Could you possibly give us an "example civ" to see what kind of bonuses the civs will have other than units? Is it like in SMAC (eg. +1 to growth, or +1 to research, etc.)?

There is no way the "third option" is going to be implemented. That would require massive redesign of the game. Just be happy that you can turn off unique civs.

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-14-2001 07:22 AM Incidentally, since we are now down to a small number of real civs I want to revive the suggestion for identifying their units with real historical flags not silly touches of their "player colour" (Blech) on their units.

Damn Skippy !! There's an option that with about 6 months remining in Civ3 development can still be changed in the final build. It would also be a nice touch to making Civ a more refined game. Colors just say placeholder art.

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-14-2001 07:22 AM That means you have no unique or custom at start abilities and no chance to get unique or custom abilities throughout the game. Entirely different to earning a custom ability of some kind by developing your civilisation along a certain path to get it. Instead of being told "pick from the following at 4000BC: Roman Legionary, German Panzer, American F-15" I want to be able to say "It is 800 BC, the persions are kicking my arse, I NEED Legions or Cataphracts to turn the tide, how can I get them?" and preferably without killing any chance of earning a different feature 2,000 years later. Any nation that has a long history like England/Britain has had at least one identifiably unique feature in every period of history. Whichever one they choose to represent their uniqueness for the game, it is going to leave the nation featureless and bland throughout the rest of history.

Yes, the third choice add more deep than on/off switch. I'm afraid I renounced every hope Firaxis will put this thir choice at work: the needed tweak to tech tree, game rules and AI would probably be the stone too much who break the back of designers and developers.

quote: Incidentally, since we are now down to a small number of real civs I want to revive the suggestion for identifying their units with real historical flags not silly touches of their "player colour" (Blech) on their units.

Errh, that's a bit more difficult to me: what flag would you assign to Americans? Modern "50 stars" one? (sorry to all USA citizen, I don't know any proper name of your current flag), or early "independence day"?
What about English colours? And Chinese? I understand Firaxis already chosed Mao as leader, hence you must chose related flags, but did Americans at the time of Lincoln president have the modern flag? (and can Americans players live without it? ).

Good.

They recognize the balance issue, and claim the game will be balanced both ways.

Good, I'll trust em for now.

My remaining concern - will the UU's be so central to gameplay that disabling them leaves a hollow game? For example will iron still matter if i have UU's disabled? Will this be a Civ3 game that one can play equally well with or without UU's and participate in strategy discussions (like playing with different barb options in Civ2)

Or will it be a game largely about UU's(like AOE), with an option thrown in to satisfy us anti-UU freaks?

My impression is that the former will be the case, but we cant be sure until the game is released (or public beta )

I mean, to know that you are playing against the German AI and to know that it is pre-destined to have this knowledge of Panzer tanks from 4000 BC FOR ME detracts from gameplay.

But it is important to realize that the vast majority of Civ buyers won't be that nitpicky about this or won't give a damn about the philosophical problem with pre-destined units and might enjoy this uniqueness.

Anyway, a good compromise for all involved.

What a shame that would be, because the company went through all the trouble of coming up with these wonders, doing all the art, playbalancing them, and then with the stupid decision of having the wonders be predetermined, ruin it. Having wonders turned off isn't a great idea, either. This is EXACTLY what Firaxis is doing with special units. If this happened with wonders, would you say you're "more than satisfied" or "perfectly happy" with that?!? I think not!

Some people are saying well, that may be true, but there's no way Firaxis is going to change things now. Think again. If Civ3 is gonna be released in early 2002, which it probably will be, they have the better part of the year to finish the game. Last we heard, they are only 50% done, and in some reviews they've publically stated how they are still tweaking with how some major features will work (leaders or culture, for instance).

They have done most of the work already in getting the graphics and playbalancing of special units working. To include an option that allows them to not be predetermined is very small potatoes in comparison.

