Civ III Units Workshop

[Youngsun]

Yuvo How's it going?

quote: I am a bit worried about the graphical representation

Me too man, so I suggested that 5 major culture blocs would be enough and reasonable. and as time goes by the distinctiveness of unit icons will be reduced and evetually end up like the same by modern era.(perhaps Russian & eastern style ,US & her allies style and Third world army style?)

quote: when you put legion armour on an elephant, it covers the whole thing, rather than the size of a legion.

If you have played MOO2 you would know each chassis has different capacity to hold any weapons or equipments. Thus armours for men would not fit for Elephants I think. Except infantry units all other units should be manned by crews and in that sense, elephants are part of many other equipments.

Men+(Swords+armours+shields) = swordmen
Men+(Lances+elephants+bows) = war elephants
Men+(Lances+armours+horses+horse armours)= armoured cavalry
Men+(Tank chassises+Guns+engines)=armours
Men+(Fighter chassises+machineguns+aeroengines)=fighters

quote: then they decide they don't want musketeers because musketeers don't have armour. So they design a legion with a musket, because muskets are better than swords.

Anicient armour equipments should be cumbersome for using weapons like muskets and provide no real protection against attacks from enemy musketeers so it would be better off with not wearing armours for musketters.

Futhermore, Stuff2's training facilities idea is good at tackling this kind problems.

Raw men->Barracks(ancinet)->trained swordmen or archers
Raw men->Barracks(renaissance)->trained musketeers or pikemen

So once designed as legionnaires(trained at ancient barrack)they have to be retrained at rennaissance barrack(also losing veteran status->What do they know about musket warfare?)to be effective musketeers.

Having many trained men as a reserve would be big advantage over other enemy civs which lack the number of trained men during modern era.(we can just mobilise them and send them to the front without extra training)

[The Joker]

I REALLY wouldn't like a unit workshop in Civ3. It was undoubtably the thing about SMAC that I liked the least. Not only did it make al units look alike, so you had none of that "feel" for the units that you did in Civ2, it also needed WAY too much management (deleting the designs you never used, adding new ones etc) - I actually think that the worst gaming time I have ever spent was managing that stupid workshop. It was really a waste of time, as it did nothing to the game and wasn't fun at all. On top of this it was filled with mistakes (like the AI always suggesting new designs with long obsolete weapons and the odd fact that some unit types simply couldn't be made obsolete).

Another thing that made the workshop bad was the fact that there was never any reason to use other than the best weapon types.

If Firaxis is to use the workshop in Civ3 I suggest that they copy the design of the workshop in the RTS game Warzone 2100. Now that's a workshop that works! Not only is the pictures of each unit large enough for you to actually SEE what the look like (!!), the workshop also make much much more sence. Here there is actually a REASON for you to use the different designs. For instance, I realized in one mission that I needed to use semitracks for my tanks in stead of tracks, which I had done so far. Although the semitracks gave the tanks a lower defence, it made them faster, which was needed there. It was like this throughout the game: give your tanks thicker armour or bigger weapons and they become slower. In SMAC there was no reason not to use the best armour. There should be.

[Adm.Naismith]

Ehi men, lot of feedbacks! Thanks!

Sorry for my late comeback, I was off-line during last week-end.

Ok, first things first, if you hate the whole concept of CIV III Unit Workshop, I wish you the best, I'm not here to tell you you are wrong!

If you don't like the SMAC implementation of the concept, you are welcome! Me too spent few posts on old official SMAC forum, suggesting improvement on that messy interface.

I don't know about MOO/MOO2 workshop (never played), so I can't agree or disagree about that. Anyone ready to post a dedicated thread with suggestion about it?

About use of slots, someone is going a bit to far IMHO, putting at work real wargame concept and achronims I suppose lot of player never read (nor bothered).

I'm more on the same line of the last post by Youngsun -ehila Youngsun! -

quote: Men+(Swords + armours + shields) = swordmen Men+(Lances + elephants + bows) = war elephants Men+(Lances + armours + horses + horse armours)= armoured cavalry Men+(Tank chassises + Guns + engines)=armours Men+(Fighter chassis + machineguns + aeroengines)=fighters

If the discovery tree will implement minor innovations we can have more intermediate passage (e.g. different kind of improved guns, normal bow -> longbow, etc.).

