Civ Units

[ShiroKobbure]

Civs should have units based of history, such as not giving european based units to indian and Asian civs.
Each culture groupd should have its own line of units, as will as UUs for each actual civ
a posible break down would be

Europe
Africa
Middle East
Asia
Indian
you could go deeper, but atleast this would be a huge jump, for any stratgey game

of course civs should be able to mix, like India would have both Middle Eastern and Asian Units

 

[Jaybe]

Shiro, if civs should have units based on history, then they should be based on their history IN THE GAME, NOT on history of "reality"!

For instance, if a civ has elephants but not horses, they might have an elephant-based UU instead of a horse-based UU, even if their true-historic counterpart had no exposure to elephants. Iroquois with an elephant-based UU, for instance.

This begs the generic naming of civs unless you are playing an Earth map with historical placement, so you don't stereotype the civ based on its name.

Another alternative would be to replace the Unique-Unit system with some whole other system.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

I play only on earth maps, basically Tets test of time. but if I play normal mode, I see everyone with european units... Whats the point in having a civ if its based off nothing??
you could call the civ whatever you want if it isnt based of reality, I would rather have it based of history

 

[Jaybe]

Perhaps you would prefer to play a game with more limited scope then; one which involves only a hundred years or so (not that I have played ToT). Civilizations are the product of the dynamics of their history, society and geography. They are not the product of the "name" of their civilization.

Whats the point in having a civ if its based off nothing??

In the game you play, they are based on the dynamics of their environment (as above, plus their civ traits). That is what keeps it so new -- it is never the same from game to game.

European-looking units is only a stereotype because Firaxis (and most of the "Western" world) is more familiar with them. Call it cultural bias and ignorance. Just as Nippon has had enormous cultural bias and ignorance in its own past.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

any ways...
this is just my request, for Mods based off the real world, I would rather have a wide range of units based off culture groups, than one line of units based of the european world, just because names mean nothing. Call me a crazy

 

[searcheagle]

There are also advantages to standardized units. Its easier to learn 20 units stats then 400. That makes it easier to play the game.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

they would have the same stats, but the would look different, thats it. like having the Zulu have all white units. The Chinese having a chistrian armoured knight. in the same what that the asian civs have asian style buildings. For the most part they would have the same stat, but they would just look different. Its my request and as moder and graphic creator I can see people like variety, not the same thing for every civ.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

like a mod Im working on now about a map of asia, I really dont have a need for most of the civ units which are all western, but if civ made unit lines for each culture group it would make things alot easier, than have one line based off some western white biast

 

[searcheagle]

they would have the same stats, but the would look different, thats it. like having the Zulu have all white units. The Chinese having a chistrian armoured knight. in the same what that the asian civs have asian style buildings. For the most part they would have the same stat, but they would just look different. Its my request and as moder and graphic creator I can see people like variety, not the same thing for every civ.

Ok that would simplify things from what I thought they were. However, I was playing C3C:WWII, where the art work was redone for similar ships. It was extremely difficult for me to keep track of my units, Especially since the units all were renames. A destroyer, for instance, was not called a destroyer but rather a Arlie Burke Destroyer (Yes I know that is a modern destroyer but i couldnt think of a WWII one.).

 

[ShiroKobbure]

all it would be is looks, it would be swordsman, but it would look different for every culutre group
this would produce better mods
notice on civ 3 conquest the sengoku and the ww2 mod have new units for the mods

 

[dh_epic]

There are lots of reasons civs shouldn't have completely unique sets of units.

1. Hurts Balance -- do you really want to play as the Aztecs against the Spanish?
2. Hurts Freedom -- So I'm not allowed to build x just because I chose civ y?
3. Hurts Plausibility ("Realism") -- how can my specialty be boats if I'm landlocked? how can my specialty be mounted combat if I have no horses?
4. Hurts Learnability -- I forgot the difference between a Spearman and a Phalanx and a Forkateer.

Although you could still have unique artwork for each civilization, or group of civilizations to add a sense of immersiveness...

And you could offer differing units based on paths you take on a branching tech tree. That way you still have freedom, but you still get to write a plausible ("realistic") history. And that way, since everyone has access to those units, the balance issues are a bit more manageable.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

There are lots of reasons civs shouldn't have completely unique sets of units.

1. Hurts Balance -- do you really want to play as the Aztecs against the Spanish?
2. Hurts Freedom -- So I'm not allowed to build x just because I chose civ y?
3. Hurts Plausibility ("Realism") -- how can my specialty be boats if I'm landlocked? how can my specialty be mounted combat if I have no horses?
4. Hurts Learnability -- I forgot the difference between a Spearman and a Phalanx and a Forkateer.

Although you could still have unique artwork for each civilization, or group of civilizations to add a sense of immersiveness...

