{ The List } Units

Introduction
This is meant as a discussion of two principal aspects of the game: what units should appear in the game, and the effects of the various unit attribute flags.

Of secondary importance is finding a way to integrate unit statistics with whatever copmbat method is chosen; it is generally agreed that balancing stats will depend a lot on how combat (stacked vs 1:1 vs other) is implemented.

Summary
One recurring theme across the various lists for each generation of civ was for a unit workshop, similar to smac. I believe this would be bad for civ. While it could reflect the historical rang eof units if constrained with a uitably detailed complex ruleset, this rulset would be unreasonably complex for a game, forcing an extra level of management. In addition, it would make it extremely hard to mod the graphics, and all but impossible to create mods with fantasy units.

Most people agree that civ3 had far too few units in the game. The big jumps in the capabilities at each critical tech gave an overwhelming advantage to teh tech leader, as well as giving a somewhat disjointed view of history.

With assymetric units, there is clearly a strong desire for these functions to be implemented. The main debate is on whether or not units are the best means of implementing these functions. This a decision that should be made on a group by group basis. There is very little desire for religious units or lawyers, but worker functions are evenly split on whether units are the best method to put them in the game.

Related Threads

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=108092 Civ 4 idea: Armies instead of units
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103349 Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=120551 Some sort of unit design allowed?
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103717 Civ4 Units

Table of Contents
1.0 Unit Flags
2.0 Miscellaneous Thoughts
2.1 Unique Units for different civs
2.2 Stacked movement and combat
2.3 Require buildings to make units
2.4 either/or unit
2.5 Flavour units
2.6 No Cruise Missiles
2.7 Mobility for special forces and spies
2.8 Unit strengths/weaknesses
2.9 Sea Combat and Transport
2.10 Loyalty
3.0 (placeholder for Elias' notes)
4.0 (placeholder for list of unit abilities and flags)
5.0 Units
5.1 Foot Units
5.1.1 Offensive Infantry
5.1.2 Defensive Infantry
5.1.3 Primitive Missile Infantry
5.1.4 Advanced Missile Infantry
5.1.5 Aquatic Infantry
5.1.6 Airbourne Infantry
5.1.7 Other Specialist Combat Infantry
5.1.8 Heavy Weapons Infantry
5.2 Mounted and Seige Units
5.2.1 Melee Cavalry
5.2.2 Missile Cavalry
5.2.3 Exotic Cavalry
5.2.4 Mechanised
5.2.5 Assault Vehicles
5.2.6 Primitive Artillery & Seige
5.2.7 Advanced Artillery & Seige
5.2.8 AA guns
5.3 Air Units
5.3.1 Floating Units
5.3.2 Fighters
5.3.3 Bombers
5.3.4 Missiles
5.4 Sea Units
5.4.1 Ancient Sea
5.4.2 Medieval
5.4.3 Age of Sail
5.4.4 Age of Steam
5.4.5 Age of Oil
5.4.6 Age of Rocketry
5.5 Assymetric Units
5.5.1 Diplomacy
5.5.2 Espionage and Dirty Tricks
5.5.3 Trade
5.5.4 Economic Warfare
5.5.5 Slavery
5.5.6 Religion
5.5.7 Settlers & Workers

5.9 Satellite units

The Ideas
Organized by: Lajzar

2.1 Unique Units for different civs
The first civ to discover a Unique Unit tech (like Iron Working) would have the option of activating that unique unit or not. If they did, then their one and only UU in the game would be Legion or what have you, and no other civ could claim it. If they decided not to take it, then the second civ to discover Iron Working would have the option and then the third Civ and so on, and Civ A could hold out for a UU further up the tech tree.
--bisonbison

2.2 Stacked movement and combat
Many people want this :cute:

2.3 Require buildings to make units
Certain units should require a specific city improvement to be present before the unit can be built. This was first seen in Master of Magic.
--me

2.4 either/or unit
Certain techs release 2 or more units, and the player chooses which unit is released when he receives the tech; he can never build the other unit. Possibilities are longbowyer/crossbowmen, ironclad/monitor, and forcing specialisation in a particular kind of spy unit. In some cases, a later tech might allow another unit from that grouping to be released.
--me

2.5 Flavour units
Let different culture groups have functionally identical units that are different in appearance and name. So only Europeans build knights and crusaders, for example
--Fosse

The flavour units should have different abilities, names, and graphics.
--Sandman

