Special units unfair?

[Bronso]

I read about the civ-specific special units in civ3, and i think they are not quite fair: Greek hoplites, for example, become obsolete after some time; so the greek special unit is lost, whereas american f15-fighters will probably never become obsolete, as the russian mig and the german panzer, too. So the "modern" civilizations would have an advantage against the ancient ones like romans, greeks etc. Is anything known about this? or will sooner or later every special unit become obsolete, or the other way round, never? (that would be quite funny: legions and hoplites still around in 2020). i hope firaxis will balance this. what do you think?

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Bronso dude...the americans may never get to build f-15s if the greek hoplites do their job in boosting Greek ascendancy earlier.

For the zulus etc the key will be to put themselves in such a good position earlier on that in the latter stages of the game they will be big enough to deal with the nasty american f-15s (if they survive!) -hopefully!

By having your special unit later there is a good chance you may never get to use it!

 

[bvd]

I suppose you could deactivate this feature ...

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos:

For the zulus etc the key will be to put themselves in such a good position earlier on that in the latter stages of the game they will be big enough to deal with the nasty american f-15s (if they survive!) -hopefully!

Zulus never survive! Death to Zulullia!

Special units will be fun.

 

[TTG]

I totally agree with kittenOFchaos. Having a good special unit that you get to use right away is a huge advantage. Even if your opponents survive your attacks with it, having this advantage will enable you to establish a larger territory for yourself early on in the game, meaning high population, high resources, and ultimately high technology and high economy later in the game.

You must also remember that the people at Firaxis are constantly playing the game as they develop it. I doubt they would let something simple like unbalanced special units stay in the game if it didn't work.

And Cunobelin Of Hippo, it's called Zululand.

------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Special unit or no special unit - it'll be pointless if the AI can't use them smartly. Besides, I read somewhere that you can turn it off in the options selection.

What I would rather have are unit graphics that are customised to each civ. E.g. for English musketeers, they shld look like the Redcoats you see in historical dramas. For French, shld look like Napoleon's soldiers etc. Although it's just a cosmetic chg, I feel it'll give each civ more uniqueness. Of coz, some civs wouldn't have a specific look for a specific unit (what would a Zulu conscript look like? or a Persian musketeer?).Then maybe we can have generalized graphics for these kind of units.

But guess it's now too late for this. Hope they'll release the game soon.

 

[Bronso]

but if you all agree that special units in the beginning are more an advantage than a disadvantage, then i can turn around my argumentation and say: so the civs with more advanced special units must wait to long to get them, while the romans with their early available legions conquer them without difficulcies. that's the other side of the coin.
(please don't misunderstand me: i like the idea of special units, but i want them to be balanced.) if there will be more than 7 civs at once in the game, there is a high probability that not all of them will be defeated until they reach their special units, and in the final stadium, when everybody has climbed the tech-tree to the top, russians will still fly around with their migs while greek hoplites no longer exist. this could be solved if every special unit became obsolete in the end, with a fighter unit available for all, replacing f15 and mig, so that every civ had a limited span of time to make the best of its special unit until it is no longer of use for them.

btw, what ARE the advantages of special units that make them so special? is anything known about this? boni in a/d/m, cheaper prices, special abilities? maybe they are not so special at all and we make much ado about nothing.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

purrfact balance...you really wanting that?

 

[TTG]

I don't think the special units are going to play as dominating a role as people think. The way you use your army, the balance of units within it, and your industrial support structure will play much much greater roles in determining wars. If your opponent has a 20% more productive economy, better combat tactics, and a well-balanced well-deployed military, you probably don't stand a chance even if you do have a faster, stronger, fighter jet design. Who on Earth actually uses fighters anyway???

I think they will just add a little extra strategy. In most wars, one side will have that advantage unit and you will just have to remember that they have it in order to refine your strategy against them. Keep in mind the resources game, so that each side in a war may have units the other does not have, even if neither has the special units.

------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal

 

[TTG]

Originally posted by SKM:
Of coz, some civs wouldn't have a specific look for a specific unit (what would a Zulu conscript look like? or a Persian musketeer?).Then maybe we can have generalized graphics for these kind of units.

Or an American phalanx... lol.



------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal

 

[Squirrel]

whereas american f15-fighters will probably never become obsolete, as the russian mig and the german panzer, too

The game will last until 2500 Ad, so f-15, mig and panzer may very well become obsolete.

 

[JellyDonut]

We have nothing over which to fear. Civ has been a game of balance since day 1 and I don't think Sid and the boys are going to slip up now. It's probably a safe assumption to say special units will be balanced or designed so any inbalance is easily countered by a good military strategy. For example, a well-organized Greek air force will be able to defeat a haphazardly put together American air force with F-18s up the wazoo.

