Knowing the future unique units is not funny

[SeptimusOctopus]

It could be a fun mod to have more or less random upgrades of normal units to UU's. However, Civ isn't supposed to simulate history at all. It's just a fun strategy game with a (an?) historical veneer. Besides, anyone you play against also has your "Nostradamus Bonus" so the point loses some of it's impact.

 

[Kruelgor]

This aspect of the game is neither funny nor fair.

Despiting the AI on higher levels is " forced " to cheat , knowing in advance which UU a civ have cut a bit of atmosphere IMO.

If you pick up Rome for example you know that the best moment to have a war is across the Legionary unit, while if you pickup Americans you'd better wait for B52 etc... otherwise it would waste your unique unit advantages. Meanwhile not only you know when the story will " praise " you but you also know when the story won't praise a known opponent......

I call this " The Nostradamus Bonus " .

Doing that it is like knowing a bit of future since 4000 b.c. and that's not fair neither funny IMO.

I would have done something like this instead :

The unique units is been spit out just like great men, quite randomly and once only during a game for each civ. Adding few characteristics to an existent unit or possibilities to customize it a bit, just like in Alpha Centauri.

This way the plot couldn't be written in advance......


-

You could say that regarding any future unit, not just the special unit.

 

[beestar]

Okay, a serious question for this thread: is the AI smart enough to plan ahead for its UU?

I'm sure the algorithm knows a Conquistador is better than the Cuirassier it replaces (Civ4 BTS), but does it actually plan ahead and weigh its tech path differently as a result?

 

[berni19]

Okay, a serious question for this thread: is the AI smart enough to plan ahead for its UU?

I'm sure the algorithm knows a Conquistador is better than the Cuirassier it replaces (Civ4 BTS), but does it actually plan ahead and weigh its tech path differently as a result?

Off course, this question should and could be asked with majority of game decision by computer. This of course is main objective i think of creators of this fransize..make computer be like human. But we all have our opinion how this could be done to satisfy us - off course in different perspective. We all have eyes, looking the same things, but at the end the result are different - human factor.

 

[Schuesseled]

Knowing tech tree is much more serious issue

ots nto an issue, sid miere said so himself, when they had oringally randomised the tech tree every playthorugh for civ 1, people were annoyed.

 

[Boris Godunov]

If you want to be really historically accurate, there shouldn't be a tech tree at all. The overwhelming number of scientific advancements did not come because a government actively researched and innovated. So in a "more accurate" civ, technology advances (with the exception of specific military advancements) should just happen as a result of the overal culture and education within your empire, as well as the diffusion of external ideas into your realm.

 

[Ahriman]

If you want to be really historically accurate, there shouldn't be a tech tree at all. The overwhelming number of scientific advancements did not come because a government actively researched and innovated. So in a "more accurate" civ, technology advances (with the exception of specific military advancements) should just happen as a result of the overal culture and education within your empire, as well as the diffusion of external ideas into your realm.

I agree. Civ is very historically inaccurate. To improve realism, we should remove this concept of a godlike Player who gets to make all the decisions. In reality, these are all made by people within your society, as influence by social pressures and economic incentives. Similarly such "decisions" as declarations of war, foundation of cities or adoption of social policies should be incorporated within the model.

Really, the player should just hit "go" and watch as their Civ runs itself. Very realistic.

 

[Grape Flavor]

This aspect of the game is neither funny nor fair.

Despiting the AI on higher levels is " forced " to cheat , knowing in advance which UU a civ have cut a bit of atmosphere IMO.

If you pick up Rome for example you know that the best moment to have a war is across the Legionary unit, while if you pickup Americans you'd better wait for B52 etc... otherwise it would waste your unique unit advantages. Meanwhile not only you know when the story will " praise " you but you also know when the story won't praise a known opponent......

I call this " The Nostradamus Bonus " .

Doing that it is like knowing a bit of future since 4000 b.c. and that's not fair neither funny IMO.

I would have done something like this instead :

The unique units is been spit out just like great men, quite randomly and once only during a game for each civ. Adding few characteristics to an existent unit or possibilities to customize it a bit, just like in Alpha Centauri.

This way the plot couldn't be written in advance......


-

Cool story bro. But I think I'll trust Firaxis over, um, whatever it is you were trying to say there.

 

[Sofar Sogood]

Since the UUs are fixed and implacable, I can't see why the AI can't be set up so as to take the various UUs into account in their strategies. Weighting Iron a mite bit higher form Rome, for example.

Whether this is actually done and how well it'd be executed is another story, methinks, but food for thought.

 

[Ahriman]

I think that its most likely to be done indirectly; UUs will have higher power ratings than their non-UU counterparts.

Thus, the AI will find those units more attractive to build than other units and will be more likely to have a military advantage in an era where they have a UU and thus more likely to engage in war.

For example:
A French civ with the tech for musketeers will have greater power:cost efficiency rating in building musketeers relative to cannon or frigates, so will be more likely to build an army of musketeers in that era.

