Do You Want XCOM Squad in game?

Should XCOM Squad be included?

  • Yes, yes it should

    Votes: 319 59.6%
  • No, no it shouldn't.

    Votes: 216 40.4%

  • Total voters
    535
We should not have to waste time making a mod. There should simply be an option to turn off the future units if we want. Then we can concentrate on playing the game without the haggle of changing things. I just hope they haven't added more than one future unit to the game. There are a boatload of other things they should fixed instead of using the time and energy to add that useless unit. I don't care what anyone says, it takes 4 of these things to kill a single GDR. The poor XCOM guys really die like flies. You should just build GDRs to take out GDRs. lol
But there is "an option to turn off the future units." It's called a mod. Mods are super easy to install and use in CiV.
 
Civilization is a game generally based on historical civilizations and units, but not so much that it presents 100% realism. You are playing as am immortal whatever, that is not only dictating research, city founding, military might, trade agreements, etc. Yeah, lost realism a ways back.

For the third (fourth?) time this thread: these are called abstractions. No game can exist without them. Even though Civ makes some pretty huge abstractions, that is not the same as having a playable unit from another game. An XCOM unit is no more plausible than a Dragonborn or Jedi unit.
 
But there is "an option to turn off the future units." It's called a mod. Mods are super easy to install and use in CiV.

Your damn right, I am going to create one as soon as the expansion comes out. Can you tell me something I don't know? :)

We have enough loss of realism in this game. We do no need more with the addition of an XCOM squad of all things.
 
For the third (fourth?) time this thread: these are called abstractions. No game can exist without them. Even though Civ makes some pretty huge abstractions, that is not the same as having a playable unit from another game. An XCOM unit is no more plausible than a Dragonborn or Jedi unit.

Most of those abstractions are utterly unnecessary.
 
Most of those abstractions are utterly unnecessary.

Which ones in particular? Without shortening time and giving the player control of mundane building projects, research and the military you cannot have a Civ game.
 
Which ones in particular? Without shortening time and giving the player control of mundane building projects, research and the military you cannot have a Civ game.
Paradox games give the player minimal control over research goals and manage to portray the development of a civilization in an arguably more accurate manner than Civ games.
 
Paradox games give the player minimal control over research goals and manage to portray the development of a civilization in an arguably more accurate manner than Civ games.

Yes, Paradox games are far more detailed and 'realistic'...but we are talking in the context of Civ. Do you feel that Civ should no longer give players control of research?
 
This game has no place for fiction. It's supposed to be based on the real world.
They should be restricted to scenarios at the very least.
 
This game has no place for fiction. It's supposed to be based on the real world.
They should be restricted to scenarios at the very least.

Civilization has plenty of room for fiction. We have semi-mythical leaders (Dido and Hiawatha) ruling civilizations. There are also "leaders" who never lead their nation in a political sense (e.g. Gandhi, Joan of Arc in Civ 3).

Units are available without researching obvious "real world" prerequisites (cannon-armed frigates without Gunpowder, Chemistry, or Metallurgy). Some civilizations magically transmute horses into camels or elephants (Arabia, India, Siam) or breed horses out of thin air (Huns, Egyptians).

El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth are included as natural wonders. Giant bipedal robots are available as military units in the late game.

Civilization is a fiction based on the real world. Some people prefer a greater degree of fiction, others less. I can understand objecting to an explicit reference to another video game, but would you object as strongly if they just called it "advanced weaponry squad", or something similar?
 
Yes, Paradox games are far more detailed and 'realistic'...but we are talking in the context of Civ. Do you feel that Civ should no longer give players control of research?

In Paradox games there is plenty of room for control over research. In Victoria II, which I happen to love playing, the research choices one makes are of vital importance to winning. I am not sure where Peng picked up his philosophy about Paradox games, but they are misguided. Although, he is correct in saying they are certainly more realistic, obviously, since they represent a closer simulation of real history. Also, those games are not turn based but RTS, therein lies a huge difference, between those games and civ.

Saying all of that does not really matter though. CiV still can keep some things realistic. One important way to do that is not stretching the game into some imaginary future. I don't think keeping ending the game with comparable technology to the modern day is asking too much.

Civilization is a fiction based on the real world. Some people prefer a greater degree of fiction, others less. I can understand objecting to an explicit reference to another video game, but would you object as strongly if they just called it "advanced weaponry squad", or something similar?
I would feel better if it was not called XCOM squad, but the fact remains the unit is simply not needed. The GDR is not needed either IMO. They should replace those units to maybe a drone aircraft and a seal team or special forces for ground ops (something like that). Today we have more specialized smaller armies. These should be represented in the Information Era. Not some unit that will need 200 years or more to complete the technology to create a workable unit like that. And keep in mind it is not just about the unit, but being able to create the weaponry, armor, as well as organizing and training personnel for that role. Whatever that role may be. Which is another unknown mystery. We may have technology that is pointing in the direction of ending up with something similar to an XCOM squad at some point in the future. However, the sad truth is the technology needed is in its infancy, and that is giving it more credit than it is due. As far building something like the GDR, it is even more laughable, before we will be seeing something like that coming around the bend anytime soon. Those two units need to be in a whole new future era, which is simply not in this game, nor should it be added to it.
 
