|
Author
|
|
Topic: FIRAXIS please read! - Panzer problem solved! |  |
|
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted April 30, 2001 00:32
    | 
 |
 |  |
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!!!!!!! |
paiktis22
Prince
Athens Greece
Oct 2000
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 02:32
|
|
| |
OK, in general I like it. Linking segragated technology to unit customization. If only I worked for Firaxis  |
Zanzin
Chieftain
Sydney, Australia
Mar 2001
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 05:44
|
|
| |
This is a pretty good idea. I like it too. |
NotComingDown
Settler
Århus, Denmark
Apr 2001
|
|
posted April 30, 2001 11:43
|
|
| |
Cool idea!! Let's hope they at least include it in v4.0!!! |
Lawrence of Arabia
Warlord
San Francisco, CA, USA
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted April 30, 2001 20:50
|
|
| |
I still like the minor tech idea better though.------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now |
Quartz Dragon
Settler
Norfolk, NE U.S.A.
May 2000
|
 |
posted May 01, 2001 11:55
|
|
| |
VERY GOOD IDEA |
belusa
Settler
Brussels, Belgium
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 12:11
|
|
| |
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
Settler
Sweden
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 01, 2001 12:33
|
|
| |
This is a great idea! Unique units are OK, if ANY civ
can get them due to hard work during the game.
|
Kevin Ar18
Chieftain
Oct 1999
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 14:36
|
|
| |
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. |
Dimorier Maximus
Settler
Marets
May 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 14:44
|
|
| |
What would keep someone from making all their final technology units the most powerful? If I were playing under your rules, I would have practical science set to zero until the final age of the game, at which point I would jack it up and get the most powerful land, sea, and air units. |
Lawrence of Arabia
Warlord
San Francisco, CA, USA
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 01, 2001 14:45
|
|
| |
The minor tech ideaYou finish researching Armoured Warfare. Now, you have the choice to go one and develop another major tech, or you can develop the minor tech 'Panzer Tank' This would allow you to build Panzer tanks, which would be stronger than normal tanks. Minor techs would all be like upgrades to the current units. ------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 19:55
|
|
| |
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! |
Lawrence of Arabia
Warlord
San Francisco, CA, USA
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 20:03
|
|
| |
I didnt say that you needed every unit to have a minor tech assosiated with it. In fact, it could reduce units which are 'doubles .' For example, the Crusader can become a UU, once you research 'Holy Crusade' or something like that. ------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 20:03
|
|
| |
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
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 20:11
|
|
| |
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. |
Lawrence of Arabia
Warlord
San Francisco, CA, USA
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 01, 2001 20:33
|
|
| |
The choice 'better unit' or 'faster tech' is the same as your model. If you want faster tech, then you put your science slider bar to 100%. If you want stronger unit, you leave it at 50-50 or 25-75. I think that both ideas are good, and either of them could be implemented easily in CivIII if FIRAXIS wanted to. 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. Hence, the minor tech model.------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now |
ancient
Chieftain
Rochester, N.Y. (worst place in the world)
May 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 20:41
|
|
| |
i like the idea of history specific units, but it certainly does need to be controlled a little so just make the more powerfull unit cost more or be slower... Panzer's and MiG's are cool... |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 21:51
|
|
| |
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. |
Lawrence of Arabia
Warlord
San Francisco, CA, USA
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 22:12
|
|
| |
Your clarification has certainly convinced me of your superior model. *bows down to the king* The only hard problem would be a way to representthe stronger units. There will have to be some sort of way to distinguish between the standard level unit and the higher level unit. My model would show that with a specific unit. Yours would have to either slightly change the unit, make it visible in its stats (although it might get repetitive to click on every unit to see which ones are upgraded), or have a totally different looking unit (which is what the minor tech model would have). Or maybe you have a better idea?------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 22:36
|
|
| |
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
ctpmaps.apolyton/harlan
Berkeley, CA, USA
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 22:48
|
|
| |
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. |
King Richard
Warlord
Oslo, Norway
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 22:56
|
|
| |
I like the idea of specific units. Ok, they will make the game a "bit" unbalanced, but if the panzer unit is very expensive to build and maintain, it should be balanced? Then you can only have a minor force of panzers at the same time. It think (hope) this is what Cid had in mind... |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 01, 2001 23:08
|
|
| |
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... |
LzPrst
Settler
springfool
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 02, 2001 08:05
|
|
| |
Civ3 must have practical sicences!its genius!
its pure brilliance!
