Some sort of unit design allowed?

[MORON]

While Civ don't allow unit design, instead limits players to a few predefined units with very few traits that really can not cover all the minor differences between units. In SMAC the unit workshop worked fine, but thats a sci-fi game.

I don't see why something like that can't work in Civ though. For example we can have:

Warrior 1-1-1

Basic melee weapons Atk2 Firepower 1
No Armor Def 1 10hp
No doctrine
On foot: Movement 1

Phalanx 1-2-1

Basic melee Weapons Atk1 Firepower 1
Bronze Armor Def: 1 10hp
Block Formation: x2 defense. Must have armor
On foot: movement 1

Legion 3-2-1
Iron Weapons Atk2 Firepower 1
Iron Armor Def 2 10hp
Shock Attack: +1 attack
On foot movement 1

Mech infantry: 6-6-3
Small Arms: atk 5 firepower 1
Tank Armor: def 5 30hp
Modern infantry +1 attack, +1 defense
Mechanized movement 3

............and such. Of course everything have to be balanced, but this allows fun custom units even in earier eras.

Even if that is too radical, a system where one can add traits to preset units might be fine. For example if one discover radio one can add "organic AA" to modern armor that gives +10% defense bounse against air units or something like that.

[Apocalypse]

It's kinda hard not to have predefined units. SMAC took some hits from people because most of the units looked incredibly similar. Mainstream gamers like the varied units of Civ2 and Civ3.

[Tall_Walt]

I disagree. I really liked the SMAC(X) custom units, and it applies quite well to Civ: do you use normal bowmen or pay the extra cost for longbowmen, or alternatively bowmen also trained with a melee weapon?

As far as appearance, look at Dungeon Siege for example: you outfit your character with custom armor and weapons. I think the results look very good; they just need to be reduced down to Civ size--or not if we've got full 3D zoom.

Looking at bigger weapons, an armored vehicle is built on a chassis with different weapon systems mounted on top. The family resemblance among the various Bradleys or huge number of Hum-Vs is apparent. Even tanks get their tops ripped off and become APCs, SAM carriers, combat engineering vehicles, or mobile artillery.

When it comes to naval weapons, refitting is SOP (standard operating procedure): When US Battleships were refitted in the 1980s, the aft turret was removed to plug in VLS missiles (Vertical Launch System). Earlier, Los Angeles class submarines had a VLS hull section grafted in to make the Improved LA class sub. The newest USN ships are planning on replacing the 5" naval gun with the 155mm Army cannon.

Even in aircraft it's almost universal. A WWII case was the B-25 Mitchell, the bomber of 30 Seconds over Tokyo. Later versions were configured as attack planes instead of bombers, with anything from eight machine guns in place of the bombadier's clear nose to a small tank cannon; and also side modules holding a pair of machine guns on each side. Modern examples include tankers or AWACS planes from cargo planes, or the AC-130 Spooky/Spectre gunship from the C-130 or the altering of the F-15 "Not a pound for air to ground" Eagle to the F-15E (E?) Strike Eagle. "Wild Weasal" anti radar attack planes and reconnaisance planes are always variants of more numerous aircraft.

In addition to unit design, and even failing unit design, loading different munitions should be allowed. Aircraft to subs carry different munitions for different missions. While some of these will fall below Civ's radar, cruise missiles and nukes are munitions, not units: they can go on almost any bomber or ship, even subs, launched from VLS or torpedo tubes.

[Kuciwalker]

The SMAC unit workshop only makes sense in a SF setting. And preset units is easier for modders.

[Apocalypse]

But still, Tall_Walt, it's hard to immediately tell what the until is. People don't really like that too much. There wre enough units in after the x-packs, and as long as it's easy to add more through editors everything is fine.

[MORON]

Aside from the joys of unit design (I've been playing moo2 lately) there is also the ability to build truely specialized units without paying extra and that units progress linearly in this case.

I just want my clean drop singularity rovers...or something like that.

[Aramis]

At this late date, I wonder if any new ideas at Poly (or anywhere else) will be considered.

[Kuciwalker]

Probably not,

I just want my clean drop singularity rovers...or something like that.

Then play SMAC. Lego units have no place in real-world civ.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aramis
At this late date, I wonder if any new ideas at Poly (or anywhere else) will be considered.

Since I haven't even SEEN any new ideas yet, of course not.

[Aramis]

Kuciwalker--what's that latest on a Civ IV release date?

[Apocalypse]

Kuci is not a Firaxian. He's just some little punk.

