Defiantly Pro-Zeppelin - Page 2

FrostyBoy · December 19, 2003, 08:40

The thing is, you're thinking that its a warrior.

It's not a warrior, its a human.

Kuciwalker · December 19, 2003, 15:28

A Kevlar-Armored Human armed with a Club, then. Does that make you happy?

FrostyBoy · December 19, 2003, 15:36

There IS a difference.

If you say "A warrior with Kevlar and a club" then it sounds odd. Because how can you still have warriors and be in an era with Kevlar technology?

If you say "A human with Kevlar Armor and a club" then it makes more sense. But only because the club is the cheapest/only weapon the player has chosen to use for the unit they wanted to create. Of course, I think in this case, the 'club' would have to be modernised looking. Like the nightstick.

Kuciwalker · December 19, 2003, 15:47

The fact is, that is absolutely ridiculous from a civ perspective. I'm going to create a regiment of troops armed with nightsticks? Would this "Kevlar Armor" give them a good defense? There is a relatively small number of units that make any sense in the context of the game; small enough that they can be designed normally. And I'll repeat, a purely SMAC-style workshop is completely out of the question. It would be ridiculous for a unit to defend with its armor.

Shogun Gunner · December 19, 2003, 23:28

Why wouldn't you create a regiment of troops armed with nightsticks? Sounds like MPs or riot police to me....

I don't think Sn00py is way out on this. A unit workship doesn't need to be constructed in a way to yield 32,000 unique units, it can be more narrowly defined.

Another thing, you keep saying, how many jet planes can you have in civ? (i've read the same comment from you in other posts) Well, let me say that I would like to have multiple iterations of "standard units"...and not just jet planes, but possibly every military unit. Why wouldn't I want an upgrade path of F-86 Sabre, then a F-4 Phantom, then a F15 Strike Eagle, then a F-22? Sounds like real world...sounds like a good idea.

Don't you ever get tired of the simplicity of Civ? It goes something like...."Great, I got all the techs I need to build Jet Fighters, I'm better than the next Civ" "Oh crap, now he can build the same exact jet plane that I can!" Too simplistic. Every civ must use exactly the same set of construction plans to build planes!

A wider range of "jet planes" opens up a more complex situation of evaluating your enemy would emerge. "My F-86 Sabres(armed with machine guns, not air to air missiles) has to go up against MIG-29 Fulcrums. (armed with advanced fire control computers and high performance air to air missles)." I better mass my planes to have a chance. Instead it's like this... I'm going to send up my F-16 Fighting Falcons against his F-16 Fighting Falcons and since I have 20 and he has 15, I should win." Maybe I'm crazy, but gosh, more options and complexity sound interesting to me.

I can envision a very complex science tree that would dictate a wide variety of building choices. I'm not sure if I would like a "unit workshop" since I've never played SMAC, but I don't see how it can be denied as a "good idea". Especially since your only argument is "I don't like it".

Seeker · December 19, 2003, 23:39

HEAR HEAR!

This is Civ 4 people!!

I want VAST variety and total control!

Vast armies and complex combined arms movements sweeping across vast continents all at my command!

If you want simplicity go back to Civ 1.

POTUS · December 20, 2003, 02:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker
HEAR HEAR!

This is Civ 4 people!!

I want VAST variety and total control!

Vast armies and complex combined arms movements sweeping across vast continents all at my command!

If you want simplicity go back to Civ 1.

Kuciwalker · December 20, 2003, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Why wouldn't you create a regiment of troops armed with nightsticks? Sounds like MPs or riot police to me....

I don't think Sn00py is way out on this. A unit workship doesn't need to be constructed in a way to yield 32,000 unique units, it can be more narrowly defined.

Another thing, you keep saying, how many jet planes can you have in civ? (i've read the same comment from you in other posts) Well, let me say that I would like to have multiple iterations of "standard units"...and not just jet planes, but possibly every military unit. Why wouldn't I want an upgrade path of F-86 Sabre, then a F-4 Phantom, then a F15 Strike Eagle, then a F-22? Sounds like real world...sounds like a good idea.

Don't you ever get tired of the simplicity of Civ? It goes something like...."Great, I got all the techs I need to build Jet Fighters, I'm better than the next Civ" "Oh crap, now he can build the same exact jet plane that I can!" Too simplistic. Every civ must use exactly the same set of construction plans to build planes!