I love it! it wont add much to the complexity, but will add TONS in gameplay and player control. imagine developing your totally superior expeditionary force of caravels and dragoons! DIE pathethic zulu\mongol\russian\indian or whoever is killing my settlers, DIE!!! yur veek americhan vepons cannot hurt us! etc etc... Firaxis be cursed if they do not integrate this in some form! LzPrst (on sugar high)
|
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 05, 2001 05:19
|
|
| |
Lzprrst,
I'm glad you like my idea. Since Firaxis will more likely listen with more responses, could I have more responses... |
Darkknight
Warlord
Ireland,Galway,Athenry
Nov 2000
|
|
posted May 05, 2001 20:15
 |
|
| |
YEEESSSSS I CAN POOOST AGAIN!!!!!!!
FOUR MONTHS WITHOUT POSTING FOUR MONTHS EMAILING TO MARK ABOUT It and nothing then one email to DanQ and Bamm! he helped me. YESSSS!!! THANKYOU!!!
huhuhuh hyperventilating!! breath in out in out in out in out! OK
Sorry it's just I was browsing here when I got the mail.
Phew now I'll read your post. PLEEZ work !!!fingerz crossed XXXXX
Hairy moment I typed the password wrong...
Anyway I've read your idea and it look's good just one thing you've got your battleship you've conquered the seas you're about to launch the largest seaborne attack in history but wait your tanks are rolling up to their cities then falling to bits. Ooops forgot! I need to wait until I get fusion tanks another 100 turns later but by then maybe my chance and my nations gone.
------------------
" Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few "
[This message has been edited by Darkknight (edited May 05, 2001).]
|
Urban Ranger
Emperor
The City State of Noosphere
May 99
|
|
posted May 06, 2001 08:01
|
|
| |
Eons ago I suggested somewhere in this hallowed forum that research can be divided into two (or three) areas: discovery/invention and application. |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 23:17
|
|
| |
Ranger,
Please expand. How do you propose that your three types of research affect the game? |
Youngsun
Prince
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
|
|
posted May 06, 2001 23:33
|
|
| |
Urban RangerI remember that, too. bring the thread back Urban! |
AzNtoccata
Chieftain
Jan 2001
|
|
posted May 06, 2001 23:36
|
|
| |
Since many of you are concerned about rushers who focus on military then conquers weaker civs who focus on peaceful tech, why not have cultural points to be used as unit money. They can be used to upgrade units. Another option is the more cultural points you have, the higher chance you get a special unit. Germans building better tanks has connection with their advanced culture. An advanced culture usually means more innovation, inspiration, etc etc. Third option is to have Great Artists (hinted, but not confirmed) to have somethign to do with special units. |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 07, 2001 00:07
|
|
| |
Perhaps you could have a situation where a Great Artist can allow for the creation of special units, but this takes away from the strategy of the game. Practical sciences whether instituted through a slider bar or by selection from three checkboxes upon commencing research of a tech allows for this choice, thereby creating continuing STRATEGY throughout the game.
