Unit Strengths by Era

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by dac
Ok, I'll dissent. I like Marines. They're the only unit that can invade a city right off the transport. I've flanked many an AI by having the Marines hit what I deemed an important coastal city a turn or two after I've invaded from another direction.

I agree, are you guys that are knocking on marines even using them to attack coastal cities from a transport? That is what they are for. D-day stuff. And for doing that they are fantastic. Bombard the city down to almost nothing then use a transport of them to take the city. Then you can put a transport each(or two or three) of tanks infantry and some artillery in the city, all with movement points available to set up defenses and strike inland. Anyway, if you are using marines for ANYTHING else you will likely be disappointed.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Sevorak
Hmmm...I like the idea of defensive artillery preventing retreat.

Defensive artillery, despite being a last-minute throw-in, has a lot of potential as a game concept. At this point, however, it's a little too weak since it only gets to fire at one opponent per turn, and at a ROF of 1. Why shouldn't a defender have to use combined arms too?
...
One shot ZOC doesn't really cut it, not much of a threat considering its low chance of success. Fortresses seem to be kind of an afterthought, just tacked on - Soren once said that the AI generally doesn't build fortresses because their value is "debatable" or something like that. I mean, any unit passing a fortress has a flat 50% chance not to be hit at all. Then, the unit in the fortress uses its attack value (which is not always too impressive) to attempt its advantage shot. You're sort of stuck there in terms of fortress garrisoning - you either stick a unit in there that can defend against a direct attack, or you put one in that might actually hit with its opportunity fire. Or, you could stack more units in, but then you're just dispersing your defense more.

Without the Civ2 style ZOC lock, even fortresses are of minimal use, since to guard a border that way would be to occupy every tile on the border with a fortress and unit. Otherwise, they ignore your fortresses, their only risk being a single 20-30% chance at a single hit point off a single target.
...
As for the 'stealth fighter' - since they're basing the technologies and units on real-world things (excepting the spaceship - note how even Fusion Power is gone from Civ2) they use the F-117A as their example, which is why it can't perform air superiority missions. There has never, in real life, been an operationally deployed 'stealth fighter' per se, just a 'small precise stealth bomber' and a 'large imprecise stealth bomber'. You can see they use the F-117A as its graphic, and the real-life F-117A carries no combat air-to-air radar, and most importantly, no air-to-air weaponry either - indeed, it cannot carry air-to-air missiles. So if you really think about it, the lack of air superiority from a stealth 'fighter' is completely realistic.

-Sev

DEFENSIVE ARTILLERY: Artillery may be very important in the attack, but they have often been the attack-breaker defensively (depending of course, on the time period). The defender supposedly has been in place, has laid out required coordinates, and has stockpiled ammunition.
SOLUTION: Allow each attacking unit to be bombarded by at least one defending artillery, and maybe by each defending artillery. Perhaps this would involve defending units not being limited to firing just once. CAVEAT: This almost begs for provisions for Artillery DUELS - Allow for Support units to be destroyed, with same bombardment defense as other noncombatants.

What ZOC was trying to simulate in old boardgames, back when ZOC was 'invented', was that they prevented units from passing through them because it was 'stupid' to try to do so. Do I hear the term 'flank attack?'
SOLUTION: Take out that 'movement' advantage for the offender, and give EACH ZOC projecting unit a full-value shot at EACH offending unit. This would allow non-warring states flexibility to move, but opposing forces would suffer appropriately. Also, units can be destroyed by moving through enemy ZOCs because it can involve physical engagement.
Regarding capturable units such as Explorers or Workers, I would recommend Workers would be SOL because they would involve lots of manpower, but Explorers might 'stealth' through -- (minor point, sorry).

The Stealth Fighter: Simple - just model it on the F-22 currently in development (or maybe on the chopping block) and grant it an air-superiority role. Either maintain its current bombardment role or not. Change the graphic or not.

