Civ specific wonders

Psycho1 · January 10, 2003, 20:26

I am sure this has already been brought up but should their be civ specific wonders and if so what would people like to see?

Cyclotron · January 10, 2003, 20:59

Not for the regular game, but it sure helps in scenarios.

bobbo008 · January 10, 2003, 21:00

hmmm... that would add to the uniqueness of civs... and realism, as shakespeare's theatre cannot really be in China... maybe some overlapping ones, since Bach's cathedral didn't exactly make a certain number of people in each city in the country happy...

Cyclotron · January 10, 2003, 21:03

IMO, the uniqueness of civs should be dependent on how you guide and play them, not pre-set factors before the game ever starts. That's why I think all wonders should be available. Civ3 is just about those questions, "what if the Aztecs built a Great Wall to keep out French invaders"?

Incidentally, I am against UUs for the same reason.

bobbo008 · January 10, 2003, 21:05

unless you mean developing different traits, then i disagree. at the very least, maybe generic wonder names?

Cyclotron · January 10, 2003, 21:09

I mean it in all respects: traits, units, wonders, improvements. Heck, if my Norsemen wound up starting at the equator I'd want them to have dark skin.

bobbo008 · January 10, 2003, 21:15

fair enough, but then they'd be Aztecs or wherever, then not really Norsemen. Do you mean civs, more or less, starting as equals in every manner? For another example, relying on cavalry will gradually make them superior to other civs' cavalry?

Cyclotron · January 10, 2003, 21:19

Names are pretty unimportant to me.

Yes, exactly: A civ near the coast, using many ships, would get better ships and perhaps recieve unique ship units. If they started away from the sea, and remained landbound for a long time, they could only build basic models of ship. Doesn't it bother you that the English can start in a desert, and they are still apparently master shipbuilders?

bobbo008 · January 10, 2003, 21:23

understandable. so, you don't start out as the english, you BECOME the english, in a sense. That's a good idea, and at least the option to have that should be included in future versions/patches.

Cyclotron · January 10, 2003, 21:27

Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean. Civ2 civs were too alike, I just think that Civ3 took the wrong approach with AoE-like pre-set traits. That's fine for AoE, but when you lead a civ from the stone age you shoudl have some control over their development. Definitely something for Civ4.

bobbo008 · January 10, 2003, 21:35

hmm... where your view definitely makes sense (probably more), I think most people just like being the English and building their empire up, not becoming the English. Where you might have a problem is when civs are "born". such as there are no longer Babylonions, and Americans have only existed in the past 250 years.

edit: unless, of course, the civs you mean to create really are "unique"...

Cyclotron · January 10, 2003, 21:42

I would like unique civs to be created. Imagine this simple example:

Cavalry: 6/3/3
- If a civ does not use cavalry frequently, the civ gets the basic 6/3/3 cavalry
- If a civ uses cavalry frequently in offensive wars, the civ gets something like the Siphai, 8/3/3.
- If a civ uses cavalry frequently, but does not fight offensive wars (is not very agressive) they get something like the Cossack, 6/4/3.

The same thing can be done with wonders; civs that beeline to naval techs and build many galleys might get unique wonders, like the lighthouse, or at least unique small wonders so multiple civs could get them.

Either way, I don't think wonders should ever be predetermined, but the option to make it so should be included for scenario purposes.

bobbo008 · January 10, 2003, 21:47

yes, the option is almost a must if they were aware of it