Units that I miss

[monkspider]

The units that were eliminated either added nothing significant to the game, or unbalanced the game in some way. I can't say that I miss them. I would take fewer highly polished units over a bunch of redundant or unbalanced units anyday.

[Dis]

Originally posted by yimboli


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

I see your point. We don't necessarily want a SMAC. But I was under the impression most people can't beat deity level.

yes, yes I know we prefer a smarter AI instead of giving the AI cheats to make them competitive. And one way to making them smarter is to simplify combat and other concepts.

I just feel it has been too simplified.

And a few posts up had some good units mentioned. Another bombardment unit is needed. And maybe Dragoons aren't necessary, but I feel cavalry comes too early. they could be pushed back some.

[Dis]

artillery does need to come earlier.

And you could add howitzers as a post artillery unit. Not sure how much use they would get. Probably only applicable in certain scenarios.

[AshenPlanet]

.

I think artillery is supposed to be howitzers.
The unit picture looks like a little howitzer...

Even without bombers, artillery is still useless in game though.
Tanks have 28 attack, 2 moves, and collateral damage capability.
You will almost always have tank access before artillery because artillery is so overcosted.
In pretty much every situation, it's better to use tanks over artillery.

Having it available earlier or another siege unit would be nice.

.

[Blaupanzer]

Current artillery should be earlier and cheaper. A new unit could be self-propelled artillery which have a 2 movement factor, but otherwise behave like artillery.

What I miss are Viking longboats, Korean turtles (a ship), and that little diplomat fellow just for the look of him -- coat with tails and a little top hat.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by AshenPlanet
.

I think artillery is supposed to be howitzers.
The unit picture looks like a little howitzer...

Even without bombers, artillery is still useless in game though.
Tanks have 28 attack, 2 moves, and collateral damage capability.
You will almost always have tank access before artillery because artillery is so overcosted.
In pretty much every situation, it's better to use tanks over artillery.

.

Artillery is the last resort for modern bombardment for a civilization that has no access to oil. Without oil, there are no tanks or bombers.

[AshenPlanet]

.

Artillery is the last resort for modern bombardment for a civilization that has no access to oil. Without oil, there are no tanks or bombers.

Good point.

I didn't think of that since I can't remember ever not having oil at that stage of the game.
But then again, I'm always fighting...

.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

When you think about it, allowing tanks/modern armour to get the bombardment and collateral damage promotions really is a bit unrealistic. I can't think of any significant battles that were preceded by a barrage of tank gunnery, in the manner of artillery.

Remove the bombardment/collateral damage ability from tanks, and artillery is useful again (especially after the AI gets flight and/or rocketry).

[Azuarc]

The lack of an upgrade to catapults until you get all the way to Steel is really the big issue with siege units. If you got Cannons sooner, say with Gunpowder, but only being a 10 strength, you could bring Artillery into an earlier and/or cheaper point in the tech tree. As it is, I often get access to Artillery only briefly after getting Steel, depending on my tech path.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Azuarc
The lack of an upgrade to catapults until you get all the way to Steel is really the big issue with siege units. If you got Cannons sooner, say with Gunpowder, but only being a 10 strength, you could bring Artillery into an earlier and/or cheaper point in the tech tree. As it is, I often get access to Artillery only briefly after getting Steel, depending on my tech path.

The Turks reduced Constantinople in 1453 in the last battle of the "Roman" (Byzantine) Empire using a primitive, but effective form of bombard. Mid-15th century featured only the crudest of handheld weapons, but surprisingly, the two types developed sort of simultaneously, though on different tracks. I looked into this earlier in the year for another thread. Having a "bombard" with the first acquisition of gunpowder would not differ from the real world. The Chinese experimented with artillery before handhelds too, though they didn't really do anything with it. (They used "erupters" and rockets, by 1000 A.D. though; it is myth they only used it for fireworks, see Jack Kelly, "Gunpowder — Alchemy, Bombards & Pyrotechnics: The History of the Explosive that Changed the World.")

Ashen: I played a game where some AI were without oil and it is mentioned as possible on several threads and in the strategy guide. Of course, you can start a war to get it.

6000-Man: The U.S. Army used tanks as substitute artillery in World War II; the short-barrel 75mm on the M3 Grant and M4 Sherman; (this last the symbol in Civ for early tanks for quite some time,) is an adaptation of an infantry gun that can be elevated sufficiently.