A wider range of "jet planes" opens up a more complex situation of evaluating your enemy would emerge. "My F-86 Sabres(armed with machine guns, not air to air missiles) has to go up against MIG-29 Fulcrums. (armed with advanced fire control computers and high performance air to air missles)." I better mass my planes to have a chance. Instead it's like this... I'm going to send up my F-16 Fighting Falcons against his F-16 Fighting Falcons and since I have 20 and he has 15, I should win." Maybe I'm crazy, but gosh, more options and complexity sound interesting to me.

I can envision a very complex science tree that would dictate a wide variety of building choices. I'm not sure if I would like a "unit workshop" since I've never played SMAC, but I don't see how it can be denied as a "good idea". Especially since your only argument is "I don't like it".

How about a compromise - we can do this, but only if there is no stacked combat

There's actually a point behind that - stacked combat removes most of the tactical element from the game. Putting this in adds to the tactical element in the game. This is pretty pointless with stacked combat.

Personally, I think the level of tactics in C3 are just right. I think that this would vastly increase MM and that the AI would be really bad at it.

Shogun Gunner · December 20, 2003, 13:10

Well, the stacked combat debate rears its ugly head again.

If the stacked combat is lining up the troops on each side, the ranged units firing, the other units clashing in a series of one on one battles, then yes, that would seem to reduce a series of smaller battles (if you didn't have stacked combat) into one or two massive battes (with stacked combat). Perhaps...

So your argument would be:

1. Stacked combat AND no unit workshop
OR
2. No stacked combat AND a unit workshop

There is some logic there, unless the "tactical minigame" utilizing stacked combat was made very robust.

What I mean is that a stack of troops meets an enemy stack of troops on one tile. Then the tactical minigame opens up.

That one tile (from a strategic perspective) expands to 40 tiles and each tile has unique geographical features. Your one armor unit breaks down into three or four armored companies. You would play a game like Steel Panthers or Panzer Leader.

no, this isn't civ anymore, but I have to admit I would be totally into it if this concept was introduced.

As an aside, I have changed my mind and I am "definatly pro-zeppelin" The comments at the beginning of this thread make a lot of sense about the "rewriting" of history. It's the whole idea of civ....

Kuciwalker · December 20, 2003, 13:58

from my post in the other thread:

Quote:

ewwww... reminds me of SW:Rebellion

no tactical minigame, ever

Seeker · December 20, 2003, 15:55

anyone played Warlords IV?

How did the tac mini game work out there?

Kramerman · December 23, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker
HEAR HEAR!

This is Civ 4 people!!

I want VAST variety and total control!

Vast armies and complex combined arms movements sweeping across vast continents all at my command!

If you want simplicity go back to Civ 1.

Shogun Gunner · December 23, 2003, 21:05

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

no tactical minigame, ever

And that's where the conversation/debate ends with you.

Well, I refute your point with my point: "There better be a tactical game, or else."

So whose point is better? I say mine.

Kuciwalker · December 23, 2003, 21:55

If you'd read more of these boards, you'd find out that I have good reasons (or at least reasons) for those statements.

Shogun Gunner · December 23, 2003, 21:57

I'm reading the same boards you are...

No offense dude... I gave you the

GodKing · December 24, 2003, 11:28

I like the idea. Kevlar is invented, wrap your many small Helium filled (the reason germany didn't fill the hindenberg with helium is because the US refused to sell it to them for military reasons) with a kevlar overcoat, and you now have a small aricraft carrier that can move around inside of enemy held continents and withstand a lot of small arms fire... of course, even a tank hit with a big missle is just scrap.....

I like the idea of a MOO / SMAC type editor, as long as it looks nice, works nice, and so forth. However, it would radically change the character of the game. MOO I used to actually play to research techs, then add the super weapon to my ships to kill all the badguys. In civ, victory is more production oriented than research. You build the most, you can overwealm the enemy even if they are a bit more advanced than you. (Last night I send 30 immortals against riflemen, and they won 3 cities while my cavelry forces cought up and destroyed the evil sneak attacking Dutch).

Kuciwalker · December 24, 2003, 12:03

Quote:

I like the idea. Kevlar is invented, wrap your many small Helium filled (the reason germany didn't fill the hindenberg with helium is because the US refused to sell it to them for military reasons) with a kevlar overcoat, and you now have a small aricraft carrier that can move around inside of enemy held continents and withstand a lot of small arms fire... of course, even a tank hit with a big missle is just scrap.....

Any aircraft in range of small-arms fire would be in range of some somewhat more heavy fire, too

and a blimp is a much easier target than a person.