Units that I miss

[Quillan]

I don't mind not having a separate nuclear sub; I'd just prefer it if the sub got an extra movment point from nuclear power. Side note-it's not a matter of how often the boat needs to refuel, it's the fact that before nuclear power the boat was diesel/electric and had to spend quite a lot of time running on only one engine while the other charged the batteries.

Stealth fighters were useless in Civ 3. Why bother even having them, since they couldn't do air superiority missions? They were a poor bomber is all.

[Dis]

nuclear sub's top speed is classified, but it's pretty damn fast. Not nearly as fast as combat surface ships, but pretty good. Though none of them have any reason to go that fast, it gives away position.

diesal electrics were slow as hell when submerged, but could make halfway decent time on the surface.

So nuke subs should have more movement. Though fast movement would give away their position. Kind of gives me an idea for a new rule. Although it would be kind of complicated for a game like civ. The more movement your sub does, the lower the strength goes. If you do no movement points your turn, you get a bonus to the strength.

[wardhali]

Gunships are neat as is the airlift capability, but there still is no way to deliver substantial ground presence by air and that does not reflect the real world or the direction it is going for the near future. Unbalanced? Only in the right hands of people who know how to use them; and then, who cares? You snooze, you lose. Or, I just saw your doublepost; if there isn't to be air cavalry, then the airdrop unit replaces it. Normandy and Crete were a mess, btw, as far as airdrops, as you stated, but they still accomplished their goals, as did the 1945 Ruhr drop, done by an inexperienced unit. Arnhem and some of the Russian drops did result in nothing but chaos, but a small ground-taking success did come out of Arnhem, mostly in the American sector, (sorry Brits.) Air Cavalry operations, i.e. infantry from helicopters, have had ... blah blah blah"

to this and any other "its not realistic" jargon...

GAMEPLAY TRUMPS REALISM

[Dis]

not if the gameplay isn't fun. I don't want "balance" and to help the ai. I want to crush the ai. This isn't chess, we want more variety.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by AshenPlanet
On subs:
Nuclear subs aren't substantially better in combat than older oil subs - hence the same stats.
The main advantage of nuclear subs is that they can go for months without needing to re-fuel.
That is an irrelevant factor in civ4, since all non-air units have infinite range, and never need to re-fuel.

Not true at all. IC powered subs have to surface very regularly to run their engines and recharge their batteries, as you can't run an IC engine without oxygen.

Nuclear submarines can remain underwater for very long times, only needing to surface occasionally to replenish their air supplies. They can also move much faster underwater than non-nuclear submarines (because of the limits of battery power).

[Generaldoktor]

Prussia; the problem with bombers on carriers is that, while generic, they really are mostly supposed to represent the 1930-47 multi-prop-engined strategic bomber; and those things were never too good at either landing on ships or bombing the enemy ships. Exceptions, at least as far as ship-bombing, would be the German Ju88, which actually only had two engines and is arguably not a strategic bomber and their FW200 Condor, which was a four-engine former airliner with a lot of range and a relatively slow stall speed. American B-24's were used with some success in anti-sub work, as were multi-engine seaplanes, but these weren't based on carriers and neither were the German planes mentioned.

That's it, out of hundreds of types of this genre built during those years mentioned. And the success of even those is mixed. However, there were carrier-based aircraft, during and certainly after the pre-jet period, that had a primary "bomber" function and were/are good at it. The A-4, which is an ancient, pre-Vietnam design for a carrier-based workhorse bomber jet, from what I understand is still in use and carries as much payload as an old four-engine prop, (it has one ramjet engine.) There are others, even ex-Soviet.

The problem is, to put these in their perspective forces additional programming and provisions in the game for additional military unit types and the Civ4 designers, at least initially, were determined to simplify the military aspect as they saw it as only one small aspect of the whole "civilization" process. Popular opinion, including the success of primarily war-oriented multi-player, has proved them wrong. The "Warlords" expansion presumes to rectify this; we'll have to see how far they go. Threads like this presumably provide feedback from the playing community as to what they'd like to see, if the high powers deem to read them. Nobody is asking for differentiated "settler" or "worker" units. The consensus seems to be more war.

