Defiantly Pro-Zeppelin

Seeker · December 15, 2003, 02:18

In the Year 2000 thread I heard a lot of shockingly anti-Zeppelin comments!!

Yes, the Zeppelin was not terribly historically important in OUR world....but Civ is a game where the Zulus can conquer america....might have beens!

The Zeppelin could have been developed in the 1880s and could've been militarily significant for 50 years later if the details of history had not conspired against it...

Large helium zeppelins, armoured fire-resistant ones, flying aircraft carriers, long-range transport and bombardment.

IMO, the strictly historical Zeppelin is not what I'd envision for Civ, but a huge armoured giant with an escort of carried biplanes bedecked with machine guns.

Tech: Split 'Flight' into Lighter and Heavier than Air. Zeppelins come into play with Lighter than Air and expire with whatever tech makes heavy bombers possible, which depending on your research can be a long time.

Harovan · December 15, 2003, 05:47

A "huge armored giant" wouldn't take off. It would sit on the ground like a leaden duck.

FrostyBoy · December 15, 2003, 06:32

Hmmm

I like the idea, because you're right, Civ isn't EXACTLY an historicaly accurate game, it's more of a 'rewrite history' game, therefore, you should be able to create your own units (aka AC, but prolly AC was done really really badly, and I don't think we should refer to AC's unit building feature at all, but lets try to think that unit building (if re-worked out) would actually be a great feature in Civ4).

However, I could bring down a Zeppelin with a shot of a gun couldn't I? I think the defense of a Zeppelin would be 0 and pointless to use it as an offensive weapon. Although, should that STOP the player from choosing to create such a unit? I don't think so!

Unit Creating in Civ4 would be a huge feature to add, but it could be the very thing Civ needs in order to be spiced up the way Civ4 needs to be.

Imagine it, when you get a new tech, or you are going to war, and you need to design a new unit for your new war, then you simply go into the barracks window or whatever,

1st select human/vehicle/aircraft/ship

2nd you select its armor, you could select anything from bronze to steel or titanium, all depending on your tech, and you could select its thickness. The thicker it is, the heaver it is.

3rd you select its offensive weapons, obviously what you get depends on the techs you have, some are light, some are heavy, some are weak, some are strong, each with their own advantages and disadvantages with themselves and against opponent units.

finally, if its a vehicle or aircraft, you select its engine type, or if its a sail ship, you select how many sails it has (I dunno! SOMETHING!).

And then once all this is done, the game calculates everything together, and tells you what terrains it can and or can't go over (coz maybe its too heavy, etc) how fast it can go, how far it can go, its offense and defense strength and of course, its costs.

With this idea, I could make a frigate type unit, with an Aircraft Carriers engine equipped with Cruise Missiles and 2 SAMS on it. Something like this would result in an extremely slow unit and an extremely costly one too!

Trifna · December 15, 2003, 06:42

Since Civ is not EXACTLY history, I propose we get Moller cars , since we could have given some funds since the 80s and get flying car in 2003. Lasguns would make the game more FUN too.

Seriously, I think that the only way to incorporate non-historical stuff would be to let the player customize somehow, not to rebuild history another way chosen by someone else than the player... doesn't it get a bit complicated?

PS: Hey, some modern zeppelin came out a few years ago. They're not useful everywhere, but they have SOME use. There may be a few on this planet right now.

Kramerman · December 15, 2003, 06:56

snoopy, that is a great idea

FrostyBoy · December 15, 2003, 07:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
Since Civ is not EXACTLY history, I propose we get Moller cars , since we could have given some funds since the 80s and get flying car in 2003. Lasguns would make the game more FUN too.

Seriously, I think that the only way to incorporate non-historical stuff would be to let the player customize somehow, not to rebuild history another way chosen by someone else than the player... doesn't it get a bit complicated?

PS: Hey, some modern zeppelin came out a few years ago. They're not useful everywhere, but they have SOME use. There may be a few on this planet right now.

Well, I never said non-historical, I simply said that history is rewritten, what that actually means is that history is rewritten within the grounds of it making sense. So adding in things that are ludicrous are just going to be stupid.

