Ideas About Units.

[Cyrus The Mike]

Some things I would like to see in ANY unit is the slight progression of strenth. Examples: if you have iron on a bronze req. speerman It should have a boost of strenth. point: Iron is better than bronze it holds an edge longer and doesn't break as easaly. do you get my piont? Also if you have a forge in your city you should get +1 experiance. It is called "forgeing Iron".

One Other point that was just at the back of my mind. India should have War eliphants as their UU. but thats just my oppinion.


P.S. My spelling sucks like crap. sorry.

Edit:
Sorry first time poll poster. If the timer runs out can one of the moderators extend the poll to 10 days?

[sparkyal]

I undewrstand your ideas but I'm don't think they should be added in this way. Units can already gain strength by experience. also, all it means is that a bronze cladded unit may simply need more maintanence then an iron one. but, isn't iron harder...more expensive to dig up and process?

anyway, those are just my thoughts. Other people may not agree

sparky

PS: I wish there was a better option then "I hate these ideas". I didn't hate them, I simply disagreed

[CerberusIV]

Making units more powerful if you have iron rather than copper is probably a bit too complicated. Nice idea though. Iron does make better weapons although it is harder to work. The big advantage of iron in RL was that it was more widely available whereas in Civ iron and copper seem to be about equally abundant (or scarce ).

Having war elephants as a UU isn't a good idea because elephants aren't as widespread a resource as horses/copper/iron and the chances of not getting them, and thus not being able to build the UU are too great.

[Will9]

Forges should give ex. to units that require Iron or bronze.

[sparkyal]

Maybe not exp, maybe another boost in production just for those units? 25% is the norm for forges so 50% for units that require iron/aluminum/etc...

sparky

[Melloyello]

Originally posted by sparkyal
Maybe not exp, maybe another boost in production just for those units? 25% is the norm for forges so 50% for units that require iron/aluminum/etc...

sparky

I think all the idea's are valid, but really like this one!

[eris]

Interesting ideas, based on some interesting historic principles, but I do not think they add to gameplay in any meaningful fashion. Units that can be made with iron or copper are just units that have two key resources. If you want a unit that is better than your bronze equipped Axeman, than build a Swordsman. There is the one point difference that game uses to differentiate between the two resources. Of course, there are other differences, but that is part and parcel of the Civ style.

As for foreges, any city I am going to use for unit production has a very high probability of having a forge in it already for the hammer increase, whether it is used on units or buildings. So it seems like the change for forges wouldn't make any difference in my build decisions.

If you are going to differentiate bronze and iron, why not give the builder a chance to have better buildings once iron is in use? I am sure there is somewhere where bits of iron hold the beams together better. Or maybe it is just iron based nails. Why is it that iron only helps warmongering in your suggestions? Where is the balance with builder strategies?

Building an empire that will be strong,
Each brick and sword working together,
Standing against all enemies,
Growing across the span of time.

(Oooh, I almost gave myself shivers. I gotta try that speech on my units and cities. Maybe it will help!)

[Strudo]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The big advantage of iron in RL was that it was more widely available whereas in Civ iron and copper seem to be about equally abundant (or scarce ).

It's not so much that iron was more abundant than copper, but to make bronze you need to mix copper with either tin or zinc, which are less abumdant and harder to process. Iron could be used without additional metals

[Dis]

I'm not sure if I like this particular idea (with the way the units are set up right now), but it brings up an interesting question if we want a more SMAC-like style of designing units.

It's something I always thought about when I first heard about SMAC's system. When playing Civ2, I always though we should be able to choose between offense and armour. Kind of like the design consideration we put into building tanks. Do we go for a bigger gun and more armour, but reduce mobility, or do the opposite?

But perhaps it is too much complication for the regular game. And for scenarios, most people make seperate units for each civilization to represent the strengths and weaknesses of those units.

[Hobie819]

There are Pros and cons for both the use of iron and copper. Iron already has a huge bonus. I understand where you're comming from with the iron axemen being better, and historically you'd be correct. However Civs with Iron already get plenty of bonus's. IMO I think there should be more bonuses for civs with copper other than the colossus.

India should have War eliphants as their UU

Wasn't it Hannibal that made war elephants popular in the course of history? The whole march across the mountains of italy, invading rome with war elephants in a suprise attack?

I dont nessesarily agree with fast workers being india's UU, but elephants aren't great either.

[Bobby Chicken]

Forge idea=goodness
Iron/bronze idea=in need of refinement
How about some unit customization that could be done. You could give spearman iron or steel spears for x amount of gold, add torpedoe launchers to destroyers, mount secondary machine guns on biplanes (which need to be a unit), give bombers some stealth technology, etc. That's a bit confusing and could be worked out in defferent ways, but the best way would be to build units in parts. Examples: full metal bomber=person+bomber body+ basic wings+twin-engine+dual propellers+3 machine guns+ pilot training; warrior=person; axeman=person+bronze axe+light breastplate+light helmet; cruiser=person+naval training+ heavy cruiser body+ 4 quad torpedo tubes+advanced radar system+nuclear reactor+nuclear missile launcher+helicopter pad+ 4 guided misslile launchers+ 2 8" guns+ 4 5" guns + 4 twin AA guns.

All these things would be built simultaneously, but each would have their own price and each could be switched arround, melted down for hammers, etc. So to turn a axeman or swordsman into a maceman, you would melt down their swords and light armor and give them a mace and the heavier armor of a macemen. To turn a maceman into a knight, you would melt down the mace, give him knight training a lane, a sword, and a shield, but keep the sufficient armor.

[belchingjester]

Don't promotions handle all this?

First, a graphics point...

In SMAC, a lot of effort was invested in designing compatible units and upgrades, so the Laser worked with a foil and a rover and infantry...

However, Civ4 has much more involved graphics that make displaying this a real mess with all the camera angles and so on. I think Firaxis made a gameplay decision that people not get mired down in infinite unit permutations by selecting tech like this - that's what promotions are for, they abstract these capabilities out.

Also, unit building the SMAC way was subject to upgrade exploits and would create yet another layer of issues for the AI to consider. How well does the current AI handle promotions?

[Bobby Chicken]

Yes, but the AI plays chess better than Civ. So why not take away wonders and buildings, to make it easier for the AI?

[belchingjester]

If the AI has issues handling the complexity present in the current game (even with Blake's tweaks), adding additional complexity will further handicap it. To make it "competitive" at higher levels you then resort to even more ridiculous build bonuses.

So I'm arguing against adding yet more complexity until the AI handles the current complexity better.

To address the last paragraph of your post #11, keeping separate attack/defend values is a much different combat choice than the strength system the designers chose to go with. It's OK to advocate it, but it's so fundamental to the game play (and again, AI) that in my opinion it's unlikely to occur. Especially when again, promotions handle most of the desired specialization at a higher level of abstraction already.

Finally, upgrade costs are difficult to balance, and providing so many options to upgrade almost ensure (a) some exploits will exist, and (b) it's a mind-numbing field of complexity. Plus the more "realistic" you make it, the more nit-picking occurs. SMAC avoided this by being future tech.