Dis; while I appreciate your support on the notion that sub defense has improved substantially in 90 years, I think offense has too. The munitions are larger now, they can even be tipped with small-yield nukes and they are sonar-guided; no more "up periscope" bulls--- with Curt Jurgens eyeballing the angle to shoot. The reduced noise and sonar profile makes it easier to attack, as well as defend and they can shoot from far greater depths, even engage other submarines, which Civ fudges by allowing throughout, but which was actually pretty difficult from 1900 through about the 1960's, unless both were on the surface and tough even then due to low profiles and limited armament. It would require additional specialization again, but I think there should be additional units for improved modern anti-sub defense, as well as an upgraded "modern" sub and I think the one should be allowed to run rampant in the absence of the other.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Dis
not if the gameplay isn't fun. I don't want "balance" and to help the ai. I want to crush the ai. This isn't chess, we want more variety.

Apologize for double-post, I just saw "Page 2" of this highly intellectual discussion.

Thanks again for seeing my view Dis, to answer the cynic who I didn't quote just above you, I think we can strive for a little more relationship with real world events to provide the diversity over abstract games (like chess) that Dis discusses. I liked airborne in trying to simulate, in a playable way yet somewhat rooted in the real world, geopolitical/military conflict. The title asks what do I miss, I said so. Sorry I had to go a little overboard with the analogies why to answer other critics.

Quillan, I do not favor having stealth fighters not do air superiority. From what I understand, that is what the USAF would have used them for, if we had any top-notch air opposition these days. I don't know why that wasn't allowed in Civ3, but we're not talking here about Civ3, (except maybe in the context of what is missing in Civ4. )

[joncnunn]

As others have mentioned on this thread, warlords almost certinately will add a few unit types. Some of the survey questions I filled out were about what types of units in which era should be added.

However, none of the ones listed in the thread are ones I think are particularly missing. Instead I would first add some sort of siege weapon (midevil era) to fill the large gap between Catapults & Cannons.

Next I'd move the current Calvary later in the tree by adding Rifing while making a new Lighter Calvary (Dragoons?) in the same spot with stats between those of Knights & the current Calvary.

---
On the unit choices, in some ways, unit choices in Civ IV are a glorified rock-paper-scissors match.

[Generaldoktor]

Reference "rock, scissors, paper," we are having a nice uncivil discussion about Civ4 combat over on the "AOM III" thread. Off-topic, but nobody cares. I agree with you on this one.

Odd, earlier this year, I opposed the "trebuchet" thing (reference multiple siege weapons) on that poll thread; now I'm pushing for more units. Schizophrenia I guess, brought on by too much gaming. I guess I'd like to see that now; and the cavalry thing is a good idea too. We had a discussion somewhere, maybe the musketeer thread, that grenadiers are sort of misplaced too. I was pushing for "early riflemen" followed by a post-rifling "sharpshooter," with two kinds of cannon/bombards appearing at two different times too. I guess you can go too far though, with this sort of thing.

[yimboli]

Originally posted by Dis
not if the gameplay isn't fun. I don't want "balance" and to help the ai. I want to crush the ai. This isn't chess, we want more variety.

count me out of the "we" in that post. If forced between the choice of (a) more realistic options which nerf AI and (b) restrictive options with stronger AI, I choose (b) stronger AI. Flashy features and options are definitely fun for a while, but if the AI can't use them effectively the replay value of the game is significantly reduced.

but that's if I'm forced to make that choice. I'd prefer stronger AI programmers as the win-win solution - then, realistic options would not nerf the AI. You'd have a more robust game altogether.

I guess that I'm saying is speak for yourself

[AshenPlanet]

.

The jump from cavalry to gunship is quite a large one, something could be in between there.
The progression from chariot to horse archer to elephant to knight to cavalry is pretty good though.
I even get cavalry before knight sometimes if I'm beelining to democracy.

I agree that another siege engine would be nice.
I would actually say one is needed after artillery rather than before cannon.
Artillery comes after tanks, and is so expensive.