Someone is worried about too much prototype: Firaxis should simply limits the number of default proposed units to some "historical accurate schetch", that you can keep as-is or modify to your taste.

About unit upgrades, I suggest to modify the SMAC concept (you can now upgrade units everywhere on the field) with some more realistic limits: you can upgrade only inside cities, fortress, airbases or ports, taking at least one turn and (if an experience level like in SAMC is implemented) losing an experience point or two every main unit upgrade.

You can avoid/limit this penalty if you upgrade the unit inside cities with appropriate training facilities (barrack, airfield or shipyard).

Back on Unit workshop, I have some doubt about different graphics for different Civ/Area/whatsoever, because one main SMAC problem is Unit Reconnaince: I must be able to understand which kind of unit I have to fight, simply at a glance.

Minor enhancement (special slots) can be difficult to discover until in real battle, so I can live without detailed (graphichs) info, but I MUST be able to distinguish light infantry from heavy infantry just by graphics (and without the need for a Civilopedia search every time ).

Now the last bomb: historically accurate units don't exist in CIV!

Ok, my last word before to be hang up from angry apolytoner: every unit in history change more or less during time: well know WWII fighters Like Me 109 or Spitfire changed A LOT in performance and use during only five years of war. Former chivalry change tactics, training methods, weapons.

No way all battleship or submarine in history can be considered equals (if not *very* roughly). So CIV reproduces "medium" model of real units ability and power, mixing all characteristics to gain a balanced level.

Real units simply must be taken in account by designer to test game units power: every air force would like to have only stealth fighter if not because:
a) they will cost way to much to be sustainable in large number
b) they can't be the best for every battle (a concept like the old game "scissors win paper win rock win scissors"), because often you must trade off something (speed or range, or payload etc.) for every advanced feature you put in.

Well, I've written way too much, I'll shut up for some days now Really, it's a promise!

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Stuff2]

I like this idea of loosing ability in one area when gaining something in another. Very good indeed.

Now I will further explain how i think it should be.

Firts. Recruit men. I won't go in to this beacouse i don't have any real good ideas of how to do it. In order to equipp these men u have to posess that eqipments already. So bying or produce wareqippment is a must.

FE u decide to let them be "Motorized Infantry". There are a number of weapons and a number of shieldings and so on, that belongs to this kind of 'unit'. My idea is that even though there is a number of weapons that can be used the men will automatically be trained for all weapons that can be used with 'motorized Infantry'. These men will then after training be a part of your arsenal. U can eqipp them with any kind of 'motorized infantry'-equippment and then u have created a new "unit".

In order to give a unit special abilities xx % of the men must be 'specials'. Specials are men that only are trained on special things. For keeping this not too complex i suggest we have only one type of specials that deals with all of the special abilities.

As u can see the unit will have special abilities (as long as the special men are there and the eqippment is working) but the specials are usually not good at fighting so in that manor the unit will be a bit weaker.

All equippment that is carried will slow down the unit. There should be some levels of how much eqippment that are carried by a unit. If a unit is well equipped it will manage to do without supply lines for a long time. If it is not well eqipped it will depend on supply lines in order to survive. Supply lines is also an important to you army (Especially in modern times).

As u can see. The only use my idea has for a unit workshop is to see what equippment belongs to what chassis. But i think this is too complex. I would rather have just "mechanized infantry weapon level xx" instead of all these types of guns.
FE a "mech inf weapon level 7" (the level depends on technology). Then workshop is not needed at all and u don't have to be disappointed by the lousy graphics as u can imagine it in your head instead. I think that even though it is complicated warfare should be abstract in this game. To many weapons will just be confusing and boring, especially for peaceloving players. Only the most signifacant improvements in weaponry should be named. FE Iron sword, Musket, Rifle, Machine gun, Laser gun, missile etc. It will still be a significant number of weapons to use (in your fantasy). But exactly what weapons that are used is just to much micromanagement. And still the most important thing is that my mech infantrys are stronger than the enemys.

