..yet I agree Sid knows a liiiitle bit more than me about making games (refer to previous sentence). He also knows a little bit more about making money these days. Ask someone what "selling out" or re-introducing an old product with unfitting bells and whistles means.

I'm glad you were the first to dismiss with the "I'm not even going to waste time on your ignorance anymore" method. Very original, you sure showed me

Have fun with Alpha Centari 2!

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-30-2001 09:54 PM And maybe the majority will play the game and say: "You know what, I'm awfully glad Sid was willing to take some risks and follow what I realize now were awfully damn good ideas."

This certainly is a possibility, Yin. But I consider it equally likely that you guys will play the game and say, "boy, Firaxis didn't do a very good job with that. Why ever did I want these silly unique units?"

Both scenarios are entirely plausible, but you can't blame a guy for speaking on what he knows. My experience is that this is a bad thing, and yours may be that it is a good thing. That's fine.

Yin, promise me you'll stick around long enough for me to buy this game and play it a bit... so at that time we can actually analyze this issue. In the mean time, all we can do is spout our opinions, so spout I shall!

In the List i think that this was inclueded by Im not sure.

After the discovery of Armored Warefare, you have the option to research the tech called 'Panzer tanks'. If you want this UU, then you can research it.If you don't, then you don't have to. Each game, when you get to this point, you have the option to take it, or leave it. If you take it, its gives you an edge in armoured warfare, but you may fall behind in other aspects. Do you want to fight a war now and use this new tech, or wait for more advanced units? This choice in itself is more of an option than if you have panzers at the beginning. You will still have to look out to see which UU the other civs are using against you, but you still have the choice. Historically, the Babylonians were killed off a long time ago. In civ2, they can survive into the 21th century. This may seem wacky, but its alternate history. If they can survive that long, why not also let them research Panzer tanks? Why limit the Panzers to a single civ? This is my primary objection to UU assigned to certain civs. At the dawn of civilization, anything is possible. Did the German civilization know in 4000 BC that they were going to develop Panzers 6000 years later? No! Why give UU to civs, why put each civ down a certain path, when unpredictability is what civ is all about. i fear that veteran players of civ3 will learn how the AI uses panzers, and then the novelty has worn off because they know how to conteract. But if a whole different civ develops Panzers, you might know how to react to them.

I think most of us "generic civ" folks would have no problem with unique civs as long as it is optional. Everybody is yaking as if it's going to be one way or the other (and, yes, I understand that SMAC can leave us with this impression). So then, can we all agree that making unique civs as an option is a good thing? And since there doesn't seem to be any official announcement, can we all wait and see if Sid (the master programmer, etc., etc.) will make it an option just as it is in AOK?

Secondly:

quote: 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.

*cough*SMAC*cough*

Also, addendum to second point: For those that think this is SMAC2 or Sid 'selling out', you really don't get it, do you? Compare Civ1 to Civ2. I think all the new information we've recieved about Civ3 (which is still only 50% complete) shows that Civ3 from Civ2 (or SMAC) is a MUCH BIGGER jump than Civ2 from Civ1. Where were you saying Civ2 was a sell out? And if this is SMAC2 (different starting point, btw... you might have missed that), then so be it. I loved SMAC...

Thirdly:

Sid is the best game designer on the planet. If anyone can make anything work it is him. If it turns out to suck, Sid is 'man enough' to take it out of the game. It's SID we are talking about!!! While I do not like the idea of unique units, I'll see what Sid comes up with. I know I'll buy it, since Sid has never disappointed me.

And, Fourthy:

quote: Originally posted by Chronus on 05-01-2001 12:51 AM Okay, I'm not exactly sure what all this hub bub is about. Is this an argument over Unique vs. Generic civs, or is it REALLY an argument about whether unique civs can be turned on or off with a "switch".

I agree! A while ago I understood better all the grunts against the original larger issue of SMAC-faction style benefits/trade-offs, although that also, an most certainly will be 100% optional ala AOK, IF its implemented that is. I however havent heard any final confirmations on this bigger version yet. Besides: if its optional; well, that means exactly what its says: OPTIONAL - a completely free choice. Dont like it? Dont choose it.

quote: Sid is the best game designer on the planet. If anyone can make anything work it is him. If it turns out to suck, Sid is 'man enough' to take it out of the game. It's SID we are talking about!!! While I do not like the idea of unique units, I'll see what Sid comes up with. I know I'll buy it, since Sid has never disappointed me.

PRECISELY! And I don't think Imran is some brainless fool following a Cult of Sid. There is a track record here of AMAZING often ground-breaking games to Sid's name for goodness sake. If anybody deserves the wait and see attitude, it's absolutely Sid.

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-30-2001 10:13 PM I understand your point. But how often does the COMP play a different strategy? For the most part, those 64 civs are played by the COMP exactly the same way most every game.

quote: Sure, if we all played against each other, I'd be on your side. But I want computer opponents with different tactics AND different units (to a reasonable degree) to keep ME working to watch them closely and adjust my tactics accordingly.

This will always repeat itself.

My suggestion:
What I have been suggesting is that we have a big pool of historical leaders, say 5 for each civ, which will be randomly chosen for each AI civ, and will lead the civ according to thier characteristic.
To prevent further boredom, every once in a while, a leader is overthrown and another leader comes instead with different tactics and agendas. It will often happen unannounced. This will create the big / small civs gameplay, as civs will rise and fall according to their leader's strategy, which will change a couple of times through out a single game.

This is what will make the game interesting, non repetitive, a challenge etc.

If each leader will bring specific units... i'll cope. But to have the germans ALWAYS stick to the same strategy is extremely boring.

And look at your own style of gameplay. Suppose you're going for total conquest. And around 1000 AD ou notice you're not large enough (of course it's the game's fault as you were on a far away island and your special unit is panzer tanks ) and

quote: 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.

quote: I still venture to say, though, you might darn well enjoy the way Sid pulls this off. Only time will tell...

Forever will i mourn for Civ 3.