I still think this idea is extremely ideal for Civ4.

Roman · December 15, 2003, 09:02

To people who think that airships have no place on the battlefield - I refer you to the following:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...rcraft/ula.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aft/skycat.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/haa.htm

Trifna · December 15, 2003, 10:14

Snoopy:
The problem that I see is that if we take one, we then have many other possibilities to include... How do we build a model to decide what's in and what's out?

Roman:
You should also add www.moller.com which may furnish the US army with some flying cars

FrostyBoy · December 15, 2003, 18:14

Take one? What do you mean?

How do we decide whats in and whats out?

Can you explain your post further?

Inverse Icarus · December 15, 2003, 18:26

thats the unit workshop from SMAC.

1. chasis (soldier, tank, plane, etc)
2. primary weapon (sword, rifle,...)
3. accessories (shield, etc).

techs would give you EQUIPMENT, not predefined units.

Frozzy · December 15, 2003, 18:57

Advertising Blimps to extend you culture

Maquiladora · December 15, 2003, 19:48

Kramerman · December 15, 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX
thats the unit workshop from SMAC.

1. chasis (soldier, tank, plane, etc)
2. primary weapon (sword, rifle,...)
3. accessories (shield, etc).

techs would give you EQUIPMENT, not predefined units.

the unit workshop should be a bit more sophisticated tho, program-wise as well as graphically

Seeker · December 15, 2003, 20:04

Oh definetly...I don't mean a copy of the crappy SMAC version, but a really good Units Workshop.

Maquiladora: I'm also defiantly pro-Zeppelin in other ways.

Maquiladora · December 15, 2003, 20:13

Ill leave your thread alone now.

Kuciwalker · December 15, 2003, 20:22

Unit Workshop = bad idea

Zeppelin = pointless

Kramerman · December 15, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Unit Workshop = bad idea

Zeppelin = pointless

why do you think that?

FrostyBoy · December 16, 2003, 06:39

skywalker = without depth

Skanky Burns · December 16, 2003, 07:06

As shown in the movie Zepplin, merely shooting a zepplin is not enough to destroy it.

To prove the concept, they had two balloons filled with hydrogen (and tied down under a net to prevent it from blowing away). From a very short range they shot one with a rifle. The hydrogen-filled balloon was now a hydrogen-filled balloon with two small holes where a bullet had passed through. It would still float, and would take a significant amount of time to deflate.

Of course, the incendiary bullet through the second balloon had the desired result, with that entire balloon suddenly ceasing to exist.

The point is that the zepplin was only made redundant due to technology - technology developed deliberately to destroy these ships that were a huge menace. Who is to say that things might have gone differently and the war was won due to zepplins?

A unit workshop would be great too.

Trifna · December 16, 2003, 10:02

Snoopy, if we put ONE historically revisionist element into Civ, how do we know which ones to put and which ones not to?

Kuciwalker · December 16, 2003, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Sn00py
skywalker = without depth

skywalker = has explained his position before in multiple threads

Inverse Icarus · December 16, 2003, 19:07

the incans used "air ships" (pretty much watermellon shaped baloons) for some reason which historians are debating.

FrostyBoy · December 17, 2003, 00:02

Ok then Skywalker, explain why the unit workshop idea is a bad one in here, or provide a link. I'm interested to see what your arguements are.

Kuciwalker · December 17, 2003, 00:16

The Unit Workshop is a wonderful idea.

For SMAC, that is.

The Unit Workshop in SMAC creates units that fit perfectly into the atmosphere or context (sci-fi) of SMAC. When you are on a strange alien planet fighting Mind Worms, a Trained Chaos Dragon or a Sub Singularity Battleship don't sound too strange. However, the same system just doesn't fit for Civ. How many different "Jet Fighters" do you want? The thing is, only so many different combinations exist (and make sense) in the real world, and these are often so different as to not fit into a "Unit Workshop" system. The only things I can see even vaguely fitting in are foot units and MAYBE horse units. Even here, it doesn't make much sense - my Riflemen defend with their armor? My basic garrison unit should not be using a one-attack weapon (a Club, for example) and a 12-defense armor (Kevlar Body Armor). Plus, am I going to put the Kevlar Armor on my Tanks?