[Youngsun]

quote: limits the number of default proposed units

Good point and MOO series actually did that.

quote: historically accurate units don't exist in CIV!

I think there are some misunderstandings on this. historically accurate units mean historically seen or known units so historically inaccurate units are historically unseen or untires units. Nothing to do with their performance since even same type of weapons would vary in their performance.

quote: idea of loosing ability in one area when gaining something in another.

This must be represented!

Stuff2 don't you think there should be "national arsenal" to stockfile produced weapons and equipments to store?

Roman imperial arsenal
Legionnaire gear:80
Iron sword:120
Horse:25
Chariot:9
Trireme:40
etc.

US national arsenal
Rifle:500
Modern infantry gear:600
Artillery:200
Horse:450
Truck:250
AA gun:120
Ammunition points:80,000(after "Gunpowder" we can produce ammunition points and the bigger the calibre(bigger firepower)the more ammunition needed)
etc.

Detroit (Truck):25 per turn
New york (Rifle):40 per turn
Washington(ammunition Pts):500 per turn
etc.

Rifle consume 1 ammunition point per turn(this will be simulated decresed amount of ammunition point from the national arsenal)
Artillery consume 4 ammunition point per turn.
Just like settler units consume one or two food from their parent cities,similar mechanism will do the job smoothely and the only different thing will be those firepower-based units will eat up ammunition from single national arsenal not from their parent cities.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 16, 2000).]

[ember]

I prefer the idea of keeping traditional civ II style units, but give them soem auto upgrades with technology.

For example armour when first gained is WWII style, with computers it becomes cold war level, and maybe plastics, 2000 level. A modern armour would get some significant bonuses over a neghbours WWII style, but without going throught the hassle of a unit workshop and manually upgrading troops.
If you had to uprgrade them by hand, you wouln't generally be done before the next upgrade was available.



------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[raingoon]

A very good reason NOT to have workshop/upgrade abilities...

The frustration of researching conscription when you've already got yourself invested in musketeers is actually an important part of the game!

There is a sense of strategic investment as you play along -- waiting for the right unit to be discovered to really invest in that unit as your primary defenders, say. And not being able to undo a mistake if you heavily invest in a muskateer defense only to capture conscription tech for riflemen, is part of the strategy of the game.

A bonus of this effect is often times it is YOU who hold out for the right technology, then invest heavily in, say, armor, when it is your opponent who is swamped with legions, or something and can do nothing about it.

That's part of the strategic element of the game, and if you make it possible to change units the way you want, at any time, then you're taking some of the spine out of the game structure. Final lesson: Often what seems like a restriction really forces you to think MORE creatively.
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited May 16, 2000).]

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 05-16-2000 07:34 AM This must be represented! Stuff2 don't you think there should be "national arsenal" to stockfile produced weapons and equipments to store? [This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 16, 2000).]

Yes. I think it is of uttermost importance to be able to stockpile weaponry and military equippments. Also, ammunition consumption should increase when a unit is fighting.

[Youngsun]

Stuff2, What about reduced firepower to 0 if there is no supply of ammunition for firepower-based units?

Att/Def/Fp/Hp
Riflemen 5/4/5/3 (fully supplied)
Riflemen 5/4/1/3 (no supply coming)
Artillery 10/1/8/1 (fully supplied)
Artillery 10/1/0/1 (no supply coming)
Legion 6/4/1/2 (no ammunition effect)

The reason that why riflemen has at least 1 firepower remained is they can still fight as combatants and in this case, ancient unit like Legion has more chance to win because Riflemen have no ammunition left . Artillery units are killers if fully suppllied but with no ammunition they are useless.(rememer how the battle is caculated for CivII? no firepower means no harm to enemy.)

ember, just like "Leonard's Workshop wonder"?

Raingoon, well you actually reinforced why we need "unit-workshop" idea. Thanks!!!

