Marines and Paratroopers what are they??!!

[TinCow]

How about altering the paratrooper and another useless unit (helicopter) to make them both useful when used together? I'm sure that people can come up with better ideas, but maybe helicopters can act as 'mini' armies that can only be used by paratroopers. Two paratroopers (max) could be loaded into an Airborne Army, and their paradrop range would be increased by 4. This would make them a decent offensive force, IMHO.

[korn469]

the number one thing the helicopter need is more movement points, also it would be cool if helicopters could pick up units in the field and bring them back to the city where the helicopter was located at

so in everyone's opinion what are the underpowered units?

to me here is the list

all naval is fairly weak
all air is fairly weak
then the especially helpless units

in my opinion these are the 6 most useless ground units in the game

Army
Paratrooper
Helicopter
Marine
Radar Artillary
Musketman

[Ironikinit]

korn,

By default, I agree with much of your list. By that I mean, I've never bothered to build helicopters, marines, paratroopers or radar artillery. RadArt I suppose could be useful but by then bombardment has been taken over by bombers for me.

Armies, OK, I use them, but I know their value is debatable. Some find them worthless, I don't, esp. when the tech is comparible.

I don't get the inclusion of musketmen, though. They're just another defensive unit, one stronger than pikes, one weaker than rifles and as useful as any in their time.

[MikeV]

Originally posted by korn469
moving diagonally starting with the gold square you can get your modern armor setting on a moutain beside of their New Nottingham in one turn

Agreed. Good analysis, thanks.

But I'd rather use the MI & Armor to blitz through several other cities this turn, rather than doing nothing other than moving through the hills for next turn. Especially for a little pop. 2 town.

[Captain]

I realize it's just a game and NOT a historical sim,
but that said, it does reality. Paratroopers have never been effective against the land counterparts unless they had huge numerical superiority, surprise, AND support.

In reality:
1. They can take out only lightly defended stuff.
2. They're extremely vulnerable.
3. They are expensive to train.
4. They can reach ordinarily inaccessible spots much faster than regular units and thus could catch an enemy unprepared.

In the game:
1. true, but maybe a bit too weak
2. true
3. true
4. useless, RR's make this pointless

In reality, they're MOSTLY useless in large scale conflict. They're good in small scale stuff. BUT in the game, they're useless ALL AROUND! They're just cannon fodder. Really expensive fodder!

If the paradrop didn't use up their move, that would be less realistic, but more useful and thus, IMHO, more fun to use.

[Cossack]

I think that marines are slightly underpowered, I think some of that is due to the combat system, but in general I find them only useful for specialised landings against specific targets and of course you need a good size navy in order to bombard the opposition forces down.

I agree with some of the previous posts that Paratroopers on the other hand are completely useless now, in CIV II they were useful for capturing cities because you could destroy ground units with bombers. However, with the new bombardment rules of CIV III and the fact that you cannot destroy ground units (a point which I agree with, ships are a different matter) the main problem is that they haven't changed the rules for railways.

I think this could be corrected by two simple things, firstly, there could be a limit to the number and possibly distance you can move units along railways determined by the amount of money you allocate to your railway system (exchange of loss in economic production for military deployment).

Secondly, railways increasing production in every square is ridiculous and Firaxis should have been more imaginative by allowing different terrain enhancements throughout the ages to produce the same effects as railroad and reducing rail to almost purely connectional role as in SMAC.

As a result you do not build railroads everywhere as you are still trying to build all the future enhancements that provide the benefits of the old railroad, for example irrigation to farmland from CIV II, and for hills and mountains a modern mining complex and for grassland a quarry (limited to only so many per city or by ecological effects and population unhappiness).

Once railroad is in a purely connectional role and paratroopers are allowed a number of additional abilities such as:

1. Increased pillage abilities.

2. Enhanced combat factors abilities for example such as tanks/armour in mountainous regions get negative attack factors against infantry-type units such as paratroopers.

3. A terrain enhancement - bridge which could be captured/pillaged

Then paratroopers may be useful for disrupting the enemy's movement by being able to effectly destroy critical points in the enemy's transportation network and other terrain enhancements inaccessible by other units as there would be no reason to put railroads everywhere anymore.