In a unit workshop model, civ specific units could be implemented by giving civ-specific bonueses when certain broad classes of units are designed. Romans get a bonus with heavy infantry, US aircraft get range and attack bonuses, UK ships get speed and morale bonuses, Germans get morale and offensive bonuses for infantry, Mongols get such bonuses for cavary, Sioux get attack bonuses for light cav. and mounted archers so forth. This makes each civ's preferred method of combat slightly different.
--GePap

In a UW model, Instead of UUs one could have unique technology like Persian elephants, Polynesian navigation (imagine navigating from Hawaii to Tahiti without any conventional navigation tech), American supercarrier "chassis", etc.
--Tall_Walt

2.6 No Cruise Missiles
Cruise missiles should not be a seperate buildable unit. Once researched, the cruise missile ability should simply be available to a selection of units. Possibly you should have to make a doctrinal choice in order to make full use of them.
--[attribution lost]

2.7 Mobility for special forces and spies
It would be nice if spies and special forces units could travel in submarines.
--Sandman

Spies should also have the airdrop order once the appropriate tech is researched.
--me

2.8 Unit strengths/weaknesses
In Civ2, pikemen were twice as powerfull against mounted units as other unit. This was removed in Civ3, for no good reason. I believe the idea is sound enough, but I also believe it could be refined further. If some of you have played Panzer General series by SSI, you might know what I mean. Example, you don't roll to cities with tanks, if you're smart, infantry is more effective. AT unit is effective in defence against tanks, but not very effective in offence.
--Tattila the Hun

SMAC also had some of this implemented, so fast units were more effective in open terrain, and infantry had a bonus against cities.
-me

2.9 Sea Combat and Transport
If a "marine" unit attacks a ship, it should have a chance to capture it, if it first manages to defeat any transported infantry. Most age of sail ships should be able to carry a single "marines" unit.

Different units take different amounts of transport spaces. "marines" take 1, regular infantry 2, cavalry 4, vehicles 4 or more. This allows for ships to have space for marines but not other units.
--Tall Walt

I like that, much better than one ship getting sunk with all units on board.
--La Diva

2.10 Loyalty
Military units created in cities with foreign citizens might become of foreign nationality, and might not be as patriotic.
--La Diva

3.0 (placeholder for Elias' notes)

4.0 (placeholder for list of unit abilities and flags)

(insert list of units here)

5.9 Satellite units
Drop the apollo/reveal map wonder. Instead, have the following units:
Spy Satellite - reveals map on a specified large area for 20-30 turns
Research satellite - provides science points
Commerce satellites - find special resources, more effiient special resources
TV satellites - spread culture
--Laszlo

[reserved]

(I'm using this post as a notep[ad. Please don't consider this post to be a formal part of the list.)

Various suggestions regarding armies, stacked movement, and stacked combat, will be presented here. First a recap of previous systems:

Civ1, 2 - No stacked combat. Outside a fort tile improvement, the entire stack dies if the defending unit dies.

Civ3 - No collateral damage from stacked combat - defender only loses one unit at a time. Up to four units can be placed into a special army unit which effectively acts as a single extra tough unit. Armies, once built, are permanent formations.

CTP1, CTP2 - Stacked combat up to a limit of 9 (12 in CTP2) in a graphical battleboard. No direct control in the battle itself (ie no tactical control). Armies and stacks are made on an ad hoc basis.

MoM - As CTP, except stack limit is 9 and direct tactical control is possible.

AoW - Stacks of up to 8 per tile; this represents a limit on movement as well as combat. Combat takes place by combining forces from all adjacent hexes. Tactical combat minigame can be used for direct control of units.

A related issue with stacked combat is stacked movement - how many units can occupy the same tile at a time? If the tile is "full", can other units pass through the tile in their movement, or must they move around that tile?



One big argument in favour of non-stacked combat is to distinguish Civ from CTP.

Stacked combat encourages combined arms, instead of building the single unit optimised for attack and the single unit optmised for defence.

Stacked combat encourages convoy movement rather than sending units to the front in drips and drabs along a long supply line. This is more realistic in areas where the supply line could be intercepted, and does no harm in other areas.

Some people want it broadly similar to civ3, with more emphasis on armies. Overall, the preference is for stacked combat; the main issue is in how it should be implemented.

Most people generally do not want direct control over the units themselves in tactical combat.

ZoC rules seem to be intrinsically related to how and whether armies are implemented.

Alternate Model
Certain units, when augmented with each other, such as Infantry and Armor, gain bonuses relative to their basic composition in the force since they historically work well combined.... Forces that do not historically go together *IE cavalry and tanks- will suffer penalties from the difficulties issuing forth from combined forces tactical difficulties.
--Darkcloud

First up, the big list of different units that have been seen/proposed. How many and whether these all get used will obviously depend a lot on the actual combat model used. For some modern units, I have designated them with their conventional modern acronyms. I think this gives a modern flavour of its own.