[vmxa1]

Is not the reason that a civ can mount an all attack in one turn due to the RR? If RR was not there you could see the attack coming in time to defend. As long as you can send everything you have in one turn to any tile (yours) that has RR on it, it will be tuff to defend. I agree that walls are nearly useless except against barbs with great Wall. After that it does not do much.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by gus_smedstad

In short, all artillery needs to be about twice as good as it is now, since the value of the hits on the town instead of the unit are very low to the attacker. That value isn't zero, but it's at most elminating the 25% bonus for size 7+ cities.

It's more than just pop reduction, its the fact it can do its damage with NO chance of being destroyed in the attack, and dramatically reduces the small odds of your mobile units of getting killed in a 1 hp v 1hp situation. Also, artillery at all ages is very cheap, and they are upgradable from their humble beginnings to the might of art and radar art.

[notyoueither]

Correction re Nukes.

Am back at the game that I have most experience using nukes in (my current game).

I may have noticed what caused the AI to choose its targets for ICBMs. I didn't notice it before because the key was hidden. It was mostly invisible on the map and was never important to me at any time.

Cycling through my cities to optimize gold output I came to one of the targets that I thought the AI had wasted an ICBM on trying to hit. I know this was a target, because I noted it due to the fact that I thought it was such a useless target. *Hey look at that, it's got Salt Peter right next to it. Wait a minute...* I founded this city long after I had Tanks and MechInf so I didn't give a hoot that there was SP hidden by Irrigation in a desert.

Yup, all of the cities hit had strategic resources adjacent to them. I didn't notice this while the AI had nukes to launch so I cannot say the same is true for all of its targets, but the coincidence is large. 3 cities hit (1 twice), 1 known target, 4 strategic resources adjacent. 1 Oil, 1 Aluminum, 1 Salt Peter, 1 Horses ( ).

So I may have discovered an exploit. Don't build important cities adjacent to strategic resources early in the game. Later in the game build small outpost cities adjacent to them (on top of?, several not targeted as far as I can remember). Then later the important cities will not get nuked (maybe).

Salve

/Edit
Of course if they have enough to go around, they will plaster you (tried that too).

[King of Rasslin]

Here

Swordsman- Very powerful, but requires iron. Iron is somewhat rare on a small map. Resources should be concentrated on a smaller map so you don't have to wait for Longbowmen for a real offence

ALL defencive units- useless. The computer will simply pillage you instead! Putting a musketman in your base encourages the comp to wreck your land. You would have to make 3 dozen of them to cover your border! The horse units are WAY too powerful

Retreating from combat should be 50/50 since they have decent armor anyway. If they keep their high armor (knight and cavalry have 3) they shouldn't need to retreat like that. Its really an abuse of power to be able to retreat AND have tough armor as combined arms becomes pointless

The comp shouldn't be so crazy about pillaging if you make so many musketmen just not to be attacked. Horse units are too powerful for too long.

#1- Make the stupid chariot better.
#2- Make iron more plentiful on small maps.
#3- Make Horse units easier to kill
#4- Lower defence of modern armor, to make the mech infantry more useful in combined arms
#5- Tanks should be able to attack twice a turn, i think it says they can but i don't think they can...
#6- Some military techs should be bumped up some. Horseback riding is rather early, as the chariot is worthless. Military tradition is also early.
#7- Make the bombard units before artillery more useful. They can only attack 1 square so their power should be better.
#8- Why even bother bombarding with air fighters? This should be looked at again.
#9- Transports hold too many units, defending just 2 will get me in a whole island or small continent.
#10- Change some unique units, as hitting a golden age is easier for units that are useful for much longer. I can see Cossacks used for a long time, but not jaguar warriors.

This turned more into a patch suggestion thread rather than an actual strategy thread

But these are some things i find too easy/hard in combat.

[Skanky Burns]

Re: Jaguar Warriors

#10- Change some unique units, as hitting a golden age is easier for units that are useful for much longer. I can see Cossacks used for a long time, but not jaguar warriors.

Actually i have to disagree with you on that one. JWs are the only ancient unit i would build in the modern times. They are extremely cheap to build, difficult for the AI to remove, and you can just imagine the look on your enemies face as hundreds of these little midgets burst into his territory, pillaging and looting

With all that going on, it would not be possible for the enemy to mount an effective offence

Not even the mighty Hoplites have the shelf-life of the JWs

[Nic]

Originally posted by Velociryx
This is actually a variant of "Doctrine-Defensive" from the SMAX guide, except instead of ringing your continent with sea bases and using them as "spotters," you're building fortifications at relevant borders and staffing them with an increasingly deadly array of nasty things.

