Some sort of unit design allowed?

[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)