A major concern of many people is to counter militarists, but an even greater concern is to maximise the places in the game where the player can ACTIVELY choose and decide his/her strategy. The Tech tree was the greatest example of choice and was the greatest invention in CIV. Civ3 is a new game, and more choices are needed. (By the way SE from SMAC was an example of choice) - people always like choice!!! |
Zealot
Settler
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
|
|
posted May 07, 2001 12:57
|
|
| |
It is really nice to see good ideas at Apolyton but, please don't forget, this could really increase micromanagement! Do you really want that? Hum... Well, I don't. But keep posting! |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 08, 2001 20:05
|
|
| |
Zealot,
I cannot see how selecting one box from three (low,normal,high practical science) every time you research a military tech is micromanagement!?! |
Grumbold
Prince
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted May 09, 2001 09:58
|
|
| |
I remain a fan of the "minor tech" approach because it is more flexible. It simply adds a lot of extra dead ends into a tech tree which at the moment (Civ2 etc) is remarkably linear. Almost no technologies can be ignored in your advance up the tree. Lots of side techs will help balance it. Should you race from legionaries toward pikemen or take the time to pick up a tech that will give your legionaries +1 defence or +1 attack (no need for extra graphics)? The panzer tank could be represented by a choice to take a combination of minor techs which add +1 attack and +2 defence to the standard tank unit you produce for -1 movement and double cost to build.The main advantages? Many different customisable additions rather than a single one. Firaxis don't have to decide what extra improvements the practical science will bring, you can choose yourself. It also bridges that gap between one unit type and its replacement 300 turns later. The improvements reflect a gradual increase in their effectiveness rather than an instant bonus at birth. It also gives less scientifically orientated nations a chance to keep pace. Their tanks may not be as good as their opponents, but because they have not followed every minor blind alley in the tech tree since 4000 BC at least they have tanks to face their opponents with, not chariots. Mod makers can make campaigns where many nations have similar basic troop types but their available minor tech upgrades allow them to behave a little differently (like almost any troops have done throughout history despite their basic similarities.) It doesn't help a single nation to field 4 different styles of tank simultaneously but I admit that is where I have to reluctantly draw the line between Civ and a wargame |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 09, 2001 22:32
|
|
| |
Grumbold,
I can see the advantages of your model. It allows a player to pick and choose bonuses to their units but their is one MAJOR drawback. Namely, it requires HEAPS of minor techs. You would essentially need 4 or more minor techs (assuming units start weak you would need two upgrades for attack and defence - weak to normal, normal to strong)for every military unit in the game. That adds up to about 80 or more minor techs! Although this might not be so bad for the player, it means the AI will have 80 or more techs to choose between! And additionally, how would you represent the different strengths of identical units on the map!? With the practical science model, strong, normal, or weak, would simply be represented by a different coloured circle next to the health bar. Perhaps red, yellow or green. Answers Grumbold! |
down th' pub
Chieftain
anywhere but here
Dec 2000
|
|
posted May 09, 2001 22:44
|
|
| |
Wait, an idea is forming.We could have, lets see, FOUR research areas and prioritize as you wanted. Hang on, that sounds familiar. (SMACing in head sounds - trying to shake thought loose)
[This message has been edited by down th' pub (edited May 09, 2001).] |
Grumbold
Prince
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted May 10, 2001 07:13
|
|
| |
The different strengths of individual units would not be represented by different graphics otherwise you might as well just push for Civ to include 4x the number of units in the first place. The unit stats could be revealed when you hover the mouse over the unit (I wish this happened already, taking terrain and fort mods into account, I hate to have to do even easy mental math) or alternatively Firaxis could let it be a surprise. Attack a unit expecting an easy win and suddenly find the enemy has learned some new tricks!In terms of the AI deciding whether to pick these minor advances, you have to weave that into whatever science model is chosen. I would prefer a model that makes it hard to push too far out of the pack (complacency leads to poor innovation whearas heavy competition, especially in wartime, leads to sudden progress. Look at IBM - got so fat and overconfident it was caught napping by Microsoft.) That would encourage world leaders to broaden their knowledge rather than push forward. Meanwhile tech diffusion should be making it easier for laggards to catch up. I assume there would be much the same decisions made in the "practical" model. People lagging behind would have to choose less "practical" in order to catch up on the theory. |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 10, 2001 22:00
|
|
| |
Grumbold,
What I meant about the AI was how would you program it to be able to intelligently decide whether to research +1 attack and +2 defence, or +2 attack and +1 defence, or +2 attack and +2 defence and so on...
With the practical science model, the AI only needs to choose whether he wants a strong unit (+1 attack +1 defence) a normal unit (0,0) or a weak one (-1,-1). This can be easily decided by making the AI compare how far behind the leading civ it is lagging in science, and calculating how many squares of each terrain surround its cities (radius) ie. lots of sea + not lagging behind in science = better ships.
With your model however, the AI has to pick not only between strong, weak and normal, but all the variations in between. Crucially, these variations do not always alter the time it takes to research (+1 attack, 0 defence) and (0 attack, +1 defence) are the same in terms of research time. Therefore the AI must do the impossible and THINK about which values would fit best into its STRATEGY (it can't have one because it can't think ahead). THIS is the AI problem I was referring to. Perhaps you can think of a way around it? | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
