Unit Strengths by Era

[teaster]

Excellent defensive strategy MysteryMan to use forts to slow, harrass and contain an offensive especailly with the addition of barriers in c3c.

I have always been a fan of using static defenses such as forts and city garrisons to blunt an offensive in combination. Along with a fast mobile force to counter attack the enemes damaged units and retake any lost cities before he can bring in slower defensive units to protect them.

[civ_italy]

Originally posted by Ben Williams
Below are the unit changes I think would improve the game in my humble opinion.

More than anything I think late industrial-to-modern warfare has to be changed. Marines are almost totally useless and gurrillas more so. By that point in the game you probably have all the resources you need, so just building tanks is the way to go. Tanks and mech infantry should be much less powerful when not on flat turrain, making way for non-mech units to play a role in war, especially when the country has a lot of forests, jungles, hills and mountains. Conversely, I'd raise attack on both marines and gurrilas and give gurillas an attack and defense bonus as well as movement bonus in difficult turrain. Think about Vietnam, we had tanks but couldn't use them in the thick jungle, so we had to use infantry and marines. This would also up the importance of helicoptors, which are practially useless as it stands because there's nothing worth airdropping by the time you get them.

Bombard should be much more powerful as units get more advanced. Stealth bombers should hardly ever miss units out in the open, though they should have a more difficult time on difficult terrain (hills, jungle etc...). Stealth planes should be more expensive and more powerful, in the real world a stealth bomber costs $2 billion, more than its weight in gold. Sams should take shots at cruise missiles, which should have a greater range and be able to be fired from ships. Finally, infantry and other foot units should get a defensive bonus against bombard when fortified or in fortresses, signifying that they've "dug in."

You're right about tanks and vehicles, they shouldn't be able to cross mountains without roads (just like in Call to Power... a game not so stupid as many people believe), and they should be penalized in forests and hills; at present, in modern era, mod-armours and mech-inf are the only units you need, any other is ridicolous (chopper and paratroops are a real waste of time and money).
About bombardments, now in Conquest they are really
lethal (maybe too much !!) especially from aircraft.

[annoyed]

I know subs and bombardment were brought up earlier but I would like the developers to add to the editor the ability to adjust whether a sea unit can bombard land or not. I want to give subs ranged bombard to reflect torpedoes, but obviously do not want them to have the ability to bombard land.

2ndly, shouldn't certain units have attack liabilities depending on terrain, and shouldn't this be reflected in the editor. Example, according to the editor pikemen have better defense capability against mounted units, but where is that reflected in the editor. Mounted and armored units should be penalized for city fighting, adding to the necessity for assualt infantry and artillery, which is not only more realistic, but gives a reason for the existence of foot soldiers besides as solely defence in cities. Also I would love to have anti-tank weapontry available, but need edit for armor.

Another way to add variety would be to make it possible to vary support cost for the units, especially mounted, armour, artillery, and in my opinion assualt troops(this would be one way to reflect that the men who actually led the charge were in short supply compared to the ordinary foot soldier. Also could reflect engineering corps that were used against fortifications).

I have never seen this last item addressed, but I hate that only 2+move units can retreat. Retreat is an often used time honoured tradion in the military annals of world history, used by every race,creed, and color when a rearwards advance was just the tactic to foil your enemies plans. From what I have read even men who only had their own feet to propel themselves towards safer ground would not hesitate to do so. This would also make it possible to use mounted units more often in another of their historical roles, that of mop-up unit. The retreat percentage could be adjusted as desired, but at the least this should be an editible feature.

[Commy]

That would be nice, giving guerrila the ability to retreat. Another cool thing, if it hasn't already been mentioned (who wants to read 6 pages of forums?), would be landmines and hovercraft. Landmines would be planted by workers, and would destroy or damage units that entered that square. Then hovercrafts could be added, units that were not affected by landmines. Oh the possibilities...

[Jerry Sindle]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by annoyed
I know subs and bombardment were brought up earlier but I would like the developers to add to the editor the ability to adjust whether a sea unit can bombard land or not. I want to give subs ranged bombard to reflect torpedoes, but obviously do not want them to have the ability to bombard land.

The US Navy had a land attack capability since the middle fifties in its submarines - the Regulas cruise missile. The Soviets had a land attack version of the SS-N-3 Shaddock since the early sixties. Today, the harpoon and Soviet variant SS-N-25 continue the capability.

The cruise missile gives the submarine a land attack capability and that is accurately reflected in the game.