*these units are culture-specific units
**these units are SF or alternate technology units
***these units are government-specific units

5.1 LAND UNITS

5.1.1 Offensive Infantry
Warrior
Swordsmen
Foot Knights (aka medieval infantry)
*Legion (Romans)
*Samurai (Japan)

5.1.2 Defensive Infantry
Spearmen (aka phalanx from civ2)
Pikemen

5.1.3 Primitive Missile Infantry
Slingers
Archers
Crossbowmen
*Longbowmen (aka longbowyers) (English, Japanese)

5.1.4 Advanced Missile Infantry
Arquebusiers (a very early musket)
Musketeers (aka musket men)
*Minutemen (America)
Riflemen (1880s)
***Fanatic (fundamentalism)
Machine Gunners (ww2)
***Stormtrooper (fascism)
Infantry (modern)

Minutemen
Essentially, Minutemen (1770s) were a local militia, kind of a local Conscription, to put it in Civ terms. They used a long hunting musket that was more accurate, deadly, and longer ranged than military muskets. Also, rather than standing in formation, they fired from cover. In ADM terms, I'd say lower attack, higher defense (perhaps with an exceptional retreat ability), and lower movement.
--Tall_Walt

5.1.5 Aquatic Infantry
Raiders
*Berserker (viking)
Corsairs (musketeer contemporary)
Marines (ww2)

Suggestions for the "marine" special ability include:
- More flexibility for where they can unload (normal units only unload into friendly cities, or only from special "shallows" sea tiles)
- Chance to capture ships when attacking
- Bonus when attacking land-sea, or between coastal tiles.

Berserker
I would just say "Viking". A Berserker is something individual, not to do with sea warfare.
--Tall_Walt

Corsair
A corsair is just a pirate. A musketeer contemporary would be Marines, mostly the British Royal Marines but also the early US Marines, such as in Tripoli. They can only land on beaches. A unit of Marines was carried aboard all Age of Sail warships.
--Tall_Walt

We have to call it *something*, and "marine" is too closely aligned with the modern concept to be usefully applied to a musketeer contemporary unit. Similarly, "Viking" is already taken as the civ name (in certain contexts) to be used for a civ-specific unique unit.
--me

5.1.6 Airbourne Infantry
Paratroopers
Air Cavalry
**Rocket Ranger (tesla-tech)
**Space Marines

Paratroopers
ww2 Infantry equipped with parachutes. Can airdrop out of a city. Should not be able to instantly airdrop directl;y into a city, as this made rushed assaults way too easy (and parachuting into a dense urban area of skyscrapers en masse strains my disbelief suspenders)

Air Cavalry
Modern Infantry supported by transport helicopters. Can airdrop into or out of a city. For game balance, the same restriction on hostile city drops should probably apply.

Rocket Rangers
Soldiers with backpack rocket jets. Pure science fantasy out of the mind of Tesla and 1930s pulp literature.

Space marines
Should have very long range airdrop ability, and "marine" ability, along with very good stats for infantry.


5.1.7 Other Specialist Combat Infantry
Alpine Troops
Jungle Troops
Desert Troops
(insert terrain here) Troops
Special Forces (ie SAS etc)

(terrain) troops
...are just cutting things too fine. It would be good if we were just simulating WWII, but it's too much detail for Civ, IMO.
--Tall_Walt

This unit flag would still be useful for certain unique units, and should at least be kept in the code for scenario designers.
--me

Special forces
The question is what do they do? Maybe they can attack their choice of a unit in a stack, but they're pretty weak (because they're a small unit). Another possibility is that they add combat power without adding to stacking limits. Maybe ADM 1/1/2 invisible until they attack; maybe anonymous unless defeated.
--tall_Walt

I was thinking they should have one or more of marine, airdrop, and hidden nationality flags.
--me

5.1.8 Heavy Weapons Infantry
Flamethrower
Bazooka Infantry (ie TOW infantry)
RPG Infantry (Rocket Propelled Grenade)
TOW Infantry

There probably isn't enough room in the timeline to allow for all of these. If only oneof these is kept, I'd prefer bazooka - the word sounds like what it does :cool:

5.2 MOUNTED UNITS

5.2.1 Melee Cavalry
Horsemen (aka hobilars)
Lancers
Knights
***Crusaders (theocracy)
*Chevaliers (France)

The original hobilars from earliest times fought on foot; the horses were used solely as transports. Horsemen shouldn't fight any better than warriors, but lancers should be quite an early step.

