Giant Death Robot in Civ !?

[Senethro]

Moderator Action: *snip*

It's not that difficult to predict what tomorrow's war machines will resemble up to 2050; and massive manned 2-legged GDR's as direct combat vehicles with missiles have no place whatsoever I assure you. They = the complete opposite of mobile stealth warfare. Better off with an comanche attack helicopter or 4th gen tank in every single regards. There is absolutely no upsides that a GDR can bring against the others. It wouldn't even be menacing to other crews, they would seek them out for the sole purposing of getting a leg shot to bring it down, and then just blast away at the remains to cause a multi-billion dollar blow to the enemy.

I didn't claim it was accurate, I claimed it was easily recognizable as futuristic. If you don't know what a thing looks like, a joke does fine.

If it is a sick joke, and they aren't actually in the game.. even though they are selling pewter pieces, I wouldn't be too happy about a non-April 1st 'Joke' like that. It wouldn't paint the company in a happy light.

You're misusing the term sick joke. You're also one of these people missing that the joke isn't out of place.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: This is not a discussion about who likes which civ part best (-> 4 posts deleted). Back to topic.

 

[Perfection]

Im sorry but you are wrong.

Nope, as the inventor of the GDR concept. I can assure you of my expert credentials.

So making GDRs (and other possible future units) optional would be a deal braker for you? Sounds very prudent

I didn't say it was a deal breaker.

 

[12agnar0k]

Nope, as the inventor of the GDR concept. I can assure you of my expert credentials.

I posted that, as a reference to your expertise if you will, but for some reason my post was deleted with the other spam, probably because I commented on that also, thats what I get for trying not to double post .

 

[tom2050]

Moderator Action: *snip*

You're misusing the term sick joke. You're also one of these people missing that the joke isn't out of place.

Hmmm... did you miss what I said? I wouldn't be happy if it was true that the GDR's were not included in the game (as some rumors are / were saying), since now they are expected.

If Firaxis made a statement that they are definitely in the game, and when it ships, they are not, that would be a sick joke to pull on gamers. Especially if someone bought the edition with the pewter piece.

Not sure what you are getting at with claims of misuse and that I'm 'one of those people'. Exactly what type of 'people' are those? Is there an issue or problem with 'those types of people'? My arguments were based on reality of such a machine existing, not on the gameplay GDR, which is meant to be a futuristic fun unit.

 

[Snoopaloop]

Perfection, do you happen to also be the creator of the "No GDR" option?

 

[Psyringe]

... and thus poor Snoopaloop was struck by a flash of divine rage ...

 

[12agnar0k]

Perfection, do you happen to also be the creator of the "No GDR" option?

No such option exists in the real world, its too SF tbh, "no Gdr button" what a ridiclious notion.

 

[aziantuntija]

I didn't say it was a deal breaker.

So what is the problem then? I really dont understand.

I mean look, most civ players (who possibly arent even registered in civfanatics) would definetly want the option to possibly take out all the future units from their game. What would you loose if this happens?

 

[ori]

I am opposed to such an option mainly for the reason that I'd fear a flood of options that essentially do nothing to change the actual game, making any custom game setup unwieldly. If one specific unit is really bugging you it should be trivial to remove it without having a cluttered options screen with options to serve every whim. I'd want setup options restricted to options that actually affect game play.

 

[Slinko]

You do have an option to remove the GDR from the game: win the game before GDR are available!

lol I agree. most games should be over before GDR appears.

 

[aziantuntija]

I am opposed to such an option mainly for the reason that I'd fear a flood of options that essentially do nothing to change the actual game, making any custom game setup unwieldly. If one specific unit is really bugging you it should be trivial to remove it without having a cluttered options screen with options to serve every whim. I'd want setup options restricted to options that actually affect game play.

This seems to be the problem here. People seem to think that if we make future units (or perhaps the whole future era!) optional then there will be flood of options. How does one option make a flood of options?


Hey cmon! Its one option, its not the end of the world!


Think about it this way: Now we dont need "No technology brokering" option anymore so "No future units" might just take its place.


IMO there wasnt too many options in civ4 but it seems for most people there was

 

[aziantuntija]

You do have an option to remove the GDR from the game: win the game before GDR are available!

If you look it like this then we dont need anymore difficulty levels than just one. Just play better or play worse!

 

[ori]

if they make one unit optional because some don't like it, why not another unit, or a tech or a wonder or whatnot?
If they offer an option for a minor change like one unit then there is no reason to make other such minor options available...

 

[adam_grif]

if they make one unit optional because some don't like it, why not another unit, or a tech or a wonder or whatnot?

Because the other units and wonders aren't preposterously stupid and out of place in a Civ game.

 

[aziantuntija]

if they make one unit optional because some don't like it, why not another unit, or a tech or a wonder or whatnot?
If they offer an option for a minor change like one unit then there is no reason to make other such minor options available...

If you think it this way then you must oviously fail to see the difference between Cavalry unit and a Giant Death Robot. The other one is REAL and the other one IS NOT REAL. If Firaxis keeps on adding some super unrealistic things (like say give Magic points for units to perform magical attacks) in vanilla version you should not wonder why people want to make them optional.

Look at the poll. Yeah i know some of you voted wrong because you didnt read the question correctly, but i think both sides did that so it is not a too big factor here. Roughly half of the woters WANT to make them optional.

 

[Zhahz]

Also, I recall reading a post by a 2kperson somewhere in the thread where the GDR was announced. It was in response to somebody asking for an option to leave it out of the game, in which it was said that it was included in the game balance and that its removal might cause some issues or something.

Amazingly I trust Firaxis to balance Civ 5 more than players who haven't seen the game yet. I think everything will be ok.

 

[r_rolo1]

As we are speaking of making options ...

It was rare the month in the Civ IV forums that didn't had atleast one people asking for some option for limiting the tech age of the game ( especially to limit it to the medieval age top ) in the same way you could chose the era you started... if you could simply say that you didn't wanted to tech above a certain point, the GDR option issue could be erased fast.

Simple ,neat , with little potential for controversy ( IMHO ): simply give give us a option to chose the upper limit of the techs we need to get, in the same way we can decide the lower limit.

 

[Zhahz]

If you don't want GDR in the game, don't build it. The chances of the AIs building it is probably pretty small.

I don't see how you can consider the GDR any more ridiculous than being able to USE nukes you build, since nukes aren't really ever used, have only been used exactly twice, and were basically outlawed worldwide ever since. Nukes are almost nonexistent in world history yet many people who post here seem to be in love with them.

I think having a GDR in the vanilla game is unfortunant and cheapens the series with a childish gimmick.

I'd recommend judging after you actually play the game, because as with 99% of the speculation here, it's based on not playing the game, preview info, and nothing remotely close to actually playing.

Firaxis has managed to create 4 excellent versions of Civ. You might even say they know what they're doing. Maybe, just maybe, wait and see how it plays before declaring that the sky is falling.

 

[Perfection]

So what is the problem then? I really don't understand.

Well, you asked if I would find it useful. I wouldn't.

I mean look, most civ players (who possibly arent even registered in civfanatics) would definetly want the option to possibly take out all the future units from their game. What would you loose if this happens?

1. Valuable programming time that could have been better spent.

2. I'd have to argue between people in multiplayer games if I wanted GDRs or not. There's already enough options to argue over.



BTW. The GDR was added for game balancing purposes. They decided they needed a more powerful late game assault type unit. Since you already had tank and modern armour, GDRs are less clumsy than "future armor" or something like that.