Unit Strengths by Era

[Coracle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Unit Strengths by Era

Originally posted by Zachriel


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.

I couldn't possibly agree more!!!

The entire point historically of privateers and submarines was to attack TRADE and merchantmen - not enemy warships. American privateers decimated British shipping in the American Revolution.
The Germans almost won two world wars doing the same thing with subs.

Firaxis' lame and dumb naval warfare - and inability to damage trade - might be the single thing I hate most about the game other than Culture Flipping.

Your other points are on the nose, also.

[rpodos]

Forget harbors for inter-continental or inter-island trade... go back to caravans for such. Integrate in some way with the existing trade model... for instance, you still negotiate the trade, but it only goes into effect when the caravans arrive. Also, make sure that the world building algorithms UNevenly distribute resources across the different land masses. Believe me, if you just acquired a boatload of iron, but need to make sure it gets to you, you're gonna focus on your navy a lot more!! And if there were some way to capture ships rather than just destroy them... I can see great strategies, both individually and in concert with other civs.

R

[civman2000]

OK, I'm too lazy to read the whole thread so other people have probably already said this but:
1. Paratroopers and marines are way too weak.
2. Swordsmen and longbowmen should upgrade and there should be a couple offensive infantry units in the late middle ages and mid industrial age.
3. Ironclads should upgrade to destroyers.
4. The most annoying of all: Tanks should have 3 moves and not be slower than cavalry, and cavalry should upgrade to them. Panzers and modern tanks should have 4 moves; mech infantry should have 3.

[Signa]

Ancient Warfare:

I think the ancient times units should be like this...

FOOTMEN
Warriors (1.1.1)
Spearmen (1.2.1)
Archers (2.1.1)
Swordsmen (3.2.1) *need Iron

MOUNTED
Chariots (1.1.2) *need Horses
Horsemen (2.1.2) *need Horses
Elephants (2.2.2) *need Horses & Iron

BOMBARDMENT
Archers (3.1.1)
Catapults (6.1.2)

NAVAL UNITS
Galleys (1.2.3)
Trimenes (2.1.3)

The "War Elephant" would be the Indian UU, replacing the Elephant with and extra attack. The only other change besides the above ones would be to switch the Immortals and Legions statistics so the Legions are the most powerful early attackers.

Now lets do a little "WHY SHOULD WE DO THAT?"

Warriors (1.1.1)
Stay the same, no need to explain.

Spearman (1.2.1)
Please read above statement on Warriors.

Archers (2.1.1 [3.1.1])
Giving them bombardment makes them a LITTLE better, and more of a support unit which in reality they were. When attacking they should draw a bronze sword or something similar.

Swordsmen (3.2.1)
Another one in which no changes are needed.

Chariots (1.1.2)
Needs a little more attack, but it works.

Horsemen (2.1.2)
Speedy and powerful, no complaints here.

Elephants (2.2.2)
This is somewhat of a radical idea. I loved Elephants in CivII, and want them back. Plus, it gives you a powerful attacker and defender with speed all rolled into one. In the game they would be an awesome unit. But at the same time they would require both of the strategic resources, not be avaliable to Polytheism, and have a large shield cost, balancing them out a little. Overall, the Modern Armor of the ancient era, able to almost anything at anytime. Plus it would put a little pressure on those Swordsmen who right now are a little comfty in their top spot.

Catapults (0.0.0 [6.1.2])
Needs a little more power overall, very underrated in essence.

Galleys (1.2.3)
Right now ancient sea warfare is so easy and boring I fall asleep. We need to diversify. Galleys get an extra defense point.

Triremes (2.1.3)
Add in the old Civ2 Trireme to be the more "offensive" style unit and we might have more interesting sea battles. Of course later unit stats may need refinements because of this.

[Kinson Ravinlok]

First off, I just signed up so I would like to say, "nice to meet everyone".

I have just spent the last two days reading just about every post here at your forum. Lots of good ideas here.

Over all I find the game pretty well balanced.

