Unit Power.

[Inverse Icarus]

According to the civ of the week stuff, a normal archer is 2-1-1, and a chariot is 1-1-2.

who remembers the mighty 4-1 chariot of civ 1? then the 3-1 chariot of civ 2. now 1-1.



how strong do units get Firaxis? are Armors (or tanks) still 10?

[splangy]

I was surpried by this as well, what the hell will a warior be ! but i guess if all units are toned down it counteracts itself and there is no real change, howwever i hope they get a major boost at gunpowder, that would be realistic no more chariot defeating musketeers, thats for sure

i just noticed somthing, the egyption chariot and the babylonian archer are EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

[CIA_Operative]

the babylonian archer are EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

Haha maybe the mig and the F15 might be 2/1/2 s also!!

[SK138]

It is a little odd that the chariot is so low on attack and defense, the warrior has go to be 1 attack 1 defense right? Maybe the chariot is further down on the tech tree so you learn it faster, but how much lower could it be?

[tniem]

It appears that they are going to eliminate phalanx defeating tank by simply making the math of it impossible. Smaller numbers for early units and larger numbers later make it even less mathematically possible for any damage to be inflicted upon modern units by early game units. Means upgrading is going to be even more essential throughout the game.

[Phutnote]

Yeah, the unit values are kinda different.

And it's a little odd that war chariots and babylonian archers are identical. Puzzling. I don't think the unique units are going to have a huge impact on the game. It's kinda too bad they aren't more distinctive.

attack value of 1 for a regular chariot's a real surprise. That's no better than a typical warrior. I guess they can hunt settlers/workers (0.0.1) or scouts (0.0.2) I remember not having much luck with units of strength 1 attacking units of strength 1. Basically forget it, the odds aren't with you if the enemy fortifies itself or is in any terrain other than open.

So far the values I've seen are:

settler/worker (0.0.1)

scouts (0.0.2) a default unit I think

chariots (1.1.2) egyptian (2.1.2)

archers (2.1.1) babylonian (2.1.2)

knights (4.3.2)

swordsmen (3.2.1)

french musketeers (3.4.1)

catapults (0(4).0.1)

I wonder what horsemen will be? 2.1.2 as well? That will make chariots and baby archers obsolete real fast (it's the tech right after the wheel chariot one).

Doesn't look like the Egyptians or bab's will have unique units around for long, and if they don't run into another civ real fast they aren't going to have a golden age.

Are there fractional values with these things? Perhaps having armies makes 1.1.2 chariots useful? Maybe that's why the unit strengths have been shifted.

Anyone know if firepower is still in, or if the ancient units have varying numbers of 'hit points'? No mention of it is made in the description of the units for the civ, so I'm guessing they're all the same for the same era.

Interested to see what values pop up in next weeks civ of the week.

Phutnote

[Inverse Icarus]

i dont think CSUs will go obsolete, or they shouldnt.

i should be able to build impis in 2000 ad

[SerapisIV]

Egyptian chariots versus riflemen? Ancient units, CSU or not, should be obsolete by the industrial age at the very latest.

[The diplomat]

Maybe the lower values are also meant to encourage stacked armies?
If you have standard chariots, archers and warriors at almost the same level then a 1 on 1 fight becomes more dicy. Especially if the defender is fortified, you are definitely not going to attack them with just one unit of similar att/def strength. So, we will want to have stack armies to try to overpower them.

[Grumbold]

I think you could be right. They are attempting to prevent 1 v 1 fights being practical at the start of the game so expansion is slowed even further because only armies can push outward and you will only have a very few of those. A novel way of stopping scouts exploring the biggest continent by 1000 B.C. Settlers may have to go a-settling with an armed guard rather than risking a few turns of being unprotected too.

Of course this is going to make barbarians a major pain in the butt if they prefer to pillage and force you to attack them. I still haven't figured out how a warband 'pillages' a road anyway. Since Roman roads survive in Britain today it looks like the Angles, Celts, Vikings, Danes, Saxons, Picts, Irish, Welsh, revolting peasants and other visitors must not have had the knack, whatever it is.

[Inverse Icarus]

all roads lead to rome my friend.

the romans were way ahead of their time for all feats of engineering.

maybe the romans should have the ability to build roads faster.

and egypt could irrigate faster.

and britian could mine faster.

and america could um. err... eat its young faster.

[General Ludd]

It's possible that different units have special properties, or that they work with each other within the stacked army.

[Urban Ranger]

It's silly that chariots has a 1 attack factor. It should have been a 3 or 4, but make them expensive to build. Maybe double the prior cost.

It seems like that now the expansionist special ability can be really awesome, if your scout can bring out a bunch of mercenaries from the goodie huts early

[JellyDonut]

By having very low attack/defence values for early units and very high ones for later units you can prevent the phalanx beats tank phenomenon. We get 1/1/2 units in the beginning but 15/17/5 units later (guesstimates, not real numbers).

[Urban Ranger]

The solution is not to reduce the power of the early units because their strengths still have to make sense when compared to each other. Clearly a chariot unit should be able to pulverise a warrior unit.

The solution is to increase the power of later units.