In Paradox games there is plenty of room for control over research. In Victoria II, which I happen to love playing, the research choices one makes are of vital importance to winning. I am not sure where Peng picked up his philosophy about Paradox games, but they are misguided. Although, he is correct in saying they are certainly more realistic, obviously, since they represent a closer simulation of real history. Also, those games are not turn based but RTS, therein lies a huge difference, between those games and civ.

Saying all of that does not really matter though. CiV still can keep some things realistic. One important way to do that is not stretching the game into some imaginary future. I don't think keeping ending the game with comparable technology to the modern day is asking too much.
I take it then you've never played any Paradox titles other than Victoria or Hearts of Iron. Literally every other major game they make gives you minimal to no control over your research goals. At best you can choose an area of "focus" in them, but typically the amount of research generated by this focus pales in comparison to the amount of research generated by all other factors.

Also, a lot of the "research" in Victoria is more like cultural and industrial development.
 
I take it then you've never played any Paradox titles other than Victoria or Hearts of Iron. Literally every other major game they make gives you minimal to no control over your research goals. At best you can choose an area of "focus" in them, but typically the amount of research generated by this focus pales in comparison to the amount of research generated by all other factors.

Also, a lot of the "research" in Victoria is more like cultural and industrial development.
You forget Army, Navy, and Commerce tech trees. Don't fall behind in military technology in that game or the AI will eat you for breakfast, it is far better than the CiV AI. Just like in Civ everything matters as far as technology and development goes. It is about making the correct choices at the right time, which just like in Civ, makes or breaks how your game is going to go. With Victoria II it seems a lot more patience is needed and the game is far more complicated. There are many more concepts to keep track of and learn about, so it takes awhile to learn it.

Hearts of Iron is even worse, it is hugely complicated. I have not played it much, because currently I have not purchased the expansions for it, which make the game far better. I do have AHD for Victoria II. I enjoy the game, because it to me is much easier than HoI. Although, I still learn something new each time I play it.

EU3 I have and have played a little, but I also need to add the expansions for that.

What do you think about comparing CiV to Total War? :lol: I do have most expansions for those games. I am missing the Peninsula campaign for NTW. The one thing that is comparable to CiV is building up cities and towns. Turn based campaign, but RTS combat. A lot of people who play civ should be able to relate to Total War games. Well at least I do. :D

As far as CiV goes, if they are going to add a future unit, they should add a true future era. I have said the same about them adding the GW units. They should have added a whole Great War Era. All the tech and units that go there are added to that era. It would make the techtree make more sense IMO.

Comparing CiV to other strategy type games really does not matter and it will not change anything. Firaxis needs to do that. We will be seeing what else they have up their sleeve in the near future.
 
Yeah it was kind of a pointless aside. The only reason I even brought it up is to illustrate that the abstractions mentioned by the other poster aren't necessary; they're simply enjoyed by the CiV community because that's the tradition of CiV. The XCOM unit is certainly an abstraction, but as many have been saying: abstractions aren't the problem. It's also near-future fantasy, but as has been pointed out, Civ has ALWAYS had near-future fantasy even back in Civ 1. I think the real issue some people are having is that it's referential to external material, which feels too "lighthearted" for some.
 
The real truth is if they renamed XCOM to Plasma future Infantry, half of this nonsense complaims would stop. They are just one unit that no one will never play with if he dont reach the late end game AKA FUTURE .
You guys are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

And the Super smash bros reference was just ridiculous.
 
I would feel better if it was not called XCOM squad, but the fact remains the unit is simply not needed. The GDR is not needed either IMO. They should replace those units to maybe a drone aircraft and a seal team or special forces for ground ops (something like that). .... Those two units need to be in a whole new future era, which is simply not in this game, nor should it be added to it.

I understand that viewpoint. Although I don't necessarily agree that futuristic units or science fiction units should not be added, I do agree that more modern and realistic units would be a good fit. Units such as the GDR and XCOM squad are ok in my opinion, but Firaxis should provide an option to disable them without the use of a mod. I'm still not entirely convinced that the XCOM squad will make the final release of BNW. My post was mainly in response to the idea, as stated by another poster, that Civilization has no place for fiction.
 
I sometimes wonder if Firaxis is not playing mind games with us by showing us this unit. What an interesting debate it has been.
 
For the third (fourth?) time this thread: these are called abstractions. No game can exist without them. Even though Civ makes some pretty huge abstractions, that is not the same as having a playable unit from another game. An XCOM unit is no more plausible than a Dragonborn or Jedi unit.

I beg to differ. An XCOM unit is far more plausible in Civ than a Dragonborn or Jedi. Why? We can win the game by sending colonists to another solar system. As someone else pointed out, the technology for such a unit is better suited to a future future tech. However, so should be colonizing another planet.

The bottom line about those abstractions is that I find the space race rather absurd in that you can win it with pretty much modern day technology, which is not plausible. At the very least, the GDR and now XCOM Squad at least can make some sort of suspended belief, because if we can make GDRs, we might as well be able to colonize another planet!

You have to take a rather big leap of faith, and suspend disbelief for quite a bit in Civ. What I am saying is what is one unit, that fits a relative "theme" at the end of the tech tree going to do to upset your "immersion"?

I am just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Top Bottom