How can custom Civ3 units be better than Civ2?

Steve Clark · January 26, 2001, 17:14

For those that have no idea as to how good custom units can look in Civ2, take a look at these...

(With apologies for posting Captain Nemo's battleship units for his new WW2 scenario without his permission.)

I am left to wonder when looking at the above .gif if or how this can be improved upon in Civ3 (or should it)? I mean, the purpose of unit graphics is to tell what they are quickly and to be historically accurate. Is this just one of many areas that they got right in Civ2 and thus should not be screwed with for Civ3?

The diplomat · January 26, 2001, 17:49

With all due respect

, have you seen the civ3 units posted on the preview site?? They are absolutely amazing!!!!!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · January 26, 2001, 17:54

Just look at the new civ3 units on the official website...that should answer your question.

Steve Clark · January 26, 2001, 18:01

With all due respect, you had forgotten that I saw them when they were first announced and had made several comments. But if you get your heads out of the clouds, just take those new Civ3 units and scale them down to the size you see above (which represents the actual game scale), will they look any better? I think not. What you are looking at with the Civ3 units are full-rendered size graphics that are for show only, not part of the game, as was discussed. So there.

The diplomat · January 26, 2001, 18:14

Maybe, but look again at the animated units. They look like they might be at the actual game size. If so, then they are much much better than any custom units in civ2!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

Steve Clark · January 26, 2001, 18:39

But animation does not make it a better looking unit, imo. Don't you think it's kind of useless to have a warrior wielding his axe over and over again in a TBS game while you are thinking of your moves? If animating a unit is an option, I will turn off the animation first thing. So take that tank, forget about animation and shrink it down to the game scale. Is it better than what we see above (which presumably takes a whole lot less resources)? The point I'm trying to get at is slick animated graphics are not important for the game, especially if they take resources away from things that are truly important (AI and customizability).

Ralf · January 26, 2001, 18:51

Personally I dont care much for unit-animations in turnbased strategy-games. Unit-related sounds is more important "alive-factors" for me. Nevertheless, I think Firaxis more or less must include lots of map- and unit-animation eye-candy, in Civ-3.

They must try to counter-act some RTS-loving game-magazine reviewers, who otherwise is likely to instinctively rant down on the lack of RTS-style animated bells and whistles. I just hope that these animations are optional - and that Firaxis dont try to push the animation concept one horrific/ridicules step further: A twist/turn and zoomable fullscale 3D globe-map.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 26, 2001).]

The diplomat · January 26, 2001, 18:55

Do you really think that the warrior is going to be constantly wielding his axe over and over again while you are playing? What you are seeing is probably just the animation for one particular action, in this case most likely attack.
Slick units will make the game better because it will make the game more appealing visually. Plus animations will make the game more immersive. Completely static units can often completely kill the mood. Since the animations can be turned off, everybody should be happy, right?

IMO, I want very crisp graphics AND good gameplay. The game should have both, and I am pleased that this is what Firaxis is aiming for.

Just because the game is a strategy game does not mean that it should not have great graphics!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

Ralf · January 26, 2001, 18:59

quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat on 01-26-2001 05:55 PM
Since the animations can be turned off, everybody should be happy, right?

OK, thats good enough for me. Animations it shall be.

EnochF · January 26, 2001, 19:07

Having just revisited the official website, I wonder... has anybody given any thought to the fact that Warriors and Riflemen -- regardless of what civilization they belong to, Japanese, Zulu or Russian -- are white?

I suppose Civ II had the same problem, but it wasn't as obvious.

bagdar · January 27, 2001, 09:50

come on, that's not a problem! skin color's of absolutely NO importance to civ (to anything else? bah!) , even if unique features are included. That warrior's got a funny beard and between his legs... what's that???

Stefu · January 27, 2001, 10:11

See people, see? I wasn't the only one to notice that anomality between the Warrior's legs!

I'm starting to suspect it's because Firaxis wants some fundamentalist group to notice it, raise a big holler about how games are corrupting the youth, and meanwhile give lots and lots of media publicity to Firaxis.

January 27, 2001, 12:04

I'm sorry folks, I've been looking at the new warrior and I don't see anything between the warriors legs - except the animal hide he wears.

Come on people, get your mind out of the gutter.

I for one like the unit animation of the CIV3 units. As stated earlier, this is the year 2001 - animations should be better than CIV2.

Transcend · January 27, 2001, 12:08

I honestly don't hope that they spend all of their efforts to polish up graphics. I see little point in having phanlax lunging their spears all the way. However, improving/customizing a basic unit as new technologies are discovered is a good idea. I really like the concept of Unit Workshop in SMAC even if the user interface is awful.

January 27, 2001, 12:09

I agree Transcend.

The Patriot · January 29, 2001, 14:52

Steve,

you dont know the true size of in-game units. so dont start assuming they will look the same.

Ralf · January 29, 2001, 15:40

quote:

Originally posted by The Patriot on 01-29-2001 01:52 PM
Steve,

you dont know the true size of in-game units. so dont start assuming they will look the same.

Its pretty obvious that a Civ-3 unit, per definition, cannot outgrow/overlap the size of the indevidual map-tile it standing on, dont you think? The player moves the unit from one map-tile to another map-tile. Thats the whole point with the system.

And the map-tiles themselves can only "grow" if one zoom the whole map back and forth.

Steve Clark · January 29, 2001, 17:28

The assumption is that we are going to have the option to play on a larger map (greater than 100x100). What scale would you propose that can effectively manage (or view) 100s of units over 10,000+ tiles?