[Aramis]

Kuciwalker--
I want to elaborate:
I have some fears about CivIV, mostly connected to a thread I saw a few weeks ago that quoted a privte foum at CFC in which Soren Johnson said, regarding marketing the Civ franchise, "Civ: complete."
As it was a private forum I cannot, of course, read it.
There was a thread here at Apolyton (I don't want to search for it now, it's late--I can do it tomorrow) about what "Civ: Complete" would include. I don't think "Civ: compltet" meant a new packaging of C3C.
It is my opinion that people misinterpreted what SJ was implying. I hope I am wrong, but I think he meant Civ has gone as far as it will go. He implied (if the quote was correct) that pollution and corruption (if I remember correctly) would no longer be a part of the game (as an example).
I may be paranoid here, but I have extreme fears that CivIV will be a dumbed downed version of the game and in about a year Apolyton will have a a forum called "Civ: Nostalgia."
I really hope I am just being paranoid.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think they've misinterpreted at all. I think Soren is going to add some new stuff, but also remove or remake the unfun things.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Aramis
There was a thread here at Apolyton (I don't want to search for it now, it's late--I can do it tomorrow) about what "Civ: Complete" would include. I don't think "Civ: compltet" meant a new packaging of C3C.

There is a civ: complete, though:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/08...s_6104334.html

Assuming the main apolyton page might have had that news, too...

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, Civ:Complete is just all of C3 in one, with maybe some bonus stuff, and bugfixes.

[Az]

I wouldn't mind Unit workshops in the way of assembling armies:

"330 APCs, 400 Tanks", etc.

[GePap]

As far as unit workshops- well, there is an issue of look and one of ability.

Lookwise, perhaps units should come in cultural flavors like cities.. that would make for more fun- plus allow us to name units as a class, not just individually.

As for characteristics, the smac idea of being able to add some bonuses based on tech levels would be fine-not picking weapon or such, but adding capabilities and such.

For example, lets say you want cheaper garrison units with police powers (double the happiness powers), so you could design a unit "police", ridding it of attacking powers but leaving its defensive power and increasing the number of people it makes content.

So forth and so on. This would be fun without too much game redesign.

[Tall_Walt]

Originally posted by Azazel
I wouldn't mind Unit workshops in the way of assembling armies:

"330 APCs, 400 Tanks", etc.

In some other thread, where armies are being discussed, I suggested being able to "glue" units together so they could move (at the speed of the slowest) and be commanded as one. So, you could put in 3 APC units and 4 Tank units, for example. IMHO that is close enough to your thought that the difference isn't worth the implementation time.

[Max Sinister]

I like your idea, Azazel. I also thought about something like that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
As far as unit workshops- well, there is an issue of look and one of ability.


Lookwise, perhaps units should come in cultural flavors like cities.. that would make for more fun- plus allow us to name units as a class, not just individually.

As for characteristics, the smac idea of being able to add some bonuses based on tech levels would be fine-not picking weapon or such, but adding capabilities and such.

For example, lets say you want cheaper garrison units with police powers (double the happiness powers), so you could design a unit "police", ridding it of attacking powers but leaving its defensive power and increasing the number of people it makes content.

So forth and so on. This would be fun without too much game redesign.

wrt police... there'd be no real reason NOT to give almost all of your defensive units that ability.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tall_Walt
In some other thread, where armies are being discussed, I suggested being able to "glue" units together so they could move (at the speed of the slowest) and be commanded as one. So, you could put in 3 APC units and 4 Tank units, for example. IMHO that is close enough to your thought that the difference isn't worth the implementation time.

That's already in C3. They're called armies

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


wrt police... there'd be no real reason NOT to give almost all of your defensive units that ability.

What about cost?

[Tall_Walt]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
wrt police... there'd be no real reason NOT to give almost all of your defensive units that ability.

Garrison units, yes; defensive units, no. Presumably, like SMAC, extra features cost more. The Garrisons you leave in cities need the police powers. The defensive units you use to protect field forces don't.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's already in C3. They're called armies

No, it is not, at least not in any practical way. You often don't get armies for some time, you can't create them routinely until quite late in the tech tree, and until then you can't move units as a group. Further, armies are expensive and limited in number, while I *usually* want military units to operate in groups.

I'd like to glue a defensive unit to every artilery unit and cargo unit. That's something I can simulate with a lot of extra commands and fussy-work that the computer should really be doing for me: fussy-work is what computers were created to do. And if I try to keep units together now, I have to give up the Go To command, at least if the units are different speeds, like a galley and an ironclad.

Such combined arms groups would not have the hitpoint combination and other properties of armies. And I personally think those properties should go away. I think armies are unbalancing.

The main point is that being able to combine units merely as an interface quality instead of a tech thing speeds the game and makes it more pleasant to play. The current situation with Armies is analogous to having to discover a Planning tech and buy a Guide unit at high cost before you can use the Go To command. You shouldn't have to discover a tech to get a decent user interface.

There's fairly broad agreement that Civ4 needs to be sleaker and faster to play. Grouping units reduces the number of commands and allows group Go To, things that have to be done by hand now. It doesn't change the game at all, and has minimal implementation costs.

[Max Sinister]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's already in C3. They're called armies

I think he was talking about bigger armies, and that you can define certain combinations (f.e. heavy army: 3 tanks, 5 infantry) you can let a city produce.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


wrt police... there'd be no real reason NOT to give almost all of your defensive units that ability.

Well, if you looked, it means removing offensive powers. Which means they can only defend but can't do anything else. Plus cost differs. And of course in some forms of government police does nothing.