Most modern submarines have a ranged attack capability with the US Mark 48 and the soviet 63cm wake homing torpedo - up to 50nm in the Soviet case.
What limits their employment to maximum range is the sensors that would indicate to them their is a target worth shooting at that distance. In many cases, they could detect a target at that distance passively, but their is no guarantee what-so-ever that their solutions are accurate - modern underwater acoustics can be very accurate sometimes, and just plain awful on others, and the sub can't tell the difference from its perspective without some forward observer providing them confermation that their target is where they say it is. That requires a data-link receive capability - subs have it, but they have to raise an antenna to receive the datalink, something they do not like to do.

Very respectfully,

Kowabunga

[vmxa1]

WWII subs often had a 5 inch gun on the deck that could be used to bombard either land or sea targets.

[Jerry Sindle]

Originally posted by vmxa1
WWII subs often had a 5 inch gun on the deck that could be used to bombard either land or sea targets.

vmxa1

What you write is true, but slightly misleading. Land attack - shore bombardment in Navalese - requires intensive crew training. You have a moving vessle on an ocean that is moving in some other direction firing at a stationary target ashore viewed by an observer from some other direction than what the ship is viewing it from - Gun Target Line vs Observer Target Line.

Warships whose primary mission is shore bombardment practice it extensively. Warships like submarines who have shore bombardment as - at best - a secondary mission hardly practice it all.

Having said all that, if the nation needed subs to shore bombard, the subs would get good at it.

Nowadays, the missile electronics solves the moving ship on moving ocean, gun target line vs observer target line problem.

Very respectfully,

Jerry Sindle

[Commy]

I think that if you want to bombard the coast, you need to use a battleship or cruiser, not a frigging submarine, key word being sub. See, that's the problem with making games like civ. Where to draw the line. You want lots of options details, and complexities, but not to much. Having subs bombing the coast is like, surreal. No machine gun can damage a thousand tanks when it just feels like pulling up onto the beach. The cruise missiles with the submarines are about as good as it should get. Same reason landmines were taken out of SMAC. Too complex. Landmines and hovercrafts and retreating guerrila and special forces and bombing subs are all nice, and too some extent realistic, but they just aren't needed. I would bet 50 bucks and a dead duck that if all the stuff we dreamed of was added to civ3, almost none of it would ever get used or be understood.

Okay, I'm done now...

[akulla]

Originally posted by vmxa1
WWII subs often had a 5 inch gun on the deck that could be used to bombard either land or sea targets.

Maybe against a China Junk, or something.

[Brundlefly]

+1

[Anaximander]

The deck gun on submarines was a very effective weapon against unarmed opponents. In fact, in many instances its use was prefered over torpedos. Your deck gun ammunition was plentiful and cheap. Most old subs ran on the surface most of the time. Their speed and efficiency was greatly reduced underwater. Of course, as subs evolved this all changed. Subs today run faster under the water than they do on the surface and the idea of making a surface attack in a modern submarine is laughable.

An argument for giving older submarines a bombardment capability is reasonable, but not newer subs, as cruise missiles take care of bombardment.

[akulla]

Originally posted by Anaximander
The deck gun on submarines was a very effective weapon against unarmed opponents. In fact, in many instances its use was prefered over torpedos. Your deck gun ammunition was plentiful and cheap. Most old subs ran on the surface most of the time. Their speed and efficiency was greatly reduced underwater. Of course, as subs evolved this all changed. Subs today run faster under the water than they do on the surface and the idea of making a surface attack in a modern submarine is laughable.

An argument for giving older submarines a bombardment capability is reasonable, but not newer subs, as cruise missiles take care of bombardment.

So a 5 in gun should be able to destroy, roads, or mines or irigation I dont think so.

[Anaximander]

Should a frigate? Or an Ironclad? Yet they are used for those purposes in the game, although in real life neither was really used for either. I am not arguing that a sub should be given a bombardment capability, but I will argue that it could be given a bombardment capability, although it would be a weak one.

[akulla]

Very swell.

[Commy]

Originally posted by Anaximander
Should a frigate? Or an Ironclad? Yet they are used for those purposes in the game, although in real life neither was really used for either. I am not arguing that a sub should be given a bombardment capability, but I will argue that it could be given a bombardment capability, although it would be a weak one.

An ironclad or frigate could, however, pull close to shore and land some cannon balls on enemy troops...naval bombardment probably shouldn't be able to destroy improvements (neither should artillery, only air units), but it can do damage to the shoreline...a 5 inch gun isn't going to be able to do much bombardment compared to 60 5 ft. long cannons, even if the gun is more advanced...