5.2.2 Missile Cavalry
Horse Archers
Dragoons
Cavalry
*Keshik (Mongols)
*Cossack (Russia)

5.2.3 Exotic Cavalry
Cameleers (aka camel riders)
*War Elephants (carthage, indians)

5.2.4 Mechanised
Mech Infantry
APC (aka armoured patrol car)

It has been suggested elsehere that these be "land transport" units. However, I think this would be a bad implementation, as most APC units have a infantry squad permanently assigned.

5.2.5 Assault Vehicles
Chariot
War Chariot
**Steam Tank
Tankette (ww1)
Tank (ww2)
*Panzer (germany)
MBT (aka main battle tank)
**Plasma Tank
**Fusion Tank

The common point here is heavily armed, armoured, and fast (or some reasonable compromise of the three) vehicles that operate in direct contact with the ground.

The very earliest tanks (from ww1) were conceived not as fast assault platforms, but as mobile pillboxes for infantry support. Their inability to cross any but the most trivial battlefield obstacles prevented widespread ww1 use.

http://www.fact-index.com/t/ta/tank_history.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWwillie.htm

5.2.6 Primitive Artillery & Seige
Ballista
Catapult
Trebuchet
Seige Tower

5.2.7 Advanced Artillery & Seige
Bombard
Cannon
Artillery (1880s)
Howitzer (ww2)
SPG (aka self-propelled gun)

5.2.8 AA guns
Flak Gun
Rocket Tank
**War Walker :rolleyes:

I can't help feeling that the AA gun city improvement from civ2 should be dropped entirely in favour of these units.

5.3 AIR UNITS

5.3.1 Floating Units
**Balloon
**Dirigible (aka zepellin)
Helicopter (combat/gunship versions)
**Hover Tank (not air cushion - that would be horribly vulnerable; some SF tech here)
**Grav Tank

The common point with these units is that they do not need contact with the ground, and can operate over the sea without difficulty. From dirigibles upwards (ie once armed) they can also act as close air support.

It has been suggested elsehere that transport helicopters be "air transport" units. However, I think this would be a bad implementation, as most such units have a infantry squad permanently assigned as air cavalry.

5.3.2 Fighters
Biplane
Fighter (aka Interceptor)
Jet Fighter
Stealth Fighter
**Cloaked Fighter

I envision fighters as being a combination of close air support unit and air-air combat unit. They should "auto-bombard" against incoming bombers (aa guns should have the same ability).

There should be a means of having a fighter escort bombers when a bombing mission is performed. This could be implemented using an extension of the ad hoc stacked movement proposals for ground units.

5.3.3 Bombers
Bomber
Heavy Bomber
Stealth Bomber
**Cloaked Bomber

These should be implemented as bombard units with a very large bombard radius. Some of the very advanced land and sea bombard units should also have larger bombard radii, though not as large as for air units.

5.3.4 Missiles
V2 Missile
Cruise Missile
ICBM

The missiles model needs to be changed radically. Given their one-shot nature, the opportunity cost for building them is just too big.


5.4 SEA UNITS

I have divided the sea units by historical era rather than by functionality. I think this presentation works better here. Units noted as transport below are *optimised* as transports, and can carry more than other units. Almost all wooden ships can carry a complement of infantry.

Ship to ship combat shoudl be changed. the normal attack command makes for an assault with an attempt to capture; troops carried can fight as part of an army stack. Thus modern ships will have very low attack factors. However, bombardment should evolve rapidly with modern tech, both in power and in range. Conversely, almost all ships from medieval times onward will have some bombard rating.

5.4.1 Ancient Sea
Sailboat (transport)
Galley
*trireme (greek)

Sailboats are essentially optimised transports with many features of galleys. Because it lacks rowers (except for minimal steering), it will be slower, but the broader hull allows for more cargo.

Galley can upgrade to longship, trireme, or fire galley.

Sailboat can upgrade to caravel.

5.4.2 Medieval
Caravel (transport)
Galleas
*longship (Scandinavia)
*fire galley (byzantine)

5.4.3 Age of Sail
Galleon (transport)
Man o War (pl: men o war)
Frigate (aka ship o the line)
*bao chuan (China)
*ko bok sun (Korea turtle ship)

Galleon can upgrade to man o war. Man o war can upgrade to galleon. This represents the refitting cost. Either can upgrade to bao chuan.

Can someone confirm the native names for the turtle ship and treasure ship?

5.4.4 Age of Steam
Clipper (transport)
Dreadnought
Ironclad
*Monitor (america)

Dreadnought can upgrade to battleship. It represents an early battleship with steam power rather than oil power. The earliest example was HMS Dreadnought in 1906.

