Tweet
At the risk of being micro-management, I'm just summarizing some military unit behaviours that would making things interesting and so much more "historical".
1. Ability to name units. Both the "Army" they belong to, and the unit's name. (E.g. naming an alpine unit the "3rd Ranger Battaltion", belonging to the "SOCOM" army. Or say, the "CVN Theodore Roosevelt" aircraft carrier, of the "TR Carrier Group")
2. Following on from 1 should then be the ability to upgrade units instead of disbanding them for the sake of production shields. This would allow continuity of military units, and allow option 3...
3. Battle Honours. When a military unit has earned a certain amount of experience (maybe less than the veteran/elite ranking improvement) then they earn a battle honour. The battle honour would say, have the name of the nearest city ("Battle of Mukden") or if there's a "land feature tag" someone mentioned earlier (being able to name an area "The Great Desert"). The player could even add extra notes "Successfully defended Mukden against 3 Egyptian chariots")
Or indeed, batle honours could replace the "unit experience rank" altogether. (e.g. 3 battle honours = regular, 6 = veteran, 9 = elite)
The in the video Sid says he wants us to be able to tell our own story. Well, The military of the world has always sought to build "espirit de corps"..... and battle honours would reflect how tradition and experience affect a unit's performance in battle - the British Coldstream Guards vs the French Imperial Guards at Waterloo, the US Marines at Chosin Reservoir.....
it would certainly make a save game much more interesting to read.
Of course, you could just ignore it all together and never look or touch this stuff. But for scenario builders it would be a godsend as they can represent historical units at a certain point in time....
1. Ability to name units. Both the "Army" they belong to, and the unit's name. (E.g. naming an alpine unit the "3rd Ranger Battaltion", belonging to the "SOCOM" army. Or say, the "CVN Theodore Roosevelt" aircraft carrier, of the "TR Carrier Group")
2. Following on from 1 should then be the ability to upgrade units instead of disbanding them for the sake of production shields. This would allow continuity of military units, and allow option 3...
3. Battle Honours. When a military unit has earned a certain amount of experience (maybe less than the veteran/elite ranking improvement) then they earn a battle honour. The battle honour would say, have the name of the nearest city ("Battle of Mukden") or if there's a "land feature tag" someone mentioned earlier (being able to name an area "The Great Desert"). The player could even add extra notes "Successfully defended Mukden against 3 Egyptian chariots")
Or indeed, batle honours could replace the "unit experience rank" altogether. (e.g. 3 battle honours = regular, 6 = veteran, 9 = elite)
The in the video Sid says he wants us to be able to tell our own story. Well, The military of the world has always sought to build "espirit de corps"..... and battle honours would reflect how tradition and experience affect a unit's performance in battle - the British Coldstream Guards vs the French Imperial Guards at Waterloo, the US Marines at Chosin Reservoir.....
it would certainly make a save game much more interesting to read.
Of course, you could just ignore it all together and never look or touch this stuff. But for scenario builders it would be a godsend as they can represent historical units at a certain point in time....
I've been thinking this for some time now. I always thought it would be cool to have units we could name, for me it would be mostly Battleships! AND, I think the land tag option should be in too! Whoever said someone should send this to firaxis, I second the motion!
Comment