Why all those steps backwards?

Ecthy · May 27, 2001, 15:38

No Social Engineering (stop it, SE rocks!!)

No Public Work (why moving that thing around all the time?)

No Unit Workshop (fellas, premade units aresooo boring!!)

grr... why don't we even get the chance to switch those things on/off ? eh? customisability, where is it?

I could really live without colonies, if I only had SE, PW and a workshop

Ralf · May 27, 2001, 16:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
No Social Engineering (stop it, SE rocks!!)

No Public Work (why moving that thing around all the time?)

No Unit Workshop (fellas, premade units aresooo boring!!)

grr... why don't we even get the chance to switch those things on/off ? eh? customisability, where is it?

I could really live without colonies, if I only had SE, PW and a workshop

I for one is really glad that both Public works, the Unit workshop and the Social Engineering screen has been...

Public Works simply wasnt Civ. The S.E. screen is only feasible with SMAC-style "test-tube societys". The Unit workshop is so hopelessly unfeasible in Civ-3 with a historic to modern era timeline, that i am rather surprised that anyone actually believe it could work.

Its worth to notice that NOT ONE single historically based strategy-game to this date, have had anything remotely like the "unit workshop" implemented. Why, do you think? The ONLY ones who had it, is SciFi-strategy games.
The reason for this is not that difficult to understand, because when it comes to Sci-Fi stuff, the game-designers are completely free to design totally made-up parts - which is obviously much easier. In a historic-based game like Civ-3 they would have felt constantly very restricted - not least when i comes to the problems with working with such fundamentally different time- and technology-eras.

SerapisIV · May 27, 2001, 16:22

I like how things are turning out, no SE is more realistic, if there are more gov't options with more variation then civ2. I voted (like the majority of people did as well

) for the worker system. The unit workshop is too abstract for 6000 years of development, I can't see how it could be implemented. Keeping individual units is simple, still allows for variation if more unit types are included and keeps civ3 from getting released in Xmas 2002 because of play-testing and debugging.

Why thinks can't be turned on/off, I suspect that they are core concepts that need to be included in the game engine, not ideas that can just be switched on/off.

Grumbold · May 27, 2001, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf

Its worth to notice that NOT ONE single historically based strategy-game to this date, have had anything remotely like the "unit workshop" implemented. Why, do you think? The ONLY ones who had it, is SciFi-strategy games.
The reason for this is not that difficult to understand, because when it comes to Sci-Fi stuff, the game-designers are totally free to design made-up parts - which is obviously much easier. In a historic-based game like Civ-3 they would have felt constantly very restricted - not least when i comes to the problems with working with such fundamentally different time- and technology-eras.

There have been several. Braveheart immediately springs to mind as one of the more recent. Equip your troops with whatever weapons and armour you have made or bought to field troops of any type. You can even change their equipment when different stuff is available. I quite agree that the diversity of time periods would have made it a challenge to implement nicely in a Civ game but by no means insurmountable.

Bereta_Eder · May 27, 2001, 17:19

I really like the fact that FIRAXIS didn't implement these things.

Eli · May 27, 2001, 17:41

PW are great, they make the game much less boring. The unit workshop sucks, and the SE is more for games like SMAC, but fits less in history based games like Civ3.

Ralf · May 27, 2001, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
There have been several. Braveheart immediately springs to mind as one of the more recent. Equip your troops with whatever weapons and armour you have made or bought to field troops of any type. You can even change their equipment when different stuff is available.

Firstly; its a big difference between unit-workshop and army-workshop. I was not refering to "troops" here.

I personally have enjoyed playing games like "Lord of the realms II" for example. In that game you recruited generic farmers and equipped them with swords, maces, pikes, rows, crossbows or whatever. Its not the same thing.

Secondly; then I made that remark I had historical PC-games that stretches over several different cultures, and over several hundreds years in my mind. In Civ-3 we are talking about 6000 years of culturally and technologically different historical eras. Its a huge difference if the game-designers are limited to one specific culture and/or one specific war-technological era.

Besides: talking about variety. Why are there so few (if any) mod-packs available in SMAC that completely replaces the existing unit workshop-graphics and ADM-data?
Because it would be a pain in the neck to re-design all these different parts, and at the end of the day: it would have felt rather meaningless, because you still have attach the exact same incremental ADM-data on each part, as in the default parts anyway. Everything is pre-made with "unit workshop", and you basically stuck with it.

By comparision; standalone Civ-style units are both much more modpack-friendly and more flexible. Both Firaxis and indevidual scenario-designers can add, subract, replace and tweak the unit-graphics & data exactly to their liking.
I bet we will se new units and other things added to the main game, in some beefed-up Civ-3 scenario-addon. Civ-players can download unique modpacks and tweak the ADM-data as they vishes. Flexibility is the word.
In SMAC with its unit workshop, all of above has already been taken care of once and for all - and one is basically stuck with it.