Coal-fired ships should have an endurance attribute (perhaps 20 turns). Once they run out of fuel, either their movement should be minimal, or they should be destroyed. On the other hand, they are not limited to staying near land at all. Note that although the clkipper appeared contemporary to steam ships, it is a sail ship not steam, and should not have an endurance limit.

5.4.5 Age of Oil
Transport (transport)
Battleship (BB)
Cruiser (CA)
Destroyer (DD)
Carrier (CV)
Submarine (SS)
*U-Boat (Germany)

From modern transports onwards, the restriction on non-marines disembarking only into friendly cities should be lifted. This should be a flag attached to the sea unit ("has landing boats").

Cruiser can upgrade to aegis cruiser. Destroyer can upgrade to missile destroyer. This represents the addition of cruise missiles.

Submarine can upgrade to U-boat.

5.4.6 Age of Rocketry
Heavy Carrier (CVN)
Aegis Cruiser (CG)
Missile Destroyer (DDG)
Nuclear Submarine (SSN)

There is a case for making the CVN an american unique unit, but this probably gives a dangerously unbalancing advantage this late in the game.

5.5 ASSYMETRIC UNITS

Some of these are very questionable, and there seems to be a huge split in the community as to whether these are wanted in the game.

5.5.1 Diplomacy
Explorer
Diplomat
***Noble (monarchy, feudalism)
**Empath Diplomat

It is unclear what the difference would be between these units. Having a diplomat unit required for every time you initiate diplomatic discussions would be too micromanagement.

Possible mission functions:
-Establish embassy
-Restore embassy (after a war/diplomatic spat)
-View city

5.5.2 Espionage and Dirty Tricks
Spy
Terrorist
Assassin
Saboteur
*Ninja (japan)
**Cyber Ninja
***Eco-Terrorist (ecotopia)

There shouldn't be a clear progression for these units; each should generally have unique abilities, or at least a uique combination of abilities.

5.5.3 Trade
Caravan
Freight

5.5.4 Economic Warfare
Corporate Branch
Lawyer
**Sub-Neural Advert

5.5.5 Slavery
Slaver

5.5.6 Religion
***Missionary (theocracy)
***Televangelist (fundamentalism)

5.5.7 Settlers & Workers
Nomad
Settler
Civil Engineer
**Aquatic Engineer
**Space Engineer
Sapper
Combat Engineer

Let's just say there is an ongoing debate on whether workers are best implemented as units or as public works.

Sappers are early combat engineers who can destroy city walls and fortifications with (relative) ease. Combat engineers also have teh ability to lay road quickly or act as a roaded tile for all units entering their current tile (choose one).

Some units I'd like added:

1) Musket Infantry (a late medieval upgrade to the Med Inf)

2) Gunship (kind of like the Civ2 helicopter)

3) Dragoon. An intermediate mounted unit between Knight -> Cavalry

4) Biplane fighter

5) Tactical Bombers. There should be a Typhoon/Stuka-like WW2-era tac bomber with a modern counterpart like the Tornado or F-111.

5) change the Rocket Artillery for a Self-Propelled Artillery like the M109 Paladin.

Please add units to fill in the gaps between the current ones. Every tech that has a military unit is crucial because it puts you way ahead of everybody that doesn't have it. If they are only one tech behind, you shouldn't be able to trounce them so handily.

There is just too much difference between knights and cavalry, and cavalry and tank. There should be more intermediate steps. That way the game isn't lost for civs who are only one or two techs behind in terms of units. You can match slightly inferior troops against the most modern in the game and not be as out-gunned as, for example, knights vs horsemen.

Also, having smaller grades between units means that you might actually want to think about upgrades, instead of now when upgrading is almost a no-brainer.


In addition to that (every thread about units must have a mention ;)) STACKED MOVEMENT AND COMBAT. Please?

Slightly more on-topic:

Flavor units. Let different culture groups have functionally identical units that are different in appearance and name. So only Europeans build knights and crusaders, for example.

great work Lajzar! ;) Thanks for taking on this responsibility!

-DC

Stuff about Stealth not working is rather pointless, given the success it's had so far.

I think there needs to be a greater offensive role for foot units.

Damn, I had a great rebuttal, which got lost in a server overload.

Basically, strealth works by redirecting the angle at which the radar gets reflected. So as long as you are expecting teh hostile radar to be at a certain angle (ie below you), it works great. This implies level flight, which is suited to the bombing mission profile. Fighters, with a need to maneouver, can't get that benefit.