 

[HIEROPHANT]

special units will make the game more interesting.

 

[RouTaran]

i think everyone is overestimating the impact of special units on the game. Granted, the Roman Legions were an exceptional military force, and if the game were to be true to history in that sense, the Romans would rule early game. But Firaxis has to compromise between history and playability. IMO, special units will give you an advantage when the others are not aware that you have them in sufficient numbers. Every unit has a counter, im sure special units will have a weakness the other regular units will be able to exploit.

 

[vladmir_illych_lenin]

Man, this could actually mean that...Zulu's would be a superior Civ to play! In multiplayer games, everyone would rush to play the Zulus or Greeks or Romans. Others will have the excuse "Well, you were the Zulu's, so what's to brag about?".

I think they shouldn't include specialized units in multiplayer games.

 

[Mongol Horde]

I heard Dan Magaha (I think) or maybe it was in one of the previews....whatever I heard somewhere that Civ-specific units will definitely be turnoffable. I have grave concerns with thses type of units but I will reserve judgement until the game appears.

 

[starlifter]

....

So the "modern" civilizations would have an advantage against the ancient ones like romans, greeks etc. Is anything known about this? or will sooner or later every special unit become obsolete, or the other way round, never? (that would be quite funny: legions and hoplites still around in 2020). i hope firaxis will balance this. what do you think?

Sid Meier has a great feel for game balance, so I'm sure they will fix it.

As some may know, AoE AoK solved this issue by making the special units (they call tehm UU's, for Unique Units) generally available at the same time in the tech tree, which is late in the game. I've playe AoE AoK several times, and it seems like a pretty good solution. Since AoK ripped off Sid in several aspects (like building "Wonders"), I'm sure they are aware of the good/bad aspects of some of AoK's ideas

.

 

[Sid Meister]

to starlifter: how can u introduce in civ special units for different civs at the same time?the answer is simple:u can't so it will always be an unbalance regarding special units.Let's just hope we'll be able to disable them, but none the less i think it's a great idea.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Special units are chrome; a mere sop that does nothing for the game.

Why is there this obsession with attributing period to specific civs? At the start of play, any civ on the map is ancient. After a few thousand years any civ on the map is probably modern.

There was nothing wrong with the borrowing of historical characters to lend a little illusion of historicity in the original game, but most of you are suffering from taking it too literally.

If you wanted a meaningful distinction between civs you would need to tweak the tech tree so that it will bias the development path for each civ (not, I hasten to add, in some predictable or pseudo historical manner, but rather in a way that would be unpredictable at the start of play). Of course then there would be more bleating about balance....

...."purrfect balance?" (bravo Kit!). I've never understood this weird obsession, multiplayer or not.

Is black at a disadvantage in chess? Is first move worth five or five and a half stones in go? What about setting your opponents to face a low sun in the second half at foorball?

If someone is perceived to start a multiplayer game with an advantage, is their not a degree of ganging up until other factors affect everybody's strategies?

Is being near two goody huts better than having one right on the most natural line of exploration?

The game has to have a degree of internal balance to work, but beyond that the vast range of possibilities and their complex relationships make any theoretical imbalance a mere statistical fact that won't affect the outcome unless you let it.

Balance is essentially an abstract concept and can be more precisely applied to abstract games than to the likes of civ.

How can you possibly measure balance accurately when there are a wide and disparate range of viable strategies to play?

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true

 

[starlifter]

posted July 17, 2001 03:06 PM

to starlifter: how can u introduce in civ special units for different civs at the same time?the answer is simple:u can't so it will always be an unbalance regarding special units.Let's just hope we'll be able to disable them, but none the less i think it's a great idea.

I'm not really advocating the use of special units, but since they are evidently going to be in Civ III, the way you introduce them at equal times is based on the discovery of either a specific advance, or the dawn of a new era.

For instance, if the special units become available with the advent of Automobile, then that would be equal... even if everyone did not achieve auto at the same time, the opportunity is there (equally) for all to pursue.

Given the constraints of the Civ III timeline (vs. the AoE2AoK timeline), it might make the most sense to have "shared" special units. That means several civs get Unit A, a few others get Unit B, and others get Unit C.

Algernon Pondlife has some excellent thoughts, too. And the elusive "Game Balance" is a difficult thing even define, much less achieve, but IMHO, Sid Meier is about the best at it. So when Civ III comes out, it will likely be a very good game even at the outset (before the first patch or two).