Grumbold · May 27, 2001, 19:00

I'm not sure exactly what you characterise a "unit workshop" as being if it is not a means of building a range of units depending on what components you have access to. I certainly haven't seen anyone saying the SMAC version - particularly its hideous graphics - was perfect and should be shoved straight into CIV3 unchanged.

I DO want to see the potential to fight battles that involve all the unit types that are common in history - particularly in ancient times when different countries had markedly different armies. Some form of workshop would appear to be a better means of delivering that than allowing dozens of units you don't want to build to clog up the build selection queue. Either way, nothing could be worse than seeing everyone fighting with the latest four unit types all the time. The occasional unique unit isn't going to impact on that much so I'm doubtful Civ III will deliver on this one without heavy mod work.

Still, if you're not a fan of a unit builder, fair enough. I'll say no more

TechWins · May 27, 2001, 19:50

I'm all for not having any of three.

El hidalgo · May 27, 2001, 20:05

I too am glad none of these thing will be in the game. I hope there are some extra slots for additional units as in Civ2. I am sure there will be some great mods coming out, so I'm not too worried about getting bored of the units that come with the game. I even like unique units. It's historically accurate -- units are also a reflection of culture, not just tech (lots of civs had swordsmen, only the Japanese had samurai). Plus, if it's a flag that can be toggled, it will be a great thing for scenario developers. No more work-arounds like making a unit dependent on a tech and then not allowing civs to trade techs. I have to say, so far so good!

Grumbold · May 27, 2001, 20:55

Quote:

Originally posted by El hidalgo
I even like unique units. It's historically accurate -- units are also a reflection of culture, not just tech

Unfortunately they tie unique units to your choice of player name in 4000 BC. That is in no way the same thing as linking them to culture. It seems the English will be getting the "Man'o'War" even if their culture turns out to be one of land based military might and they never build a single port.

The period of true English naval superiority was barely two centuries long and stemmed from the unique circumstance of having an island nation and extensive colonial outposts so naval strength was significantly more important than the army, unlike their continental neighbours with extensive land borders to protect. In an overlapping and longer time period up to the present day Britain has had a tradition of a relatively small but elite infantry which has repeatedly shown itself to be superior, man for man, to their opponents but often appallingly (mis)led. No mention of the redcoats, rifles or modern equivalents in the unique unit list. This will be particularly ironic if the French get a Napoleonic special.

El hidalgo · May 27, 2001, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
Unfortunately they tie unique units to your choice of player name in 4000 BC. That is in no way the same thing as linking them to culture. It seems the English will be getting the "Man'o'War" even if their culture turns out to be one of land based military might and they never build a single port.

True, though it works out on the earth map (as long as you don't randomize starting locations). If, as I hope, unique status is a flag you can toggle on and off in rules.txt, then there is much more flexibility as to which units you can make unique, so the problem you describe can solved (either toggle uniques off, or give everone a land-based unique). Unique units thus wouldn't derive from culture (culture as a new game concept), but they would contribute to perception of each civ having a unique culture. In other words, you can view the unique unit as being based in a civ's culture even though it doesn't develop spontaneously from culture rating or something like that. Plus, what a boon for scenario makers. In all I think the unique unit does more good than harm.

Ecthy · May 28, 2001, 12:21

I don't get it... has there only been one for mof Democracy in thousands years of history? only one form of Monarchy?

Could someone even try to count at least one sensibel reason why Social Engineering is bad for a historical game?

bagdar · May 28, 2001, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
No Social Engineering (stop it, SE rocks!!)

Un-Civ, unneccesarily complex. And why do you assume that the Civ III govts are going to work exacly as in Civ II, maybe they're enhanced!!!

Quote:

No Public Work (why moving that thing around all the time?)

Great decision. Stay away from ctp for any reason, anyway. Also, How are the workers going to work? Maybe we have advanced automation, further facilities?

Quote:

No Unit Workshop (fellas, premade units aresooo boring!!)

several reasons... Including customization, new combat model, etc. etc. UnCiv anyway

You can't customize a good ol' civ between two games, so let's see what enhancements there are before complaining about backward steps.

Ecthy · May 28, 2001, 12:46

UnCiv SchmunCiv..... any reasosn or only a blind statement?

look, workers mean a lot of micromanagement, just like in CIV, CIV2 and SMAC.. of course, that's a tradition of CIV, but I think there is room for innovations... CTP in general sucks, but PW was a good idea

an enhancement for the government forms would indeed be a good idea, but SE is just the best enhancement

a unit workshop is just the way to go... why bothering with a limited number o funits? it doesn't make much sense anyway, the workshop has been a great innovation for SMAC!!

Special Units? won't work with a workshop, but give them special bonuses for unit construction instead!