Mobile phone networks can detect the holes in the radar field caused by the reflections off a stealth plane. Essentially, the stealth craft creates a blank patch in a field where the telephone net is expecting white noise. This again allows detection. So far, stealth bombers have not been used in such areas.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lajzar
Basically, strealth works by redirecting the angle at which the radar gets reflected. So as long as you are expecting teh hostile radar to be at a certain angle (ie below you), it works great. This implies level flight, which is suited to the bombing mission profile. Fighters, with a need to maneouver, can't get that benefit.

---

Stealth technology uses both absorbtion of the radar and deflecting it to non-origin angles. Stealth fighters are quite possible because again stealth is angled so radar from any direction is reflected to a *different* direction. Well, they also use tech to dampen the heat they give off.

Now, it is true that when taking evasive movements there will be some moments when it is vulnerable to rader (e.g. when the plane's top or bottom is nearly directly "above"/"below" the rader), but otherwise it will have very good stealth. Also, the latest ones can even fire missles with only a second or so when they are slightly more vulnerable to detection.

Furthermore, since Stealth Fighters actually exist, I think that is further evidence they are possible. Now, it is hard to make a stealth plane as manueverable as a non-stealth one, because straight edges are as aerodynamic. Stealth gives a very large tactical advantage though, so it is worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lajzar Mobile phone networks can detect the holes in the radar field caused by the reflections off a stealth plane. Essentially, the stealth craft creates a blank patch in a field where the telephone net is expecting white noise. This again allows detection. So far, stealth bombers have not been used in such areas.

---

So far, such detection is *only* theoretical. It would require a fairly extensive amount of processing power and the develpment of mathematical techniques to be created. An actual system doesn't currently exist. It merely will, in time (easily a possible near future tech). Currently there isn't a good idea on how to handle this when it happens. Naturally there will have to be a fairly extensive stealth line and stealth detection would have to come late and only work when you have the necessary improvements near you (or perhaps an expensive military unit). Otherwise stealth would be fairly useless.

Stealth should therefore probably give a defense and attack bonus, which is eliminated when you have stealth detectors (or the stealth detectors give your units bonuses against stealth planes--this is probably easier to handle). There should be late planes that compensate for this, and have as good or better defensive and offensive characteristics. Of course, such non-stealth varients would be easy to spot.

-Drachasor

Flavor Units For Each Unit Advance For Each Civ:

Being this is the latest and greatest Civ game why not bite the bullet and allow for unique units for each Civ for each advance, like this:

Jet Engine:

British: Meteor
Americans: P-80 Shooting Star
Germans: Me-262

Ironclad Ships:

Americans: USS Monitor
Confederates: CSS Virginia

etc, etc.

Single unique units are nice, but why not explore the full extent of each Civs major units throughout history, instead of allowing just one per Civ. I would love to play a game where Medieval Japan first has Samurai then later in the game can build the Zero prop fighter or the Yamamoto battleship.

I like points 1, 3, and 4 in the first post.

I want caravans. Sometimes in Civ2 they were the only thing fun going on. I don't want lawyer units, and I'm not completely sure about missionaries. Ninjas would be good. What would a Noble unit do? I am in favor of Dirigibles. Alpine/ Jungle/ Desert troops sound good.

Religion is a must in Civ4, but I don't like the idea of an own missionary unit...:hmmm: Better to do it in another way.:) I'd like a kind of unit workshop as in SMAC, but of course done in a better way, and suited for a regular civ game. Less options to make it easier to manage(later game SMAC I just ignored the whole function), and more like "more defence"/faster etc.

Civ 2 had the mountain troops (term? you know "treat every terrain as road"). I'd also like special winter troops for cold terrain.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brent
I like points 1, 3, and 4 in the first post.

I want caravans. Sometimes in Civ2 they were the only thing fun going on. I don't want lawyer units, and I'm not completely sure about missionaries. Ninjas would be good. What would a Noble unit do? I am in favor of Dirigibles. Alpine/ Jungle/ Desert troops sound good.

---

Caravans were stupid. The trade system is one of the biggest improvements in C3 over C2.

A radical suggestion:

Get rid of artillery units. Merge their function with the basic infantry of the time, so that all infantry units can bombard. Specialist infantry units (paratroops, marines, militia etc would not have this function, of course).

In pre-modern times, siege engines were generally not built in cities and carted around continents; they were built on the spot by the besieging army.

In modern times, infantry and artillery work so closely together than it seems unecessary to have them as seperate units.

The bombardment rules would need to be reworked so as to balance this new state of affairs, obviously.

Other suggestions:

It would be nice if spies and special forces units could travel in submarines.