Patton used them in the Saar when he outstripped his artillery; they were used to reduce Aachen also, I believe, when they needed some extra barrels. In the Pacific, they were used thus, as artillery was sometimes the last to land on the island amphibious operations. Additionally, I saw an actual photo on the Net of one firing as artillery in Korea; this was a high velocity model, but all the guns were dual purpose. A special model was made with a 105mm howitzer in the turret also; while this was probably intended as a close-quarters assault weapon, the barrel is elevatable and doctrine allowed for artillery use, as with the M7 Priest and the German Panzer IV E/F1 and Sturmgeschutz self-propelled guns and the Russian SU 85/122 series. Artillery wasn't always around when needed and all tanks had low-velocity high explosive shells available. The practice seems to fallen off after Korea, with better equipped campaigns and more specialization, so arguably, "Modern Armor" maybe shouldn't have the capability, though some provision then, as somebody suggested, for "mobile" (self-propelled) artillery might be interesting.

Common Sensei: I am continuing to build artillery in Civ for set-piece sieges. I believe the guy on another thread who said it was very effective, though I'll have to run down that thread. I suspect also this is to be one of those things that might get a boost in "Warlords" . It was certainly dumbed down, compared to Civ3.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
6000-Man: The U.S. Army used tanks as substitute artillery in World War II; the short-barrel 75mm on the M3 Grant and M4 Sherman; (this last the symbol in Civ for early tanks for quite some time,) is an adaptation of an infantry gun that can be elevated sufficiently.

Patton used them in the Saar when he outstripped his artillery; they were used to reduce Aachen also, I believe, when they needed some extra barrels. In the Pacific, they were used thus, as artillery was sometimes the last to land on the island amphibious operations. Additionally, I saw an actual photo on the Net of one firing as artillery in Korea; this was a high velocity model, but all the guns were dual purpose. A special model was made with a 105mm howitzer in the turret also; while this was probably intended as a close-quarters assault weapon, the barrel is elevatable and doctrine allowed for artillery use, as with the M7 Priest and the German Panzer IV E/F1 and Sturmgeschutz self-propelled guns and the Russian SU 85/122 series. Artillery wasn't always around when needed and all tanks had low-velocity high explosive shells available. The practice seems to fallen off after Korea, with better equipped campaigns and more specialization, so arguably, "Modern Armor" maybe shouldn't have the capability, though some provision then, as somebody suggested, for "mobile" (self-propelled) artillery might be interesting.

Thanks for the historical illustrations - but from what you're saying, tanks-as-artillery were more of a stopgap measure than a mainstream use of the vehicle. And it could be argued that if you put a howitzer barrel on a tank, it stops being a tank and starts being self-propelled artillery. So I think my original point still stands.

To employ a somewhat extreme analogy: I recall that tanks were modified to be used as bulldozers at times - but it isn't reasonable that a Civ4 tank could be used to improve terrain or build fortifications. (At least, it isn't reasonable to me. The game stops being interesting if you can build one unit that does everything.)

[Autotropx Sox]

I really don't see the logic in adding a "trebuchet" to a game with the scope of Civ.

The term "catapult" is really a generic term for a unit comprised of different siege engines designed to either break down walls with large stones and metal balls or to hurl ballistae or smaller rocks into large formations of enemy soldiers. The only similarity, and thus, the reason they are put into one unit, is that they all are made of similar materials with the same general concepts employed by ancient siege engines and field weapons; gravity, tensions, and counter-balancing aimed at hurling objects without the use of gunpowder.

Really, when looking at most units in any of the Civ series, you have to remember that they are really abstractions; a trebuchet could easily, in the context of a game with such scope as Civ, be considered unimportant enough to be anything other than part of the general unit "catapult" as it performs the same task with only slight improvements.

[couerdelion]

I don’t miss any of the modern units because I hardly ever played into the modern era. By this stage in the game, combat is tedious.

[Tattila the Hun]

I wonder if it would be possible to ad some sort of... chance for submarines to get detected, and another chance to sink a ship, without actually going to combat... And some bonuses from multiple subs. Wolfpacks, dammit!

I'd like to see an AWACS type aeroplane, with visual range of... lots!

Do aeroplanes on CAP intercept ships?

Another thing, naval units are way too slow in general, it doesn't take a year for a CVN group to sail around the globe. Mayhap one could have some of the not-so-usefull techs give +1 naval movement, like refridgeration... Canned goods, other ways of preservation?

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Quillan
What I do miss is the faster movement of nuclear subs, the ability of artillery (including ship guns and cruise missles) to attack improvements in the near squares, and the easier and cheaper upgrading of obsolete units.

Navel bombardment to destroy mines or farms in civ III was not a problem, but considering how long it takes to grow a town in civ IV, it's probably best that you can't destry tile improvements with battleships anymore; having costal towns flattened by ships every time you go to war would be INCREDIBLY frustrating and annoying.