And you could offer differing units based on paths you take on a branching tech tree. That way you still have freedom, but you still get to write a plausible ("realistic") history. And that way, since everyone has access to those units, the balance issues are a bit more manageable.

Even if it would be a too big step away from the civ-gameplay in the past, a total differentiation among the civs could be very fun. Restriction often adds flavour to games. Instead of playing similar civs, even if the would differ in the end, all the time, being able to choose to play civs that are fundamentally different could add to the longevity of the game. Medieval: Total War is a great example of that. It doesn't have a complete balance of all civs in the game, instead it gives you info on different weaknesses and strenghts between the civs, and also informs you of the different inherent difficult-levels among them.
I'm not saying this should be implemented in civ, exclusively anyway, but I'm all for some 'hardwired' differentiation between civs, and I don't really see any big problems with the points you posted, dh epic, they could either add to the gameplay or be solved rather easely, imo.

 

[DexterJ]

I dont think basing Civ on the real world is a very good idea because unless you choose a european style civ you will lose.
It would be far better if nations charachteristics evolved over time due to the playing style/geographic location etc of the civ. for example coastal civs which built a lot of ocean going units would gradually develop seafearing bonuses. where as ones on great plain style terrain with lots of horse resource would have better cavalry. this could be how military styles evolve. bonuses for economic/research/luxery (or civ4 equivilants) would be determined by spending prefferences as well as building prefferences. All civs would therefore start off with no special charteristics (except themamtic asian/afrian/european etc graphic styles) but would branch off to different speciailisations over time. This would result in civs that were not similar to the real world but would, however, be more realistic.

Edit. god my spelling is lame some times. Also the development of your civs attributes over time would allow you to actively shape its development rather than picking one at the start without knowing what kind of civ you would want.. or something.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

nope
sorry
I still rather have it my way, makes mods more realistic. Gives more variety, and maskes sense you are a playing as JAPAN. the pros out way the cons, if there is any. I dont see any. If you all want one line of european units you could just mod and delete the unique units for the culute groups. The way you guys want to play there wouldnt be a need for culure groups with every civ game has had, or civ names or leaders. The civ could just be named civ 4 or civ a. However for people playing on an earth map or a mod this would help them out alot. And I dont think you guess understand what I am saying I dont know why. Im japanese and I can read english. Go through this thread agian and READ it. the aztecs didnt have hourses in history. But if you wanted to play it on a crazy map, and the aztecs found a horse or traded to get some horses they could build it but it would look more native american, rather than european, or the zulus units would look black.
as I said once already
"all it would be is looks, it would be swordsman, but it would look different for every culutre group
this would produce better mods"

Goto the creation forum of Civ 3 and tgry to rally support for your one line of european unit cause

 

[rhialto]

@DexterJ
I think you are missing the point here. No one is suggesting here that we duplicate the precise strengths and weaknesses of each real world civ. What we are after is versimilitude - we want to give enough differences to give the feeling of that civ without materially affecting game balance. That is certainly possible.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

yes, in the same way that even the city graphics for each culture in civ is different, are Asian cities stronger or weaker than European cities in Civ 3? No, but they do look different, even through on crazy maps china and rome might be next to each other

 

[DexterJ]

I do understand you want purely graphic differences between different civs. We are/were debating different things.
what i am saying is that instead of pre-determined attributes it would be better that these evolved over time - unique to each game rather than determined before the start.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

how could you determine a culture group after the start of a game?? Would someone settle and get an asian resource? Also why would the romans have their UU or the Japanese have their UU why isnt that determined in a game?? why isnt the whole culture group and palace thing based off what happens in game? here are my pros, better mods, more realism on a normal world map, more varitey.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I kind of like the idea ShiroKobbure is proposing, but I do think their should be room for manouver. I would like to see more UU's, maybe a couple per civ per era. I think this would bring alot more variety into the game. There does need to be more variety, not just european civs!

With civ 3 conquests the scenerio's began to demonstrate how different civs could have different units....I would liek to see this much expanded on in civ4.

For instance, if a civ has elephants but not horses, they might have an elephant-based UU instead of a horse-based UU, even if their true-historic counterpart had no exposure to elephants.

This I agree with, of course this means there would need to be an elephant resource, which would be cool.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey, I'm actually cool with that. I'm a huge advocate of that. Give the units their own graphical flavor. A Japanese swordsman is equally as powerful as a Roman swordsman, but their sword, armor, shield, and even complexion look different!

That would address every concern:

1. Balance -- Japanese and Roman swordsman are equivelent
2. Freedom -- Game play is still free. Only APPEARANCES are hardwired.
3. Plausibility ("Realism") -- Undoubtedly, if Japan built the the Pyramids, they would look different from they do now.
4. Learnability -- Congruency between civs makes the game easier to learn than completely Unique Units.