If the attacker decides it's not worth the trouble to "punch through" since there would be no immediate gain (that is to say, no immediate city capture, nor a degradation of the defender's ability to crank out troops--raze a city), then the defender wins by default, having averted the attack before it began.

Or...no?

I think probably yes, the key to making this work is that the defender retains control of the roads so they should be able to mass sufficient counter-force. I think we can all agree that the AI does not really understand strategic reserve but human players will quickly learn it or become eternal losers to the MP cav-rush players. A purely static defense will never achieve more than slowing down an opponent, something that is true not just in civ3 but throughout most wars in history.

Defensive terrain is crucial, forts are an obvious part of that but there are other factors. Borders should have limited crossings, surplus roads should not be built and if necessary (e.g. after cultural absorbtion) should be pillaged by your own forces. Extensive open terrain where the borders are close is a prime spot for surprise attack so plant a forest that will really annoy attacking cavalry. Then of course there is the obvious strategy of building your cities on defensible terrain in the first place. Throughout history borders between nations have tended to end up along defensible geographic features, understand why and emulate. All these things buy time for your mobile reserve to rush up on roads and launch a counter-attack on an increasingly exhausted attacker.

All other things being equal it is a matter of who has the most skill and luck - exactly as it should be.

--
Nic

[Matthevv]

As is mentioned above, the sudden rush of a concentrated horseman/knight/tank army across a border is very difficult to counter effectively, because of the turn based nature of the game. Once railroads are invented, I can move all my cavalry or tanks to one spot, cross the border, and capture an enemy town all in one move. Building up a proper army of combined forces is not necessary, as this strategy (if it is worth calling it that) can be repeated every turn. Even before railways, cavalry are moving nine squares on roads, so it is nearly as effective.

To prevent this, I would make the crossing of a border take the same number of moves as moving onto a mountain square. All invading armies would then stop on the border, allowing the defender to move to respond to the invasion, by moving troops to defend the threatened cities, or by engaging the enemy at the border. I would prefer this to approaches that require stationing a line of units along the border, or forts containing units, as that would require a lot of tedious micromanagement, especially at the times when troops need to be upgraded. I did that once for a border only 5 tiles long, and it was still too boring for words.

I would like to see city walls made more effective, as they were in Civ2 so that to take a city it is necessary to build an army with catapults, cannons, etc. and perhaps also some workers to build forts for the attackers when besieging. Perhaps there could be an upgrade cost for city walls as the city grows, and/or as new technology requires new types of fortifications. Currently with the attack units generally stronger than the defenders, the possibility of the attackers getting lucky, and walls weak, there isn't much value to walls, as you still need to defend always with a big stack of units.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Matthevv

To prevent this, I would make the crossing of a border take the same number of moves as moving onto a mountain square. All invading armies would then stop on the border, allowing the defender to move to respond to the invasion, by moving troops to defend the threatened cities, or by engaging the enemy at the border. I would prefer this to approaches that require stationing a line of units along the border, or forts containing units, as that would require a lot of tedious micromanagement, especially at the times when troops need to be upgraded. I did that once for a border only 5 tiles long, and it was still too boring for words.

Don't kill blitzkrieg just because the AI can't handle it. That doesn't make sense. Remember WWII and France?

[vmxa1]

I kind of like the virtual mountain for borders. The game could act as if one move terrain was at the border of all cities. Once you cross the border for that city the terrain would be treated normally.
Blitzkrieg was not done instantly, it took time to get the tanks in place. It is not so much of a problem for the human as it is for the AI to see it coming and try to defend. I can have my units spread out and then move them all in one turn, I have not seen the AI do that, but then by the time they have RR everywhere I have thinned out the army.

