Civilization 4's Unit Workshop

[FrostyBoy]

Fosse,

I don't actually know a lot about the SMAC UW. But I am clear as to what I think Civ4's UW should be like. (to a certain extent).

And yes, no stupid units like from CtP.

Ok, like I said, I don't know much about SMAC's UW, but I invision it being much easier to differentiate unit from unit. For example, a sword is a sword, there are no variations of it. So when you come across a unit, and that unit is a human and is carrying a sword and a sheild, you should know straight away what sort of unit this is, (roughly) - obviously it will take a few games to get to know the items in the UW. But since its civ, and not some far out space game, it's going to be logical that a sword is more powerful than a club.

One problem I foresee is that people may find it either frustrating, or really cool (because civ's 'discovery' essense is one of its greatest parts). And that is... How will people know exactly how strong a unit is in offense or defense? Well, I don't think people should know, but I do think that there needs to be a feature in Civ4 that allows you to gather information from other Civ's. I'm not sure, but I think this is historically accurate?


Ok, and about the items/pieces of the units, such as weapons, defensive armor, etc, I think that since each one won't be of high polygons, and that each one will be small, I am quite certain that the amount of work needed wouldn't be as difficult as it may seem.


Unique Units, well, you are rewriting history, so a lot of units you make will be unique in your game - not just one unit! I do understand that people like the fact that only the Romans can build the legion. Well I don't think that should stop Firaxis from allowing such a feature.

[MxM]

Sn00py,

Can you explain please what do you think is possible to achieve by unit workshop, which is not possible to achieve without it? Counters to the units? You still can have it through research of the specific units or unit upgrades (like in most RTS) without having to design the units. What else? Saving the development time? I do not think that it is true ether, because you still have to have a number of visually distinguishable units, only now the number is much larger. I just do not get it!

[DarkCloud]

For example, a sword is a sword, there are no variations of it. So when you come across a unit, and that unit is a human and is carrying a sword and a sheild, you should know straight away what sort of unit this is,

Well, basically you could have several sorts of sword:

for horsemen, you could develop The Scimitar
for legions iron swords
for phalanxes bronze weapons
for warriors stone spears

as just a simple example.

The only problem that I see with unit workshops is that when researching technologies, I would much rather research a "Horseman" than "a scimitar." Horseman just seems much grander...

Somehow I don't really see a Unit Workshop working in civ just for the reason that most people either
a: know what the units should have been in the past
or
b: don't want to spend the time creating units

(Therefore, even if they keep the workshop on... it would be a waste of time... and a waste of programming becuase it would really add little to cutomizability)

I suggest that the game developers focus their time and talent elsewhere!

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by MxM
Sn00py,

Can you explain please what do you think is possible to achieve by unit workshop, which is not possible to achieve without it? Counters to the units? You still can have it through research of the specific units or unit upgrades (like in most RTS) without having to design the units. What else? Saving the development time? I do not think that it is true ether, because you still have to have a number of visually distinguishable units, only now the number is much larger. I just do not get it!

What is not possible? Ok, one of the things I did not mention was clothing. I'm quite certain it would be easy for Firaxis' artists to draw clothing (Just like the way Sims does it) for the human models. Firaxis and modders (you people) could create any unit you liked by simply drawing the clothes of the unit - the entire model does not need to be done. You kill a few birds with one stone here. 1. LOTS more human units and 2. VERY easy for modders to customise their own human units.


Darkcloud,

I understand what you say about there being different swords, and so why not allow the ability for modders to put in their own items. None of the items need to be 3D, because they're too small. All you need to do is simply create the art for it (don't need to be a 3D artist!) and import the item, and now you have a new weapon in your UW which you can use.

You don't research each and every item - that isn't going to work. Simply, one technology provides all the items from that tech.

Don't want to spend the time creating units? But you spend time doing everything else? UW is not meant to be an annoying thing, it's meant to be a fun and interesting thing. When you discover something in Civ3 you get new things to play with like wonders, do you not spend the time to find the right city to start building it? Do you not make sure that the city is building this wonder as fast as possible?

Are you really just scared of SMAC's UW? Besides, it's not as if you're going to spend your time in the UW a lot. Like I said, it will be a simple 1 2 3 step process and it shouldn't take longer than 5-10 seconds!


"a: know what the units should have been in the past"

So in your games the Egyptians have ALWAYS built the pyramids?