A Greek civ with 4 hoplites and 2 companions will have a higher unit power rating than a generic civ with 4 spearmen and 2 horsemen, and so the Greek civ will be more likely to go on a war of conquest with that army than would the generic.

You don't need any direct hard-coding; direct hard-codes are weak, because they cannot adapt to parameter changes or mods.

 

[beestar]

Yes, that seems like a good way to value the units, and whether to build them. But can the AI decide to head for the tech that unlocks the unit?

I suppose it must - with all the unique civ bonuses in Civ 5 (e.g. naval power for England), each civ plays very differently, and an AI that didn't take that into account would be crippled.

 

[Ahriman]

But can the AI decide to head for the tech that unlocks the unit?

Well, this could be hard-coded Flavor values. For example; you there could be Flavor_Naval which England has a preference for.

I don't know enough about how the AI values techs to know if it would do it based just on power values. Its very possible though that the AI looks at the values of the units, buildings, wonders and abilities unlocked by a tech in order to direct its research, and so would tend towards techs that offered it a superior unit or building.

But equally possible that they're just directly trying to encourage this through flavors; eg China might have a technological flavor which will make it head for writing earlier, which would let it build the Paper Maker.

 

[BlackMage]

Watch Sid's talk at GDC about game design psychology. Turns out he tried this way back in the day, and lo and behold, playtesters hated it.

 

[jeffreyac]

I'm still kinda confused...

...you mean the rest of you don't know the future?



(oh, I guess it's just me then.... )

 

[the343danny]

Only a newbie believes the UU dictates when it's best to wage war. When you pick Rome as a more experienced player you know that there are other and unknown factors which have a much greater impact on the game than your uniques.

Dont call him a newbie just because he thinks that, because its TRUE. Rome is so much better at swordsman wars than late game wars. How is that deniable? Is it so weird that one leverages a unique bonus to his civ? Besides, most games are similar. You are bordered by a few civilizations, and there is probably iron around somewhere (if there is no iron, then there is no UU to dictate when to war in the first place, so your point is still moot). There is most likely somebody near you with similar tech that you will be able to fight. Even if they are more powerful than you and have higher tech, legions still will lead you to victory. So I'm saying that unless you are alone on an island or started in a frozen wasteland you can always win a war with Rome in early medieval.

Im not much of a newb, because I play at Immortal. Not saying I'm pro or anything, but just saying that I have been playing Civ for a few years now.

 

[Earthling]

A lot of hating on the OP is really unjustified, especially when not adding to more discussion, since the principle of what he is suggesting could be quite possible, and already we've had people complaining about things like the UUs don't seem unique enough anyway. And certainly it's up in the air if the AI is going to really know how to evaluate and use it's UUs properly.

Now, the OP didn't give very fleshed out suggestions, but it would have been very possible for the game to not have UUs, instead a wide variety of possibilities. During the game you could have had something like the "quests" from Civ4 but expanded with many more specific opportunities resulting in certain units ending up stronger/unique in a given game, but it never has to be the same for, say, Rome from game to game.

Would make the game a little more flexible, as we know large numbers of players enjoy more unusual map types - isolated games, terra maps etc... And if it turns out we'll have things like only England ever possibly stands a fair chance of really using anything unique on navy heavy maps, or something similar on other custom maps, that could be a bit of disappointment.

I was mostly ok with civ4's model overall actually which could be summed up as mostly bland UUs and UBs. And I'm happy with the other extreme where gameplay is incredibly determined by unique civ or faction features and you have to adapt to that (Of course very common in so many other RTS and strategy games, but yes, we can see it in civ mods even. It's great especially when the AI at least tries to understand this and each faction/AI is rather unique, like all my praise for various FFH2 modders on such things.) I worry civ5 may fall in the middle though - as a human player unique things could still be bland enough/not really matter, but they are not drastic enough to really let the AI get into a proper role or understand what it is doing.

I'd also agree with many comments like danny's above. Frankly, it still is looking to be very true that some civs will absolutely have to use their UUs/unique traits to have any effect. For instance, as an AI, Japan will still be horribly bass-ackwards in tech and economy - kinda cool that's continuing the history from civ4 and civ3 I guess, but can't see it otherwise. But certain AI are going to have to warmonger to make use of any advantages they have or just get owned (and if they are isolated they are probably done for anyway). Again, a player could have more flexibility, but we have to always know that UUs/unique traits get used by both player and AI. In civ4 players were mostly "meh" to folks like Sitting Bull I think, but as an AI he was an extreme pain with the preferences and uniques given to him.

 

[insaneweasel]

It would be nice if you could have a customizable uu. but it's not bad the way things are now.

 

[Fizticks]

It would be nice if you could have a customizable uu. but it's not bad the way things are now.

Well this is supposed to be the most moddable civ game yet..... and it was done quite easily in cIV XD