{ The List } Units

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Sandman]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[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. 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.

[lajzar]

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?

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.

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.

[Ijuin]

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.

[Drachasor]

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

[lajzar]

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:

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.

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.

[lajzar]

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.

[CarnalCanaan]

Okay... I'm gonna step up...

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.

[CarnalCanaan]

P.S.

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

Now that guy was cool.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[lajzar]

Re: Okay... I'm gonna step up...

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. Of course, I expect there'd be diplomatic penalties for this, but happiness should increase.

[lajzar]

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.

[Elok]

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.