FrostyBoy · December 17, 2003, 04:36

Of course you wouldn't put Kevlar Armor on tanks! Like I said, it has to be reasonable - it has to make sense.

Why should you not make a unit with a club and with Kevlar Body Armor? It would be very very cheap! (because you wouldn't have to pay a high price for the weapons, or need the tech). The disadvantage to this unit is that it's attack would be pointless against any units of that age.

I think what you will find is people creating many different units, specifically designed for certain battles. But I highly doubt people would create a very stupid unit as it would not benefit them. But I do think that the player should be ABLE to build any type of unit they wish to. (as long as it makes sense, SAM's can't go on aircrafts. Or Humans carrying Tank gun turrets).

Kuciwalker · December 17, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Why should you not make a unit with a club and with Kevlar Body Armor? It would be very very cheap! (because you wouldn't have to pay a high price for the weapons, or need the tech). The disadvantage to this unit is that it's attack would be pointless against any units of that age.

It makes no sense at all. It's disadvantage should be that it's USELESS, just like it would be IRL. The way units work in C3 is perfect for Civ, because all of the untis make sense and there aren't "redundant" units. There is nothing to be gained from a unit workshop.

Mr. President · December 17, 2003, 20:55

Zeppelins are fantastic.

You could use them as scouts a la WarCraft II or as aerial caravans.

FrostyBoy · December 18, 2003, 04:46

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Why should you not make a unit with a club and with Kevlar Body Armor? It would be very very cheap! (because you wouldn't have to pay a high price for the weapons, or need the tech). The disadvantage to this unit is that it's attack would be pointless against any units of that age.

It makes no sense at all. It's disadvantage should be that it's USELESS, just like it would be IRL. The way units work in C3 is perfect for Civ, because all of the untis make sense and there aren't "redundant" units. There is nothing to be gained from a unit workshop.

You still haven't explained in depth why it is useless. All you do is label the idea as something ridiculous. Your opinions are only speculations. You can't actually know whether the Unit Workshop idea is bad or not - not until a functioning Unit Workshop is in place and that's why I am attempting to do that.

You have a vision that the UW is bad, but you don't explain it enough, and what 'explainations' you have given, are hardly reasons at all, they're too empty.

My vision of the UW is good, and I have given reasons why it would be good, but neither what you or I, or anyone says, it doesn't prove anything, we need to see it in action. Give me some time, and we'll see who changes their mind.

Urban Ranger · December 18, 2003, 12:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
Since Civ is not EXACTLY history, I propose we get Moller cars , since we could have given some funds since the 80s and get flying car in 2003. Lasguns would make the game more FUN too.

Flying cars are dumb because planes are so much more fuel efficient.

Kuciwalker · December 19, 2003, 00:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Sn00py
You still haven't explained in depth why it is useless. All you do is label the idea as something ridiculous. Your opinions are only speculations. You can't actually know whether the Unit Workshop idea is bad or not - not until a functioning Unit Workshop is in place and that's why I am attempting to do that.

You have a vision that the UW is bad, but you don't explain it enough, and what 'explainations' you have given, are hardly reasons at all, they're too empty.

My vision of the UW is good, and I have given reasons why it would be good, but neither what you or I, or anyone says, it doesn't prove anything, we need to see it in action. Give me some time, and we'll see who changes their mind.

The Unit Workshop adds the ability to "customize" units. THIS IS BAD. Let me explain why:

There are something like 32000 possible units in SMAC (I think that was the number on the box). Most of these are useless and redundant (from a strategic POV). However, there were many useful units (again, from a strategic POV) and the strangeness of them added to SMAC's atmospher.

IRL, there are only a (relatively) few combinations that are useful (still from this strategic POV). From a gameplay POV, the ability to create the useless and/or redundant units is itself useless - why would I want to be able to build a Kevlar-armored Warrior? (I think we can both agree that this units should NOT be useful

) The ability adds nothing to the game except the potential to be completely irrational. Any "useful" and realistic units are easily put in and balanced by Firaxis - leave it at that.