Unit Strengths by Era

[player1]

Originally posted by Egyptian
After playing many civilizations, I now always play Egypt. Their downfall is definately their UU. It is basically pointless. Unless I am engaged in a very early war, and without horsemen, I never build War Chariots. The lame UU puts me at a disadvantage in warfare, unless I am able to stay ahead of the AI in tech, which I am usually able to do. I think the war chariot should be 3/1/2 or 2/2/2. A better UU would make the Egyptians awesome.

Also, musketmen are pointless for the French. The Babs, Greeks, Aztecs and Iroquois have the best UUs.

Chep Horsemen == War Chariot

IT'S NOT POINTLESS.
IT'S GREAT.

P.S.
The only problem is that after patch (1.17f) War Chariots upgrade to Horsemen.
So, if you discover Horseback riding you are unable to make War Chariots anymore.

[kilane royalist]

The long running argument on spearmen versus tanks has gotten silly. The truth is that the best way to reflect the historical effect of lightly armed against mechanised is with some mechanism to reflect "guerilla warfare". I can't think of any example of lightly armed people holding off tanks for any length of time when the tanks are advancing - that is what tanks do. However, there are many occurances of tanks getting bogged down and sabotaged by guerilla warfare. The same could be said of airplanes. There are times when I would sacrifice a cheap unit to keep some planes on the ground for a turn. No question about it.

While I'm not going to speculate on what these mechanisms might be like, some obvious thoughts that come to mind would be the ability to sacrifice a cheap unit to prevent another unit from moving for a turn, and perhaps do some trivial damage. This would reflect the reality of sabotage missions - they are suicide for the partisan, but can be worth it if they save real infantry divisions the hell of being rolled over by tanks, or damage a unit that can't easily be repaired while on the campaign.

But in any event, the light unit should be pushing up grass afterward.

"Plow them under at Austerlitz -
Plow them under and let me work.
I am the grass, I cover all"

[Jerry Sindle]

The idea of having obsolete just "disappear" requires rethinking.

Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1939??. The Italians had tanks and infantry and airpower. The Ethiopians had riflemen and spearmen. The Ethiopian Army fought bravely, lost as expected, and earned the respect of the world.

The Polish Army in 1939 stood up to German Panzers with calvery.

History is replete with examples of less-modern nations (civs) fighting (and losing) with obselete units.

You've never seen headlines like "Ethiopian Army declares itself obsolete and disbands - Italy invades against no opposition!" Think of the uproar on these pages that that would cause. Thousands of we part-time players would throw our games away in disgust. "I was truckin' right along and then I discovered Electricity and my army disappeared! This game sucks!"

That would leave Fireaxis to sell its later games to the fifty or so of you guys who are very good at this game. (with the attendant hit in its profit margin).

Stated another way - having obsolete units "just disappear" would dramatically and negatively affect playability.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by Jerry Sindle
The idea of having obsolete just "disappear" requires rethinking.

Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1939??. The Italians had tanks and infantry and airpower. The Ethiopians had riflemen and spearmen. The Ethiopian Army fought bravely, lost as expected, and earned the respect of the world.

The Polish Army in 1939 stood up to German Panzers with calvery.

History is replete with examples of less-modern nations (civs) fighting (and losing) with obselete units.

You've never seen headlines like "Ethiopian Army declares itself obsolete and disbands - Italy invades against no opposition!" Think of the uproar on these pages that that would cause. Thousands of we part-time players would throw our games away in disgust. "I was truckin' right along and then I discovered Electricity and my army disappeared! This game sucks!"

That would leave Fireaxis to sell its later games to the fifty or so of you guys who are very good at this game. (with the attendant hit in its profit margin).

Stated another way - having obsolete units "just disappear" would dramatically and negatively affect playability.

No offense, but your history is as bad as your spelling.

First it is "cavalry", not "calvery".