Come on, I want real arguements

[Lorizael]

I don't know if I would want a full unit workshop, but I would like some variety in units. The military units built with American technology are generally better than those built in other places, even though in Civilization, they would technically be the same unit. And I don't think the veteran status given by barracks/airports/harbors is quite enough to show that.

There should be more military structures you can build that would be able to increase the stats of just built units. But this is probably an idea for another thread at this point.

[FrostyBoy]

Actually the UW would greatly help in that area Lorizael

[Cyclotron]

I see just one problem involving upgrades.

Let's say you give two units armor; one has plate mail and one has chain mail. Ok, I can see defense being different from that.

Now, throw in a rifleman. As far as I am aware, no riflemen ever wore armor, mostly because it does absolutely nothing against rifle bullets. To riflemen, there would be essentially no difference between chain and plate.

Thus, any armor (and probably weapons, too) would have to be dynamic in some regard. This is especially important when you consider that riflemen don't wear armor, but are probably a lot better at defending a position than pikemen are. Riflemen must then get a bonus from either their weapon, or something intangible like their disciplne or organization.

If the game was all done in one era, a straight system of +X for this armor, +Y for that would work, but unfortunately it isn't.

The simplest solution I could see would be:

1) Have weapons give defense bonuses as well. This works not only with guns, but with weapons like pikes, to explain why they kick horseman ass.

2) Divide armor into types, i.e. simple vs. medieval vs. modern: Medieval infantry and musketmen ignore simple, like what a spearman would have, riflemen ignore simple and medieval, and nobody ignores modern (ironclads, tanks, mech inf.).

Still, this is a lot of complication to be added. I'm starting to wonder if a workshop is such a good idea after all given how much balancing would be needed.

[Jamski]

Chassis :

• Foot Soldier
• Mounted
• Wagon/Wheeled
• Motorised
• Tracked
• Plane
• Small boat
• Ship
• Modern Ship

Armour :

• None
• Leather
• Bronze
• Iron
• Steel
• Advanced Steel
• Modern Metals
• Plastic Composite

Weapons : (each weapon has a ranged/bombard variant)

• Stones / slings
• Spears / javlins
• Bronze swords / short bows
• Iron swords / long bows
• Pikes / composite bows
• Steel swords / crossbows
• Primitive firearms / calverts
• Muskets / cannons
• Rifles / artillery
• Automatic weapons / improved artillery
• Rockets / tactical rockets
• Lasers / laser guided projectiles

Specials :

• Ranged attack
• Recon patrols (better visibilty range)
• Sheilds (+1 armour)
• Camoflage
• Polearms (better vs fast units)
• Devastating charge (better for fast units)
• Discipline
• Forced march
• Paradrop
• Submersible
• Transporter
• Elite (higher maintaninace + better skill)

Something like that you wanted Snoops?

-Jam

[FrostyBoy]

LOL Thanks Jamski, brilliant stuff!

Got my work cut out for me now.

And thanks for the help also cyclotron7. I see your point, yes it is very very unbalancing. I like the idea of giving weapons defense.

Or maybe a 'tactical defense' instead? Like you said, the riflemen's advantage is that they have an organised way to kill their opponent. Obviously the more modern the game becomes, the better the tactics are going to get, so maybe one of the options in the UW is how tactically trained are the units you are creating? The higher you train them, the more it costs. But maybe you need to say whether the unit is an offensive unit or a defensive unit before you start the creation?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Sn00py
And thanks for the help also cyclotron7. I see your point, yes it is very very unbalancing. I like the idea of giving weapons defense.

Or maybe a 'tactical defense' instead? Like you said, the riflemen's advantage is that they have an organised way to kill their opponent. Obviously the more modern the game becomes, the better the tactics are going to get, so maybe one of the options in the UW is how tactically trained are the units you are creating? The higher you train them, the more it costs. But maybe you need to say whether the unit is an offensive unit or a defensive unit before you start the creation?

I would do something like this.

A regular starts as a 1/1/1. They're just soldiers. Each level you add of training would add +1 to their attack and defense; training is universally applicable, or at least it should be here. Even if one unit had never seen the other before, they still would have discipline and unit cohesion that would keep them from immediately falling apart under the new weaponry.

I don't think that more highly trained units should cost more, but I do think they should require additional shields (thus, time) to produce. That's a bit besides the point, though.