You said this

quote: The frustration of researching conscription when you've already got yourself invested in musketeers is actually an important part of the game!

and imagine that if you have produced and stockfiled heaps of muskets in your arsenal and you just discovered the "conscription",the frustration would be even bigger.

quote: A bonus of this effect is often times it is YOU who hold out for the right technology, then invest heavily in, say, armor, when it is your opponent who is swamped with legions, or something and can do nothing about it.

Yea, you are damn right! haha balancing your military power until the discovery of very right tech will be better simulated with "separated weapons/equipments and men" idea. Furthermore, we may be able to trade our arms as they are with other civs through trade or diplomacy.

quote: Often what seems like a restriction really forces you to think MORE creatively.

Good point and the restiction of having weapons and men instead of having whole unit as a set will give us more creativity. It seems that you are worried about many bizzare units might appear during the game but as long as the game restrict the relationship with tech advances and applications(as simple as CIVII)for weapon production, everything will be alright. Thus we can just produce rifles and muskets but night-visions and laser-range-finders.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 17, 2000).]

[The Joker]

I would like Civ3 to have some kind of conscription system in which hiring the men is seperated by constructing the weapons. It should require a real pop in your cities in stead of heads.

I also agree with raingoon on having units that can not just be upgraded whenever you wanted to. I always thought that Leonardos Workshop was too powerful as it removed all this from a huge part of the game (I always builded it).

[Yuvo]

I'm not too sure about graphics: How are you going to tell the difference between a rifleman-type unit with a musket, and one with a rifle?

I want to be able to see how strong the opposing units are without having to click on them.

Btw, recruitment i am for....
Recruit your population, trade for weapons, armour, resources etc. and but all this should be automatic if you already have enough resources. Jeez, how annoying would it get if you had to construct your own unit every time....

[ember]

I mean more on the lines of still having armour units, but with some key tecks your units get better. If you have plastics, then your armour is significantly better than the germans, who just stole the tech. You never actually change teh base unit, so a musketter will never become a rifleman without paying for an upgrade (a different thing), but tehy will become better as you get tech. A fully improved musketter should be just a little worse than a brand new rifleman type.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[OrangeSfwr]

quote: Originally posted by The Joker on 05-17-2000 08:20 AM I would like Civ3 to have some kind of conscription system in which hiring the men is seperated by constructing the weapons. It should require a real pop in your cities in stead of heads. I also agree with raingoon on having units that can not just be upgraded whenever you wanted to. I always thought that Leonardos Workshop was too powerful as it removed all this from a huge part of the game (I always builded it).

One question - would you give defense by the unit built, or the weapon he carries? Or some combo of both?

On a seperate note. I am also guilty of Leo's Workshop construction every game It's definitely way to powerful.



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Youngsun]

quote: I would like Civ3 to have some kind of conscription system in which hiring the men is seperated by constructing the weapons. It should require a real pop in your cities in stead of heads.

Joker I always support things like these!!

quote: I want to be able to see how strong the opposing units are without having to click on them.

Yuvo me too me too

quote: how annoying would it get if you had to construct your own unit every time....

you're right.

ember now I understand what you were up to. Could you tell me how much variation can take place for each unit?

Arquebusier(with a rest)
Musketeer
Musketeer(with boyonet)
Musketeer(Napoleonic)
Riflemen(very early style)
or
Tank(WWI style)
Tank(WWII style)
Tank(Post WWII style)
MBT
MBT(next generation)

Are these similar to that you have in mind?

OrangeSfr both I believe.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 19, 2000).]

[Urban Ranger]

I don't think building a unit will reduce the population of the city that builds it. The size of a unit is generally much smaller than a population point.

It's also a silly idea to stockpile weapons and such. A unit isn't just a mob with a bunch of weapons. A unit requires training to function as a conherent whole. So I don't think it is necessarily to build any training facilities although doing so will make the game to appear more realistic. A related idea here then is you can't rush build units, or not more by 50%, say. This represents the inherent necesscity for spending sufficient time in training.

As for a Unit Workshop, I think it's a good idea. There are special units -- such as Alpine units -- that not all countries have. These should be specificially designed.