Two stealth aircraft is totally OTT. One at most is all that is needed. They don't need a seperate 'stealth' tech either; at least not unless submarines get their own tech as well.

Cruise missiles should not be a seperate buildable unit. Once researched, the cruise missile ability should simply be available to a selection of units. Possibly you should have to make a doctrinal choice in order to make full use of them.

It would be nice if each civ could designate a single ultra-elite unit. You could only have one of these at a time, but they would be truly fearsome on the battlefield; the hand-picked best of the best, so to speak. It could be a standard infantry unit, a cavalry unit, a ship, anything. Certain government choices and wonders could grant you additional ultra-elite units.

In modern times, infantry and artillery work so closely together than it seems unecessary to have them as seperate units.

They were seperate units at the time, though, and still are.

Plus, having arty units adds a dimension in that you have to protect them from capture.

Regarding "cloaking": If you are talking about physically not benig able to see an object in front of you, thats to futuristic to be relevant in a civ game. Eco-terrostists was one of the worst unit concepted in CTP, we don't need them hear. Cruise missiles need a greater range to be a more viable unit.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, since Stealth Fighters actually exist, I think that is further evidence they are possible.

---

Can you provide me with a link to a site about a stealth figter, preferably one with pictures?

Quote:

---

Get rid of artillery units. Merge their function with the basic infantry of the time, so that all infantry units can bombard. Specialist infantry units (paratroops, marines, militia etc would not have this function, of course).

---

Problem is that it is entirely possible that the infantry and seige techs aren't advancing at the same pace.

Quote:

---

Civ 2 had the mountain troops (term? you know "treat every terrain as road"). I'd also like special winter troops for cold terrain.

---

Alpine troops. Duly noted. Personally, I think giving them a move bonus everywhere was a bad implementation. A move bonus in their own terrain (to 1, not 1/3) would be ideal, along with a combat bonus in those terrains.

-

I'll be updating the opening posts later to reflect comments.

The problem with the first nation to reach a tech being able to choose at will whether or not to accept an elite unit associated with that tech and then being the sole possesser of that unit is that it leads to the civs with a tech lead grabbing up all of the early elite units.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lajzar


Can you provide me with a link to a site about a stealth figter, preferably one with pictures?

---

http://www.bangalorenet.com/system1/chungw/spage.html

Surprise, surprise, the Civ version looks similar. This is technically a Stealth Fighter/Bomber, but the "fighter" part there is not insignificant.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2003/0303FA22.asp

(gallery of images: http://www.f22-raptor.com/media.html# )

Here's the pure Stealth Fighter currently being developed...there should be a squadron out around 2006 or so. It's been in the works since '86 apparently.

China is supposedly working on its own program as well.

In other news the next generation of tanks will have Stealth Technology. Basically anything that helps you avoid being spotted by your opponent gives you a very nice tactical advantage.

-Drachasor

Quote:

---

http://www.bangalorenet.com/system1/chungw/spage.html

Surprise, surprise, the Civ version looks similar. This is technically a Stealth Fighter/Bomber, but the "fighter" part there is not insignificant.

---

A short quote from that site:

Quote:

---

The name "Stealth Fighter" does not justify the use of this aircraft as it does not have the capability to fight air to air combat ...

---

That plane is as much a fighter as East Germany was democratic. By fighters, most people think air-air combat. While the F117 is certainly an excellent bomber, a fighter it isn't.

However, I'm not sufficiently passionate about it to argue the case.

Quote:

---

The problem with the first nation to reach a tech being able to choose at will whether or not to accept an elite unit associated with that tech and then being the sole possesser of that unit is that it leads to the civs with a tech lead grabbing up all of the early elite units.

---

The drawback is that you then can't choose any other elite unit. Which kinda sucks if you choose impis and your opponent later gets samurai. Note that the civs that don't get the elite unit do still get the regular unit to play with.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiverDan
Regarding "cloaking": If you are talking about physically not benig able to see an object in front of you, thats to futuristic to be relevant in a civ game.

---

Yet a Japanese scientist has done exactly that. There are still a few things to work out, forex it only works when viewed from a specific angle, but it already exists in prototype form.

I haven't seen anyone else do it so I'm gonna have to step up and say it:

Bring the Corporations vs. Lawyers dynamic from CtP into Civ IV!!!

Why are we arguing about stealth technology when its firms and legal scholars that really run our world.

I have some basic requests:

1) Give them a real independent dynamic, not just new units. It doesn't really make sense to have a lawyer get shot by a tank, does it?

2) Expand on the idea! Maybe not different types of firms, but flavored firms with traits/effects/(most important)NAMES unique to each civ.

