"What do you mean nutcase?" You ask.
Well, look at it this way. We wanted to represent superiority of certain nations over others at different points in time, Right? "Right" you answer with a puzzled look. Now, what can be done to present it?
A) Special random leaders that appear randomly in civlizations. "But wait" you say, "This is already in Civ III!" AHA! I yell making you jump in surprise. So they did implement it.
What do we know about the Rise and Fall of Civilization historically? We know the Romans and Greek were leaders of the ancient world since they had Phalanxes and Legions. We also know that they faded away later, when Arabs, Franks, Mongols and Vikings became powerfull. "Yes" you say. What hapenned later? "New civilizations appeared and were strong: The English become a united powerfull nation, and so did the Chinese and Spanish. And after that, Germany became strong in the end of the 19th century. After that Russia began gaining power because of stalin's 5 year productivization plans. And after the 40s, the most Powerfull nation became - US.
Now how can we mimic that? I ask. "We could give each civ dominant in a specific age a special stronger unit". AHA! I yell again, making you fall from your chair. "That's right" You say, "This is exactly what Firaxis has done! Yey to Firaxis!"
Hold your horses! I say. Think about it. "Wait, but isn't it a bit fixed?", You ask. "Shouldn't we as Civilization players replay history instead of renacting it as it was?". Indeed.
Firaxis are giving us Fall and Rise of Civilizations. But it's a permanent historical one. Just like in Civ 2, Japanese were always militaristic, and the Greeks were always expantionist and the Babylonians always perfectionist. However that created a situation which made some civs to be powerfull for the whole game. Unique units allows rise and fall of civilizations, while sucrificing "real" uniqueness by allowing each Civ to take it's path randomly.
I think it would be better to implement using the Leaders and Artists and SCientists that Firaxis did. I think that if we had
a set of random picked personalities for Civilizations, that would change a number of times during a set game it would be better and more random. Why must Romans be the strongest of the classical age civilizations
every time I play?
The bottom line is, Firaxis did implement what we asked for. They did it in more ways than we thought possible. Yes, I am annyed by unique units and unique civs. And I'm sad that my
random personatlities that change during one game offer didn't get in the game. I think it didn't even get in the list. Mainly since I didn't know how to get it there (
*hint* *hint*).
But the main point is that Firaxis have listened and tried to do everything like we said. Sure, some of the implimentations are in ways which might hinder other gameplay issues for several people (including myself). But remember when they said "Don't just say: I want rise and fall of civs. Offer how to implement it"? They meant it. I didn't submit my
random changing personalities idea, so Firaxis used their own. I can't blame them for it. Well, sure I can, but I won't
.
So, what I hope now, is that people will understand that Firaxis do listen, and we can make a change. Also, there is a reason I bolded my suggestion. Firaxis, if you read this, and haven't made the AI yet, use my Idea. I understand you can't take Unique units out, now that you've told everyone about them, and hey, who knows, it might turn out cool. But my idea is cool also.
---------------For FIRAXIS------------(Cut Here)------------
Personalities
Each civ, should have a set of, say 5 different leaders, with their own tendencies. Let's take the romans for example:
Caesar: Militaristic Expansionist.
Neuron: uhm... A bum (would make empire get small and broke)
The Pope: would make a perfectionist theocracy.
Garibaldy: militaristic, rational
Someone else: Ok, so I don't know that much about Roman leaders
In the beginning of each game, each civ randomly picks one leader. During the game, the leaders randomly change, at random intervals, also caused by random events. Meaning:
Every 50 turns there is a 10% chance for a leader change.
When losing the Capital there is a 40% for a leader change.
Every 2000 years there is a 50% for a change.
When loosing at war there is a 25% chance for a change.
And so on.
There is no need for all 5 predefined civs to appear in a single game. It can happen. There is also no restriction as to the number of times one leader can be chosen. Example: Rome starts with Caesar, around 300 AD changes to Neuron, Then at 1200 AD changes back to Caesar, then back to Neuron in 1850, until the end of the game.
This is a change between 5 pre difned sets of goals, for each civilization, which can happen several times per game and should happen at least once or twice. Effort should be put so the leader doesn't ususally change too often as that would certainly make a civilization loose (One leader will buildup army, the other would disband it and start economic growth, the next will kill economic growth and starts bulding settlers. That way no leader will have real effect on the Civ as his work is soon cancelled by another leader and the Civ is stagnant.).
This isn't too difficult (I imagine) and will contribute allot to the rise and fall of civilizations, to the randomality of each game, and mainly to the replayability which is a key feature.
--------(End Cut Here)-----------
I was glad to share my view, and possibly bring peace between Firaxis and the fans here. I was also glad possibly contributing my idea to the greatest Civ game ever (Firaxis,
*hint* *hint*).
You've been a great audience. Thank you.
EDIT: I wan't to clarify that the main goal of this thread is my idea of how Unique Units contributes to the Fall and Rise of Civilizations. The personalitites thingy I'm promoting is just a byproduct. I bumped my thread on that issue...
[This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited May 12, 2001).]