The one thing I never did see mentioned is something like escort missions for bombers with fighters. what ya think?

[Signa]

Some More Stuff...

I just remenbered something I wanted to add...

Ditch the Longbowman as a regular unit...
Get the Crossbowman in there instead...
Give the English the Longbowman as their UU.
Stats: CBM [3.2.1] LBM [4.2.1]; (Knights [5.2.2])

[louiethelesbo]

Racist

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh oh! Excellent question Jeff!

Ancient Era:
Swordsmen are too good for the money....all the defensive power of a spear-chucker,
-=Vel=-

Nice retort...with a dated racist comment meant to incite people of color. Tell us ..you south carolina hick...do you still fly the "stars 'n bars"

[Arrian]

Um, I seriously doubt that's what Vel meant. He was talking about spearmen (1 attack, 2 defense, 1 move). "Spearchucker" = spearman in this case. All civs in the game have spearmen, except for the Greeks. He was discussing the strength of swordsmen in the ancient era, not trying to incite people of color.

I've seen a lot of posts from Vel on these forums, and have never gotten the impression that he is a racist or a hick, despite being from South Carolina. It's possible that I'm wrong, but I think it's more likely that you are overeacting to what you perceive as a racial comment.

-Arrian

(to make this clear, since there has been a misunderstanding in the past, Arrian does NOT = Aryan. Flavius Arrianus Xenophon was an ethnically Greek Roman who wrote an excellent history of Alexander the Great, among other things)

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Arrian
to make this clear, since there has been a misunderstanding in the past, Arrian does NOT = Aryan.

Why it is a shame to be an Aryan? A big part of the "native" Europeans (without immigrants), including Russians and Indians are of Aryan descent.

EDIT: Since a big part of Americans are of European descent, lots of Americans are also Aryans , may be you too?

[Arrian]

Sir Ralph,

Well, it's all about that silly Nazi idea of Aryan racial purity. In reality, there is nothing wrong with actually being of Aryan descent, but neo-nazis who march around with swastikas and call themselves things like "Aryan Nation" sorta taints "Aryan" as a term. Basically, people who proudly claim to be Aryan, at least here in the USA, are usually neo-nazis. Hence my disclaimer.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

I sympathize with Arrian's disclaimer.

Back on point:

I STILL say Immortals... with all the defense of a spear-chucker.

heh heh

[realpolitic]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by David Weldon
whooo, boy. You're in for it now, Jeff...

I'll just mention a few things, but there will be a bunch o' rants here before long:

Mounted Warriors are the most dominant UU in the game. This could be intentional to make up for crappy civ strengths, but pop rushing this unit will win any game on any level before the end of the Industrial age (standard maps and smaller).

Jaguar Warriors are hot (pre 1.17 patch). Although it doesn't make sence to pop rush them, starting the game with them and explorers are a plus, but the Aztec civ strengths are awful.

[Arrian]

Iroquois and Aztec civ attributes weak?? I beg to differ. Religious is the best trait in the game. Expansionist is a solid trait on the larger maps (though I'll grant that it's weaker the smaller the map gets), while militaristic is a really good trait for warmongering - lots of great leaders.

I used to think militaristic wasn't a good trait - until I started warmongering early and often as Japan (same traits as Aztecs). Now I love that trait.

MW's are powerful, it's true, but so are some of the other ancient UU's. On certain maps, Immortals may be even more powerful. Given the change in poprushing in the 1.21 patch, poprushing large numbers of MW's will take longer, although the unhappiness won't be as bad.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

I think it's a tribute to the game that we are still having these differences of, and evolution of, opinion.

[Sprint_ST_NYC]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unit Strengths by Era

Originally posted by Coracle



Firaxis' lame and dumb naval warfare - and inability to damage trade - might be the single thing I hate most about the game other than Culture Flipping.

Want to damage enemy trade? Just keep bombarding his harbors until you kill the harbor building. No harbors=no sea trade.

Simple, no?