This is a totally useless unit that doesn't get researched until near the end of the game, and never gets made.
If they moved artillery and cannon lower, they could put a higher end unit where that expensive and late research for artillery is.
Of course, since you'll have tanks already, whatever they put at that spot would be under-utilized.
Perhaps artillery and cannons could be left as is and both be lowered on the tree?

These aren't really units we miss though, just wishful thinking...

.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by AshenPlanet
I agree that another siege engine would be nice.
I would actually say one is needed after artillery rather than before cannon.
Artillery comes after tanks, and is so expensive.

This is a totally useless unit that doesn't get researched until near the end of the game, and never gets made.
If they moved artillery and cannon lower, they could put a higher end unit where that expensive and late research for artillery is.
Of course, since you'll have tanks already, whatever they put at that spot would be under-utilized.
Perhaps artillery and cannons could be left as is and both be lowered on the tree?

Again, we have to go some from real-world experience; this isn't a "fantasy" game.

What is there after artillery? Even the U.S. military, arguably the world's most modern, still uses artillery. Atomic Cannon, IRBM? Some here have agreed, (including me) cruise missiles should come back, though they were so expensive in C3 I never got a lot of use out of them. (Real armies use them because they're cheaper than air/ground intervention, go figure. )

What we discussed on the other thread, which was a little off-topic because I think it started dealing with the French Musketeer, last winter and then broadened into other gunpowder units, was a bombard early, received with Gunpowder; to reflect primitive siege equipment like used by the Turks and French (and probably Chinese) around the 14th-15th century; then cannons later, maybe still with Steel, though artisan steel was around from medieval times on and that fact was brought up too. Maybe one last improved cannon before arty, with rifling; which was a significant real-world improvement at the time, but is maybe gilding the lily as far as number of additional units. Beyond that, as far as I can see, artillery is artillery. BTW, there was a thread on it where several people suggested they did find it valuable as a modern era siege tool, to save the tanks, for one; though some others did in fact pooh-pooh it.

BTW also, artillery doesn't have to come after tanks; it can come after rifling; it's player choice because everybody loves tanks and the other stuff you get with combustion, so they rush to it; as does frequently the AI at higher levels. Artillery then just becomes the late afterthought. But if I were involved in heavy siege warfare in the early modern period, I'd rethink it. The guys who swore by artillery claimed it was pretty effective, at least in quantity, against infantry and machine guns in cities.

[AshenPlanet]

.

In "real-world experience", artillery was extremely effective and very useful.

In game mechanics, artillery blows.

It doesn't just come after tanks because people want tanks.
Even for games where you aren't planning on building any tanks, you will usually have access to tanks before you have access to artillery because industrialization gives you factories, leads to communism, and so many other useful things.

So, to reflect "real-world", artillery should be earlier than it is, or industrialization come later...
But, there again, this isn't really about units we miss, but more about game mechanics.

On the whole, units and unit balance are pretty good.
I'm not sorry to see those not-real-world paratroopers gone, but I do miss ranged siege units like the old artillery.

.

[Generaldoktor]

Okay, tanks don't come with combustion, they come with industrialization; should have looked at the lovely tech tree that came with my C4 deluxe instead of trying to recall. Probably true, what you say, that people rush to that. Industrialization is about comparable to the Napoleonic period, which is when artillery gets real effective; it's a funny quirk in Civ that you can only research one thing at a time while the calendar streams by; I wonder what would happen to such a game if simultaneous multiple research tracks were allowed?

Probably true otherwise that artillery should be moved a bit earlier; there was some effective use of it made in the pre-Napoleonic, pre-Industrial Revolution period.

I'll ignore the "final word" type crack again about airborne. We'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't find them unrealistic and I do want them back, or a satisfactory substitute. Ranged artillery also seemed fine to me in C3 and might ought to fit in C4.

[Quillan]

I found a genuine use for artillery recently. I was in a late-game war a few games ago, and wasn't interested in capturing cities. All I was trying to do was destroy certain cities in order to cripple the particular foe (Alex) and ease any border pressure from his established culture. Unfortunately, some of the cities I needed to raze were outside the range of my bombers. If you aren't capturing cities to use as new airbases, you'll need the artillery for bombarding defenses. It's also rather insane what City Raider III artillery do to infantry...