3) Make it meaningful. PRIMARY #1 EXAMPLE: Korea in C3C - this civ, no matter how longlasting and unique it may be, is dominant solely because of its commercial prowess.
The Netherlands fits this model well, also.
There are even some theories that the Roman Empire may actually have looked/funtioned similar to modern multinational corporations.

This aspect of civilization has affected us far more than tanks or space flight. Why it shouldn't be put into any new Civ is beyond me.

P.S.

Use the manager behind the desk hollerin', "Let's go overseas!" not the Group o' Suits graphic.

Now that guy was cool.

:)

How does that a) have to do with units and b) be in the purview of a ruler? The game doesn't have that high resolution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
It doesn't really make sense to have a lawyer get shot by a tank, does it?

---

What is it everyone says they'll do after the revolution? Shoot all the lawyers I think it was. :naughty: Of course, I expect there'd be diplomatic penalties for this, but happiness should increase.

ok, I am now inviting proposals for teh following:

- Stacked combat
- Supply

I would, of course, prefer fully devloped models for these two, although single aspect advocacy would be refused.

I have a feeling that I'll get yelled down quick, but I'd propose a four-variable combat system: Attack, Defense, Movement and Range.

Attack: likelihood of reducing one HP from enemy
Defense: likelihood of blocking enemy attack.
Movement: overland movement, obviously, but also rate of closing a range difference.
Range: NOT how many squares away you can fire. When each square represents several square miles, that's just stupid. Rather, higher range units get one or more rounds to attack before the enemy can fight back; how many depends on the range difference and the movement of the unit with less range (maybe both units?).

The problem with the old ADM system was that it was too generalized and ignored the real-world advantages and disadvantages of archers and artillery. In Civ2, for instance, artillery units were "bad on defense." This is true, given their awkwardness at movement, but in game terms it meant that they couldn't fight worth crap if the other guy got the first move. Cavalry had a decent chance of winning against Artillery units if they got the attack, which is absurd. IRL, the gatling guns just took a minute to warm up and-braaaap-the whole front line was cut down like grass under a scythe.

In my proposed model, early archers have decent attack, great range, and poor defense. Horsemen have a great attack, poor range, and poor defense, but high movement. Foot soldiers have solid defense, okay attack, and middling range and movement.

Fight between archer and foot soldier: foot soldier gets shot at a couple of times before he can close with the archer, though he's likely to block one or two. Once the range gap is closed, he has a fair advantage due to his armor, but he might be half-dead by then. Archer almost certainly wins.

Archers and horsemen: dicey. Horsemen have low defense due to the fact that horses don't react well to getting shot, but they can close the range gap twice as quickly and when they do their high attack means it's all over. Horsemen win, but probably get damaged.

Horsemen and infantry: early horsemen will only be a bit more than evenly matched, due to their lower defense. Chariots, with a little range and better armor, will tear most infantry to shreds. Cavalry generally win by some degree.

So what's infantry good for? Simple-terrain affects range and defense, so they can defend woods pretty well against archers, who will only get half the number of attacks they would otherwise if they attack into them, plus they get a bigger defense boost than cavalry. And being much cheaper than cavalry, they still have some value in other situations.

Artillery have a so-so attack initially(since attack represents both power and rate of fire) and great range but sad defense and movement. They will butcher on the plains, but if they're attacked by horsemen in a forest they won't stand much of a chance. Modern artillery includes machine guns, which have a much higher attack rate, so they'll cut down horsemen regardless. Until the horsemen are replaced by tanks, which have much higher defense, and so on.

Historically, infantry weren't great attackers compared to cavalry or artillery. Until longbows and gunpowder, of course...

For stacked combat, I would use leaders and fortresses/city walls to allow multiple units to coordinate attack. If you attack a unit alone or with multiple other units, you generally only fight that unit. Attack that unit when it's in a fortress or walled city, or is stacked with a leader, and its compatriots will retaliate with it. Coordinated attacks are likewise possible, but only by leaders, who use a special command to have all units under their command concentrate on an enemy, using one move point each. But leaders need to be mortal. You only have them for a certain amount of time, or number of turns. Horatio Nelson didn't suddenly appear and then support his country at sea for five centuries.

I support unique units, but limited to one per civ, since this ain't Starcraft. The either/or thing is interesting, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the game. The unique traits of civs, combined with one unique unit, are enough to distinguish.

And none of those stupid strategic resources. Iron was COMMON, for crying out loud, people just took a while to learn to work it right. And you need to find horses to make horsemen, but elephants are apparently found everywhere...it's just daft and annoying.

Well, sez me.