The Poles in 1939 did not attack the Germans with cavalry. Their army was primary infantry with a small number of obsolete tanks. The cavalry they did have was trained in using anti-tank weapons and fighting on foot. The Germans were just too modern in weapons and tactics. So drop that old baloney about the Poles and cavalry in 1939.

The Ethiopian Army against Italy had spears ONLY for ceremonies. They were using obsolescent World War One era weapons including older rifles, some machine guns, and a little artillery. The Italians won ONLY because of their widespread use of the horrible mustard gas on Ethiopians with no defense against it.

But you're right about obsolete units, whenever they do occur, disappearing. They get upgraded.

The solution to the Age problem is to increase certain units' strengths so that there is a bigger difference between units from different Ages. For instance, add two points to a musketman's attack value and three to his defense value. That will end any attacks by swordsmen, or any failure of musketmen to successfully attack spearmen. Adjust other units accordingly, such as frigates gain two points each, ironclads four more, destroyers six more, and the like. You won't see many more ironclads sinking when attacking frigates.

BTW, we need a lot more units (and techs and advances) in Civ III.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
No offense, but your history is as bad as your spelling. . . . That will end any attacks by swordsmen, or any failure of musketmen to successfully attack spearmen. . . . BTW, we need a lot more units (and techs and advances) in Civ III.

Fact is, musketry did not obsolete the sword. Britannica states:

The changes in warfare associated with the introduction of firearms did not eliminate the sword but rather proliferated its types. The discarding of body armour made it necessary for the swordsman to be able to parry with his weapon, and the thrust-and-parry rapier came into use. . . .

The introduction of repeating firearms virtually ended the value of the sword as a military weapon, though isolated instances of its use continued in 20th-century wars.

Feel free to adjust the values in the editor, but any change which makes muskets invincible against sword would be fanciful.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
No offense, but your history is as bad as your spelling. . . .
The Poles in 1939 did not attack the Germans with cavalry. Their army was primary infantry with a small number of obsolete tanks. The cavalry they did have was trained in using anti-tank weapons and fighting on foot. The Germans were just too modern in weapons and tactics. So drop that old baloney about the Poles and cavalry in 1939.

Again with the Britannica:

". . . many of the Polish military leaders clung to the double belief that their preponderance of horsed cavalry was an important asset and that they could take the offensive against the German mechanized forces.

[Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe]

i think when ur extremly waealthy you should be able to mass upgrade units... takes for ever to do it even through the advisors..

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe
i think when ur extremly waealthy you should be able to mass upgrade units... takes for ever to do it even through the advisors..

Ctrl-u on an active military unit, in a city with a barracks, will upgrade all like units, which are also in a city with a barracks.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Ctrl-u on an active military unit, in a city with a barracks, will upgrade all like units, which are also in a city with a barracks.

Finally : i've been looking for that key combination

Thanks!

[Qilue]

I'm another that has no problem with the current combat system.

Frigate sinks submarine.

Instead of - "How the hell can a frigate sink a submarine"
Try saying - "Bah, should have trained some monkeys, they might have done a better job"

Spearman defeats tank.

Instead of - "No way a spearman could beat a tank"
Try saying - "Maybe I shouldn't have recruited those unemployed Iraqi tank commanders?"

Elite Battleship down to 1 HP after sinking a galley.

Instead of - "This combat system is retarded"
I usually say - "****, how am I supposed to win a war when I have morons like this crewing my ships?"

This sort of thing can ease the feelings of loss associated when a combat result goes against you.

[Tarquelne]

Re: Unit Strengths by Era

Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS
What are your thoughts on the units, per era?

So numerous I don't feel like explaining them all.
I've tweaked, I believe, almost every unit in the game. Hmm... come to think of it, my first round of tweaks were _all_ implimented by Firaxis in the first patch. Hey, Firaxis, how about I just send you my tweaks, and save you some time.

Any favorite combined arms strategies or exploits?

