Are there gonna be 1 civ spesific units per civ, or several?

Will these units have different stats or just different art?

Are there more civ spes things, or just units?

I also think the question on number of civs has some connection with this, as that will determin how much specific art etc has to be made, so:

Do we know for sure that the game is hardcoded to 7 civs?

Do we know if there are gonna be 16 civs to choose from?

In earlier threads Firaxis has quite often replied to clearify the topics in discussion. I'm starting to wonder why we don't hear anything now, especially in light of the rather heathed discussion's we're having.

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-30-2001 12:52 PMWell, then whats the big deal? [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]

Ralf please take the time and read the earlier posts.

Look at it. They're not there to make a game we like. They're out there to make a game which will be a huge hit for a short time just like Red ALert or AoE. Because that will bring them money and a huge fanbase of zealoted empty-headed fans.

I really wonder if all the new settlers appearing here are not someone's DLs. A certain someone which just loves unique civs but can't make any points to rationally support it.

Goodbye Firaxis. Goodbye Ci... SMAC 2.

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 04-30-2001 02:52 PM Ralf please take the time and read the earlier posts.

Paiktis22, heres a word of advice:
Before you post adrupt 1-liners telling people to read earlier posts in the subject, perhaps you should try to follow your own advice a little better yourself.

I have posted at least 4 lengthy replies in the very thread that started the whole damn debate: 14 Poll: "unique benefits depending on the civilization you choose" arguing vigorously against any SMAC-style benefits/trade-offs for each civ. Yes, my viewpoint have been downtuned somewhat since then, because A: the whole thing is likely optional anyway, and B: the issue in this particular thread (civ-specific units - yes, I have read the whole thread; some few talk about the original thing, but most people are ranting about those units) seems comparably much easier to swallow, then the original bigger issue.

Click on Poll result and see for you self. This is what the whole thing originally was about: having faction-style science-, trade-, happiness-, production-, combat-benefits & trade-offs, unique for each and every civ.
This is why I am a little surprised why you guys now over-emphasize the comparably minor issue of "Civ-specific units". Why does this steer up so much fuss? Civ-2 already had AI-civ unique temperament- and management emphasize differences, and you are upset that each civ now have its own set of unique units. WHY?

We have not even played the game yet. How do you folks know that unique civs is bad for the game? Aren't you all bashing unique civs purely on your stereotypical assumptions of how it will work in the game?
Firaxis is actually playing the prototype and obviously feel they have implemented unique civs in such a way that it makes the game better.

I personally trust Firaxis and look forward to how they implement unique civs. I think it sounds very promising.

ie germans would get.
a ship that moves 2 more squares then normal
a plane that has a stronger attack
a superpikemen
a big tank
a more powerful courthouse

Actually, the two games I'm most into right now are Europa Universalis and The Operational Art of War 2, which has a difficulty rating of "Impossible" according to Gamespot. Guess you have no idea what you are talking about, again...

Let's make this clear a second. Do you think Sid made his decisions because a minority of people here wanted it? Get real. I'd venture to say the man knows just a liiiiiitle bit more about making games than you do. Could you possibly admit that a moment? And if he has found a way to make this fun, why not trust the man?

1. If any programmer in the history of gaming has proven himself, it's Sid. Don't agree? That's fine. We disagree on that.

2. I DID MAKE SURE OUR INPUT WAS HEARD! Moreso than for ANY other game EVER. Think about that a moment. Moreso than for ANY other game EVER. 500 pages. They tabbed it, marked all over and read it like a Gamer Feedback Bible.

Now, just because they seem to be going with a minority view on some controversial issues, does that mean they didn't listen or something? Maybe, juuuust maybe, the minority is right here. Ever consider that possibility? And maybe the majority will play the game and say:

Now, if you never want YOUR civ (or COMP civs) to have any unique bonuses or units, I am more than sure Firaxis will give you the option to turn it off. If they don't that would be a mistake considering the majority opinion.