Poland

[sir_schwick]

All civs would play different because there could only be one of each 'type' in each game, but civs are not tied to a specific type. YOu coudl even specificy the amount and what types are avaliable. An example of a Type might be, "Militaristic, Commercial, Swordsmen UU 3/3/1.".

In the even Civ actually includes a full world with a plethora of passive civilizations and city-states, it would be nice if all the various civs had there own unique history and look. it would feel really comprehensive.

 

[Jon Shafer]

How would you determine who gets what traits or UUs?

There will always be ones people find "better" than others and want to pick those.

 

[sir_schwick]

Selection of the civ 'type' for gameplay purposes, and the Civilization you play as would be different. Suppose your options of types were peaceable expansion, military expansion, peaceable builder, economic powerhouse. You would choose what kind of civ you would like to play first. Then you would get the plethora of Civs to replay history as.

I think balancing types would be a lot easier then trying to balance them as civs, mostly because the UUs would not have to fulfill historical requirements. All the civs would have unique names and appearnces for their Swordsmen or Riflemen, but they would all still be Swordsmen and Riflemen.

As for how types would work... that would make an interesting discussion. My idea is that each type is based around a UU(UU now refers to unique stats/abilities). Also, make it so traits were more quantifiable bonuses, that way you can balance easier and make minor adjustments. I am sure players would stick with teh same 'type', but they would play as different civs and see how well they played agianst maybe multiple Aztecs or multiple Germanies(in civ 3 terms).

 

[dh_epic]

Sir Schwick has a point... if there are multiple choices within a Civ, then you seldom have to worry about a lack of balance.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, but then you'll end up with everyone playing with the same traits and UUs, unless only one civ can have each and then you really don't have any balance.

 

[dh_epic]

If a game is balanced, then the difference between religious-commercial with an ancient era unit versus an expansionist-militaristic with a modern era unit should be a matter of personal preference, not a matter of strategic necessity.

And yes, this means that conceivably everyone could play with the same traits and UUs if they really wanted to. So what? In some racing games, people have to choose different cards, and in other racing games, people can use the same car. I'm not about to have an aneurysm at the thought.

 

[Jon Shafer]

The fact is that you can never balance things fully.

Late-game effects will almost always be less important than early-game ones, simply because changes made in the early game reverberate far past when the actual effects take place.

If the Celts and their UU Gallic Swordsmen conquers a continent in 500 BC, don't you think the effects are greater than the Germans conquering their continent in 1800 AD with their Panzers?

Even if the late-game is made more interesting, you will still have problems like that. You can never fully balance a game like this.

 

[Teabeard]

How about have multiple UUs per Civ? 1 UU per era would keep things balanced... Germans could have some sort of barbarian type unit that they used against the romans in the ancient era, and in the medieval era they could have teutonic knights as a unit?

I don't know. Anyway, to do this is going to be hard because some civs only existed in the ancient era. I suppose for those civs we could look into their modern counterparts? For example, for Babylon we could create units based on modern day Iraq, like a Fedayeen unit or a Hammurabi division? I don't know. Just an idea...

 

[dh_epic]

UU's maybe.

But traits can be balanced, and should be balanced.

And if late game units are less valuable than early game units, I think there are bigger problems than "how many civs should there be?"

 

[Jon Shafer]

Bigger problems perhaps. Bigger problems that are simple to fix without completely changing the game? That's another debate...

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think that's a reason to take a defeatist approach. I think you can have more civs and a lot of overlap between traits for sure.

Maybe even units, if they can truly make the late game a worthwhile exercise instead of pure tedium.

 

[rhialto]

Just a thought. For human vs ai games, should we even be worrying too much about balancing the sides? For me at least, half the fun is to get out from a disadvantageous situation.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think you should seperate game-relevant traits from civ specific traits. Civs should just be the cosmetic, the game-relevant traits should be independent of them. Why should the Aztecs always be an early-game rush civ? You should play as the Venetians or the Aztecs or the Chinese because you wnat to redo history as that Civ. You should also decide that it would be interesting if China was purely Agriculture or if it was purely Military. also, this makes adding civs easy, because you do not have to play-balance the civ. the part that requires play-balancing has already been playbalancing.

On Traits and UUs, I think for each 'type' you could have one UU per era, or otherwise. Also, traits should be more flexible.

On play-balancing, it would never be perfect, but a lot easier if you do not have to consider historical considerations. Also, it makes adding civs easier since you are not adding anything that affects gameplay.

 

[plastiqe]

What if, each of the 30 civs were set up the same way as it is now (leader head, UU, traits) but a randomize civs button was available at the beginning of the game when you choose which civs you play and play against. Randomize civs would give all the civs random traits and/or random UU's.

 

[Davidizer13]

Poland, eh? Like the TEThurkan modpack that came with the gold edition! Gr8 idea! While I'm at it, I should suggest the Tibet, or the Swiss! Maybe even the Modern Itallians!
____________________________
"Why can't you be a non-conformist like everybody else?" The Last Conformist

 

[sir_schwick]

Why not just make it so all civs have all units as UUs. The stats would nto be unique, but the units would all look different and have different names. This way each time you add a civ the hard work is researching what would have been equivalent ot a spearmen, or a rifleman, or a crossbowmen(longbows were exclusive to the Welsh).

Also, under the unique traits part you would get a unit with better stats then normal, but this means you could play as a Rome with a normal Legionaire and a souped up Mercury tank.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Why not just make it so all civs have all units as UUs. The stats would nto be unique, but the units would all look different and have different names. This way each time you add a civ the hard work is researching what would have been equivalent ot a spearmen, or a rifleman, or a crossbowmen(longbows were exclusive to the Welsh).

Also, under the unique traits part you would get a unit with better stats then normal, but this means you could play as a Rome with a normal Legionaire and a souped up Mercury tank.

You don't think it might be somewhat unrealistic to do graphics for every unit for every civ?

 

[sir_schwick]

In terms of memory or research for what the units would be? I do see what you mean about memory. Maybe many of the units could use about the same graphics, but definitely different names and histories. This would really make describing events in wars and selling units more interesting.

 

[dh_epic]

Put a different hat on a unit and change the color of their gun and you're on your way.

 

[No idea]

I really don't think we need anymore european civs, more american, asian or african civs should be added.
And why don't you just add Poland your self? does it really matter if its official or not?