I think it'd be nifty if (as I saw someone already suggest) armies got special "combined arms" bonuses based on the type of units placed within them. (I'm not sure if you can currently really use "combined arms" in Civ3, since you can only move 1 unit at a time. I think of "combined arms" as something more sophisticated that using bombard units to bombard, high-def. units to defend, and high-atk./fast units to attack.)

How potent do you find the unique units versus their era peers?

Well, depends on the unit. As I'm sure Firaxis knows, the lower the origional non-UU stat, the bigger the effect of a UU's +1 is going to be. So, the +1 for Mounted Warriors or Hopolites is a pretty big deal. On the whole, I'd like to see the later UU's made more potent, the earlier ones a bit less powerfull... I don't suppose a straight +25% in the combat results would be possible? Rather than a bonus to a combat stat?

Muskateers: I gave 'em a +1 to move, and kept the (rather useless) +1 to attack. (The 3 attack is nice against injured cavalry, though.) I always pictured "musketeers" on horses, anyway.

Elephants: Are you _sure_ they should be a Med., not an Ancient unit? From what I've read the ancients thought elephants were pretty cool as cavalry ("So big, so gray! Such long noses!") by the Med. era the Indians, at least, had figured out that horses were much to be prefered. I moved Elephants to the ancient era (with appropriate adustments to cost) and made them 3/1/1 (the MW's were bumped to 2/2/2)). This also removed the "glut" of of Med. Knight varients.

MoW: Given the relatively unimportant role of naval units I thought a naval-UU should be really special. I made the MoW more expenisve, but much nastier.

F-15: What, increased FP and bombard, isn't it? I still don't think it's enough, because the bombard _still_ isn't high enough to reliably damage anything. (It's a pain to send multiple f15's on bombard missions "just in case" they get a little lucky and score a hit.) I don't know what you could do about it, though, without horning in too much on the bomber's role.
What I'd be most happy with is: F15 removed as the special unit, replaced either by an UU Stealth Bomber or (since the SB comes so late), the B17 (or whichever "flying fortress" was deployed in the greatest numbers) as the US UU.


An addition I'd like to see: A way to set maintenance costs individually for each unit. Maybe a check box for x2 cost or x3 cost?

[player1]

Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS
What are your thoughts on the units, per era?

My thoughts:

Just click on the link below my post.

[Coracle]

Re: Unit Strengths by Era

Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS
What are your thoughts on the units, per era? Any favorite combined arms strategies or exploits? Any upgrade holes? How potent do you find the unique units versus their era peers?

Thanks.

Jeff

I think the unit strengths and capabilities that came with the original crappy mod are terrible, stupid, and non-historical.

I edited all of them long ago.

[player1]

Re: Re: Unit Strengths by Era

Originally posted by Coracle
I think the unit strengths and capabilities that came with the original crappy mod are terrible, stupid, and non-historical.

I edited all of them long ago.

Hmm...

OK!

So why don't post some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

Like, what have you chaged?

And more important: Why?


P.S.
This *IS* a FIRAXIS listening thread.

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: Re: Unit Strengths by Era

Originally posted by player1
So why don't post some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
. . .
P.S.
This *IS* a FIRAXIS listening thread.

Good point. My 2-cents:

Naval
1. Naval combat only really mattered historically because of trade. Navies have to be able to stop sea trade.
2. Subs should bombard, and then hide.
3. Modern naval units should be quite a bit faster than ancient units.
4. Bombard should sink ships. Ships should have aa.
5. Age of sail and cannon should be longer.

Barbarians
1. There should be areas of the map, which are uninhabitable until engineering. This would allow spawning grounds for hordes.
2. Barbarians should have multiple unit types, including ships.
3. Barbarians should be able to capture cities.

Trade
1. You should not be able to trade techs or anything else unless you have a route through friendly territory. This would slow tech trading and allow for the development of middle men, such as the Arab control of the spice trade.
2. Global trade should be delayed. Perhaps it takes Magellans to get it started, or Columbus' voyage.
3. There should be some way to control ocean trade with naval power. The sun never sets on the British Empire.