A further problem is that armor does not only protect you when you are defeding. Swordsmen with chain mail are still equally protected by that chain mail when attacking. If armor gives only defense bonuses, you will see a lot of inflated defense units. Personally, I think armor should raise HP rather than defense, but then we would not be able to make weapons and armors dynamic, so that idea is out.

Now for an example.

Let's divide all armors into three categories.

Armors like leather and bronze would be ancient armor. Iron chain, iron plate, etc. would be medieval armor. Armor plate, like on tanks, would be modern armor.

Let's take a regular pikeman, a base of 1/1/1.

He has a pike, which we will say gives him +1 to attack and +2 to defense. It gives him a further +2 to defense against cavalry.

Reasoning: A pike is a large and unwieldly weapon to charge with, but it is phenomenal at keeping others away, especially horsemen.

He has iron plate mail, a medieval armor. It gives him +2 to attack and +3 to defense.

Reasoning: Armor still protects you when you attack, but the great weight of plate mail would certainly slow down tactical movements, lessening their usefulness and maneuverability on an advance. Thus, it is mroe useful for defense than offense.

His total is now 4/6/1, and 4/8/1 against cavalry. If he was elite, he would be 6/8/1, which isn't too unbalancing (he's not that much better than a regular, although he's still better).

Now, let's do a rifleman.

The rifleman is also a regular, so he starts as 1/1/1.

The rifleman uses, amazingly enough, a rifle. The rifle is powerful in both offensive and defensive roles, but is probably most effectively used stationary when positions can be held and covering fire maximized. I give it a +8 attack, +10 defense.

The rifleman is now a 9/11/1. "Wait a minute," you say. "That's not much better than a pikeman! He could attack an elite pikeman and have a nearly 50% chance of losing!'

Well, that's where the armor types come in. The special ability of the rifle is that it ignores ancient and medieval armors. Against the rifleman, the pikemen gets absolutely no bonuses for his armor. That elite pikeman drops from a 6/8/1 to a 4/5/1, something much more easily handled by the riflemen.

Get the idea? Now, I agree, this is complicated, and I'm not making any judgements on that. Any ideas for simplification are welcome.

[Cyclotron]

Let's do this thing Jamski style.

I'd have a list something like this:
ARMOR

Ancient Armor
Leather/Hide: +1/+1
Bronze armor: +2/+2

Medieval Armor
Iron chain: +2/+2 (better than bronze because of type)
Iron plate: +2/+3

Modern Armor
Steel skin (halftracks, etc): +2/+2
Steel plating (tanks): +3/+3

WEAPONS (shields, where applicable, are assumed as part of the weapon rating. weapons in italics ignore ancient armor, weapons in bold ignore ancient and medieval armor)

Stone axe/club: +1/+1
Bronze Spear/Lance: +1/+2
Shortbow: +2/+1, unit bombard
Iron Sword: +2/+2
Pike:* +1/+2, +2 defense bonus vs. horse
Longbow:* +3/+1, unit bombard
Morningstar: +3/+3
Musket:* +4/+5
Flintlock Pistols/Carbine: +5/+4
Rifle: +8/+10, unit bombard
Machinegun:** +8/+14, unit bombard
Repeating Rifle: +10/+12, unit bombard
Submachine Gun: +13/+13
Chaingun:*** +14/+18, unit bombard
Tank Cannon:*** +14/+12, bombard all
Modern Tank Cannon:*** +18/+16, bombard all

*: for foot chassis only (no horse or mobile)
**: for either foot or mobile chassis (no horse)
***: for mobile chassis only (no foot or horse)

A horse chassis gives 3 movement, unless with Iron Plate armor or Bronze armor, in which case it gives 2. It also adds 3 to attack.

A mobile chassis gives 5 movement, unless with Steel Plate, in which it gives 4. It also adds 4 to attack.