Just some thoughts.

The English Cossack

[PapaLenin]

Thx for answering.
My conlcusion is that paratroopers and marines stats should be 10/10 and their cost 11 or 12. Maybe then they will become useful???

Just tried to edit the railroadmovement but how couldn't I guess. U can't edit it. YIIHAAA FIRAXIS keep up the good work cause I actually love the game where is editor with there is nothing to edit.

[korn469]

with a few simple changes (all of them but once can be done in the editor) firaxis could fix the problems with marines and paratroopers, there isn't any reason to do anything drastic because in both cases their main problem is they aren't as cost effective as other offensive units

marines need to be either 12/6 or 10/6 and cost 100 +resources, they are not fundamentally flawed, just a little weak

paratroopers need to be like 10/8 cost 100 +respurces, have an airdrop range of 8 and then most importantly when they airdrop it must NOT use up their turn

those simple little changes would make both of them worthwhile, because the unit that is the measuring stick for them is the tank, and they should provide about the same amount of bang for the buck as tanks do

[=DrJambo=]

WHat i did to increase the use of marines, paradroppers and helicopters:

Marine:
Made them 10/6.

Paradroppers:
Made them 8/8.
Gave them a range of 8.
Gave them a movement of 2.

Helicopters:
Can carry 2 units.
Range of 8.
Radar.

THis helps increase the worth of these units!

[TinCow]

Here's an idea... what is paratroopers were able to 'secure' the tiles they landed on (making them the equivalent of friendly territory)? By dropping a large number of paratroopers before an invasion, you could do two things:

1) Secure the enemies' roads/rails. A long line of paratroopers could hold a supply route through enemy territory, allowing normal travel along the roads (not full on RRs, maybe treat RRs like roads).

2) If Battlefield Medicine isn't present, this would enable friendly units to rest in squares held by paratroopers.

This is a stretch, the most useful thing would definitely be to give them their movement after drop (and fix army movement as well) and give them a couple extra points in attack.

[DrFell]

Marines were useless in civ2 as well. Again due to the low attack value... they need to be a lot cheaper or more powerful, perhaps with a special retreat ability. Paratroopers in civ2 were highly specialised units, best for the nuke+paradrop in tactic, and the paradrop+pillage (best used in the ww2 scenario who's name i forget right now). Never used them in civ3 but from the sounds of it they're pretty crappy.

[DrFell]

In fact you sometimes wonder how game designers manage to create these useless units. I mean, extensive testing would surely prove them useless, in some cases even one look at the stats. Yet they show up in a lot of games.

[PapaLenin]

In fact you sometimes wonder how game designers manage to create these useless units. I mean, extensive testing would surely prove them useless, in some cases even one look at the stats. Yet they show up in a lot of games.

Yep. And not only that, I was just playing a game and got so pissed!!! I attacked the undeveloped Rome with 3 cavalry and one rifleman - didn't expect much but their goddam legion killed my rifleman with first attack. A ****ing legion!!! 3vs6 stupid ****... After English attacked my Cavalry with swordsman and killed it. 3vs3 it ok. But then I attack their swordguy with cavalry and the cavalry loses!!! IT 6v2 for ****'s sake!!! Firaxis should do something to combat system or change attack and def values and A.S.A.P!!!!!!!!

I like civ game but hate this one cause it's so undone really... Combat system useless units suckass diplomacy... makes me feel bad and mad

[Willem]

Originally posted by PapaLenin
A ****ing legion!!! 3vs6 stupid ****... After English attacked my Cavalry with swordsman and killed it. 3vs3 it ok. But then I attack their swordguy with cavalry and the cavalry loses!!!

If you were attacked with a sword, would you not bleed? I guess your sentries pulling guard duty weren't doing their job.

[bahoo]

Originally posted by Captain
If the paradrop didn't use up their move, that would be less realistic, but more useful and thus, IMHO, more fun to use.

I don't see what's so unrealistic about paradropping AND moving in the span of say, umm, a year. Especially considering other units can ride a train the entire way across a continent.