[conmcb25]

I liked the unit workshops in SMACX, if this can be incorporated without messing up the ability to mod then Im all for it.

[Tall_Walt]

Originally posted by Max Sinister
I think he was talking about bigger armies, and that you can define certain combinations (f.e. heavy army: 3 tanks, 5 infantry) you can let a city produce.

Not really, though that could be one way to look at customized units: now, one soldier or vehicle represents a battaliion or so.

But here's the best example I've found of why you need to group units together, any units, any time. I was in a rather chaotic initial expansion phase, with lots of barbarians around. So, I was building Spearmen and Settlers and trying to send them off together by sending issuing the same goto command to them. But they kept separating, and the settlers got whacked a couple times. If I had been able group a Spearman and a Settler, I could have safely sent them to the site for a new city safely. When they got there, I could separate the group, Build with the Settler and Fortify with the Spearman. This greatly reduces the workload on the player, allowing safe use of the Go To. It could speed up the game since the same work would move two pieces, and it may reduce AI workload, too. It's realistic since that's what guard units do. And it has zero effect on the actual game play: it's just a faster, better way of doing what the player and the AI do already.

[GePap]

Originally posted by conmcb25
I liked the unit workshops in SMACX, if this can be incorporated without messing up the ability to mod then Im all for it.

The problem is that in a sci fi game you could limit the choices of wepaons to made up fantasy ones. BUt in real life, lets imagine you want to create an infantry unit: what choices of weapons do you have? Long sword, short sword, pike, speak, halberd, common bow, long bow, crossbow, arquebus, flintolock, bolt action, automatic rifle....

The shield type, if any.....

do we include helmet type?

so forth and so on- too many historically possible choices to chose from.

[MORON]

The problem is that in a sci fi game you could limit the choices of wepaons to made up fantasy ones. BUt in real life, lets imagine you want to create an infantry unit: what choices of weapons do you have? Long sword, short sword, pike, speak, halberd, common bow, long bow, crossbow, arquebus, flintolock, bolt action, automatic rifle....

The shield type, if any.....

do we include helmet type?

so forth and so on- too many historically possible choices to chose from.

We can simpify things by purpose and technology.

For example, we can have polearms as a choice as functionally the a halberd or a spear is similiar enough on the civ level.

Even in Civ, most of the weapons listed in not represented. For example we have muskeers, but we don't have arquebusers, flintlockers or breechloading rifleman and such.

If one want to limit unit design in mods one can simply "lock" allowable weapon/armor/whatever combinations to a few in the workshop.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by MORON

We can simpify things by purpose and technology.

For example, we can have polearms as a choice as functionally the a halberd or a spear is similiar enough on the civ level.

Even in Civ, most of the weapons listed in not represented. For example we have muskeers, but we don't have arquebusers, flintlockers or breechloading rifleman and such.

If one want to limit unit design in mods one can simply "lock" allowable weapon/armor/whatever combinations to a few in the workshop.

Some simple possibilities:

Weapons:

Sidearms (basic, attack 1, no extra cost)
Bronze spear (Bronze Working, attack 2, cost +10 shields)
Bronze sword (Weaponsmithing--requires Bronze Working and Warrior Code, attack 3, cost +20 shields)
Iron polearm (Iron Working, attack 4, cost +30 shields)
Iron sword (Feudalism, attack 5, cost +40 shields)
Musket (Gunpowder, attack 8, cost +50 shields)
Rifle (Military Tradition, attack 12, cost +60 shields)
Machinegun (Replacable Parts, attack 16, cost +70 shields)
Rocket Launcher (Rocketry, attack 20, cost +80 shields)
Laser (Lasers, attack 24, cost +90 shields)

Armor:

No armor (basic, def 1, no extra cost)
Wood/Leather armor (Warrior Code, def 2, cost +10 shields)
Bronze armor (Weaponsmithing, def 3, cost +20 shields)
Chain mail armor (feudalism, def 4, cost +30 shields)
Iron plate armor (metallurgy, def 6, cost +40 shields
Steel plate armor (Steel, def 9, cost +50 shields)
Titanium plate armor (Electronics, def 12, cost +60 shields)
Composite armor (Synthetic Fibers, def 16, cost +70 shields)

Armor can be boosted 50% in protection for a 100% increase in cost plus a -1 movement penalty for non-infantry units.

Chassis:
foot (basic, land, 1 move)
Horseback (Horseback Riding, land, 3 move for unarmored units but 2 move for armored units, cannot carry armor heavier than Iron plate)
Motorized (Motorized transport, land, 4 move for unarmored units but 3 move for armored units)
Clinker boat (Map Making, sea--sinks in ocean, 3 move)
Carvel boat (Navigation, sea, 4 move)
Steamboat (Steam Power, sea, 6 move)
Nuclear (Fission, sea, 8 move)
Prop plane (Flight, air, 6 operating range)
Jet plane (Rocketry, air, 12 operating range)
Cruise missile (rocketry, air, 6 range missile)
ICBM (satellites, air, unlimited range missile)