[Matthevv]

It wouldn't kill blitzkreig I think. If the defenders choose to use slower moving infantry based defenders, as was the case in WWII your massed tanks would still be quite effective, because of their speed, but you would be forced to fight the enemy's troops to defeat them. Currently, you don't have to, just pick off their cities one by one before they have time to even move. Once the cities are under your control, you can move in additional defenders all in the same move, making it very difficult for them to re-capture when it is their turn.

[Arrian]

Hmm... I don't like the "border like mountains" idea. As you might have noticed, I am one of the (relatively few?) people who doesn't mind that mobile units are powerful. I know that once the human gets Cav, the human can usually overrun entire empires with it, and agree that it's a bit of a problem. HOWEVER, I don't like any of the "do this one thing and it will fix the problem" ideas. I think it's gotta be a number of small changes rather than 1 big one.

Possible non-AI changes:

1) change in cost for mobile units (either in shields or upkeep)
2) slight increase in defensive combat bonuses, perhaps a 25% vs. 2+ move units for units fortified in cities.
3) increasing defensive power of artillery, including possibly disallowing retreat of a unit that comes under def. bombardment
4) % chance of failed retreat, maybe dependant on the defender
5) removing military tradition and moving cav to nationalism

My personal wishes for the AI, which would help w/this issue:

1) Upgrading... they need to do it.
2) Border fortification & an end to "patrolling"
3) Responding to an invasion stack with as much force as they can muster... possibly waiting a turn or two in order to marshall their forces.
4) Massing bombard units, and using them on the attack... or if they're not gonna use them right, stop building them and build other things. Right now, the AI is just wasting shields on units that I will capture and use against them.

I'm probably just dreaming about the AI stuff.

-Arrian

[CivalusMaximus]

Most people can agree that all mounted units are too powerful in the game. I like the idea of having retreat only be 50% sucessful as it would serve to balance the game.

For me Civ has always been about multiplayer and with that in mind I would like to discuss some of the most powerful units in the game as it stands:

#1 Zuli Impi: This guy defends horse rushes even better than the greek hoplite, furthermore, a 2 move defender lets you move in a defensive unit that can keep up with your horse rush. This makes the Zulu's strong despite the limited amount of discussion about them. Note that the impi can also come early enough to fend off a Jag rush on all but the smallest of maps.

#2 Jag Warrior: Most civs just can't deal with the early rush of these guys produced en mass.

#3 Mounted Warrior: This guy is going to be counter attacked constantly. Seeing as he can't use enemy roads he (like all other horsies) will have to slow down his charge towards the enemy to bring along his support. If your opponent has early enough warning (and most humans are able to recognize a massive group of units for what it is (unlike the AI)), by the time your units start arriving the garrison will be too large, and the counterattackers will be ready (MW's will drop like crazy). That being said for most civilizations (except say Zulu) the same disadvantages apply to horsies, and a 3 attack horse is still a big gun.


I would talk about other ages but for me so far the game is 80% determined by the ancient age so I have limited experience with the other units from balanced positions.

That being said: The game needs a standard 2 move defender unless the cavalry rules are changed, incredibly large forces are needed to defend and even if the defender is victorious by the time they mobilize the attacker will have a new large force (pop rushing is just that good) and the defender will likely be disrupted by mass pillaging.

Note: Making it impossible to capture cities without culture has opened the door to sick abuses in multiplayer( if/when it comes around), If I know my opponent builds lots of temples I can fight a border war with them destroying my 0 culture cities while I capture their cultured ones. Even better since culture resets with capture, even if they are able to recapture they will still lose the city (since I would sell or destroy any temple in a city I'm not able to keep).

Lastly, along the same lines as this post, PLZ PLZ PLZ add some form of multiplayer in the next patch, if not the full thing than at least hotseat, many of us are itching to test strategies against human strategies not just the AI.

[halley]

What about:

City walls give +50% to def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

Cities with 7+ pop give +50% to def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

Cities with 12+ pop give +100% def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

I'm not a history expert, but I don't think Cavalry were used to assault cities. Their speed and maneuvrability would be severely limited if they had to fight in narrow city streets. Cavalry should be used for attacking units in the open, where their mobility gives them the advantage.

Also, artillery units need a boost. Right now, they are too weak.