Which all gives us some basic unit stats (keep in mind the +1/+1 base):

Warrior, stone club and leather: 3/3/1
Spearman, bronze spear and armor: 4/5/1
Archer, shortbow and leather: 4/3/1
Swordsman, iron sword and iron chain: 5/5/1
Longbowman, longbow and iron chain: 6/4/1
Pikeman, pike and iron plate: 4/6/1 (4/8/1 vs. horse)
Heavy infantry, morningstar and iron plate: 6/7/1
Musketman, musket and iron plate: 7/9/1
Rifleman, rifle and no armor: 9/11/1
Infantry, repeating rifle and no armor: 11/13/1
Machinegunner, machinegun and no armor: 9/15/1
Marine, submachinegun and no armor: 14/14/1

Horseman, bronze spear and leather: 6/4/3
Knight, morningstar and iron plate: 9/7/2
Dragoons, flintlock carbine and iron chain: 11/7/3
Cavalry, repeating rifle and no armor: 14/13/3
Hummvee, machinegun and steel skin: 15/17/5
Cavalry, submachine gun and no armor: 17/14/3
Tank, cannon and steel plating: 21/15/4
Modern Armor, modern cannon and steel plating: 26/20/4
Halftrack, chaingun and steel skin: 21/21/5

How's that for a start?

[FrostyBoy]

Hmm...

Do you think that this could be tested in Civ3?


So if I gave the Musketmen Chain Mail Armor instead of Iron Plate, the Musketmens defense will only be 5 and not 9?


Would Chain Mail be cheaper than Iron Plate? It seems that some armor will become obsolete completely.


If I wanted to, I could create a horsemen unit with a machinegun. Now what happens when this unit attacks the Pikemen? Obviously the horsemen is going to have a much higher chance of winning right?

[Cyclotron]

Well, obviously not the unit workshop part, but I'm sure you could balance test all of those components by making them individual units. It would probably be best to make them all elites for the test, so there would be no promotions to throw off the results.

A note on those numbers, they are obviously not balance tested at all, they're just pulled out of the air. I'm not putting a lot of faith in them to be perfect.

Oh, by the way, I intended the archers to have bombard abilities, which is why the bowmen are not very strong. My intention would be to have all weapons labled "unit bombard" able to hit other units only, while the tanks would be able to carry out traditional artillery assaults with some degree of proficiency.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Hmm...

First off, Sn00py, thanks for the comments. Definitely, the thing any system needs is to be torn apart as much as possible to see if it is still standing afterwards.

So if I gave the Musketmen Chain Mail Armor instead of Iron Plate, the Musketmens defense will only be 5 and not 9?

No, chain is +2/+2 while plate is +2/+3, thus the musketman would go to a defense of 8.

Would Chain Mail be cheaper than Iron Plate? It seems that some armor will become obsolete completely.

Yes, chain mail would be marginally cheaper, as it affords less defense. Some armor will go obsolete, and that's the idea; obviously chain mail is going to be irrelevant in the industrial age when everything can pierce it.

Chain mail will also not be obsolete for a bit because, unlike plate mail, it does not reduce horse movement from 3 to 2. Rulers desiring a more mobile knight force may be willing to take a hit of one point on defense for a cheaper and faster knight.

If I wanted to, I could create a horsemen unit with a machinegun. Now what happens when this unit attacks the Pikemen? Obviously the horsemen is going to have a much higher chance of winning right?

First off, the machinegun is noted as a weapon for foot or mobile (tank) units only, not horse units. If you mean the submachine gun, let's see...

A pikeman vs. a horse is a 4/8/1. If we make a cavalry unit with no armor and a repeating rifle (14/13/3), or one with a submachine gun (17/14/3), that would certainly win over a pikeman, especially considering that rifles and machineguns ignore the pikeman's plate, making him only a 2/5/1 for the duration of the battle. A defense of 5 is not going to stand long against an attack of 14 or 17.

[Cyclotron]

In response to MxM

Let's face it, if we totally remove all time it takes to do things and just look at the end results, we don't need a unit workshop. You could easily sit down and list every last unit combination I've put down, make each one of those a unit, and be done with it: no unit workshop.

But costs aren't 0. In my pitifully short list, there are 7 pre-gunpowder weapons, and 4 such armors. Assuming each unit has a choice of one weapon and one armor (including the possibility of no armor), that's 35 combinations. Note that 35 is just the number of foot based, pre-gunpowder units.

The unit workshop appeals to those people who want a much greater variety of units without the need for a massively long list. By letting the player make quick selections on a screen and then use those templates, a player could conceivably manage hundreds of different unit combinations very quickly, drastically reducing the time it takes to build a unit.

I haven't decided whether I need the extra variety or not. I used to argue against unit workshops when we were having these same discussions about Civ3. However, I never miss a chance to help think things up, as this discussion over Civ3 is what orginally brought me here. I'll reserve judgement on whether the system is valuable or not for when I see a good and balanced model.