THis idea is the only way to placate both camps while still keeping unique units in.

quote: As mentioned elsewhere, one can make a good comparison between special units and wonders. Imagine if wonders were in the game, but only predetermined civs could have them, for instance when the Egyptians get Stone Building, suddenly they are given the Pyramids. Then, since a lot of people don't like this, the company includes an option to turn off wonders altogether. What a shame that would be, because the company went through all the trouble of coming up with these wonders, doing all the art, playbalancing them, and then with the stupid decision of having the wonders be predetermined, ruin it. Having wonders turned off isn't a great idea, either. This is EXACTLY what Firaxis is doing with special units. If this happened with wonders, would you say you're "more than satisfied" or "perfectly happy" with that?!? I think not!

My sentiments exactly. It would be greatly irritating to have such an idea in game that I must accept as is or turn it off. What happened to "customization"?

quote: Some people are saying well, that may be true, but there's no way Firaxis is going to change things now. Think again. If Civ3 is gonna be released in early 2002, which it probably will be, they have the better part of the year to finish the game. Last we heard, they are only 50% done, and in some reviews they've publically stated how they are still tweaking with how some major features will work (leaders or culture, for instance).

Indeed, the last review (apparently 2 weeks ago) stated that they were still toying with the idea of whether or not to include a "corporate win". Now to me a completely new and different endgame option sounds like a LOT of codework, to either put it in or (less so) remove it. To tweak the game to allow variation of unique units shouldn't be nearly as much work!

Minor techs are one possible choice. Minor wonders are another. Having each one only available to the first player to pick it or free for all to choose from is yet another choice. The status quo is not!

Death or victory! Froth, rant, quotes from ancient battlefields etc ....

quote: Originally posted by Harlan on 05-14-2001 11:48 PM As mentioned elsewhere, one can make a good comparison between special units and wonders. Imagine if wonders were in the game, but only predetermined civs could have them, for instance when the Egyptians get Stone Building, suddenly they are given the Pyramids. Then, since a lot of people don't like this, the company includes an option to turn off wonders altogether. What a shame that would be, because the company went through all the trouble of coming up with these wonders, doing all the art, playbalancing them, and then with the stupid decision of having the wonders be predetermined, ruin it. Having wonders turned off isn't a great idea, either. This is EXACTLY what Firaxis is doing with special units. If this happened with wonders, would you say you're "more than satisfied" or "perfectly happy" with that?!? I think not!

share your concern, but i doubt from what ive seen that UU's will be as key to gameplay as wonders. Of course this depends on how play styles evolve. they say the zulu impi will be a spearman (warrior?) but with 2 movement. Doesnt sound like much, but im sure some of the hard core players here will be discovering new strategies based on such a unit.

LOTM

If the "Panzer tank" has greater MPs or more FP or HPs or whatever than the standard "tank", that difference can really be quite unbalancing!

Therefore even if minor techs or some other way was found such that unique units were not pre-destined, it would still be an issue from that regard that only one Civ can get it.

As an extreme example, the most powerful unit is the "howitzer" in Civ2. Imagine that only one Civ could get it (via pre-destination, minor tech, minor wonder, whatever) and how that would seriously unbalance the game!

So philosophically I have two qualms:
1. Pre-destination (Why are units "pre-destined" when wonders are not?)
2. Balance (If only one Civ can get it, does it provide an overwhelming advantage to that Civ?)

Now.

I was thinking that they must have tried to balance the civs with weak - pre-paleolithic unique units with other bonuses.

Do you rememeber that Jeff from Firaxis said that there will be an option to turn off uniques AND other civ differences?

So if you play Romans or Greeks and are stuck with a legion or (maybe) a phalanx then maybe Romans and Greeks would get HIGHER (say) culture bonuses that would make the citizens happier.

In contrast the Germans that have the Panzer might get a penalty in the number of happy people by making say democracy more unstable in the Germans?

Maybe this bonuses - penalties only last for the duration of the unique units of each civ?