My kind of legions!

[Crustacian]

Here is a quote from: http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/legio.html

"The legio was a miniature army that contained within its ranks troops trained and equipped to perform all kinds of different duties both on and off the battlefield. Although the vast majority of soldiers served as heavy infantry, other legionaries fought as cavalry, archers or light infantry.
(Currently represented in game as attack of 4)

"Other specialised troops operated artillery consisting of torsion guns.
(in view of this could they have an advantage, say city walls are only half effective to these units?)

"The troops were however not solely prepared for combat. Legionaries regularly served as combat engineers constructing fortifications, roads and bridges.
(in the game units can fortify, but this is something more than that. ROADS, BRIDGES!? yeah!!!)

"As the legion counted among its complement a vast number of men with special skills it was in many ways selfsupporting.
A large part of its military equipment could be produced by artisans in the ranks. Soldiers trained as surveyors, engineers and architects ensured that the legion needed little outside help for its building requirements.
(a unit who needs no support!! Well how about a shield for every two of these units?)

"Administrative duties were performed by other legionaries both within their unit as well as in the provincial bureaucracy.

(In summary could the legion be one of the first special units and become something sought after in the game rather than seldom used due to lack of movement? Think of it: A legion needing little or no support, able to build a road...maybe not as fast as a settler, a bridge, a fort.
With this in mind a legion (currently IRON WORKING)could only become available AFTER bridge building instead of before. So maybe a new tech would need to be invented so Iron still precedes Bridges, but something after iron & bridges...call it "special heavy infantry" attack 4 defense 2 or 3, walls effect lessened by 50%, one shield support for two units, and under early republic takes more away units to cause unhappyness at home. or?)

------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

[Az]

well . you know , many cities were once fortresses of Roman Legion. so what let's allow them to settle ? no . I dont think so.



------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

[Crustacian]

What about the other ideas Dalgetti? You gonna throw them all out just because you think settling cities with them is too far fetched?
Remember, I didn't suggest they found cities, and do what settlers do that way. It would take them longer to build roads and bridges than settlers.

[markusf]

I think the whole problem with civ is that single movement units are pretty much useless for anything but defending.we need ranged units like CTP

[Crustacian]

No question that ranged units are needed. CTP has a good idea there

[Par4]

This is why Rome beat the crap out of everyone. As much as I would like to have this maybe this should be implemented in the army/stacking idea. A super unit like a true legion is going to imbalance gameplay. A legion true to history is gonna be the only unit built which I think would be bad. Legion movement should be upped by one or two. Roman legions were very mobile and could easily catch up with hoplite phalanxes other heavy infantry armies.

Just my 2 cents

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[Grier]

I think multi-purpose units are a good idea.

[Adm.Naismith]

Alpha Centauri introduced the Units Workshop, and I'm ready to bet something in this line will be in CIV III.

Maybe Firaxis will add some realistic names and pre-defined properties: Legion, Ophlite, Crusader, etc. but more as in SMAC are "chassis" limited.
I can't see a Warrior directly upgrade to an Elephant unit, as fat as they become

If Firaxis introduce the concept of conscription (people are detracted from cities to make a unit, of course using some "real numbers of citizen" instead of head) we can think that soldiers simply learn to use different weapons, upgrading at a reduced cost instead of have to be disbanded and rebuilt from scratch. I'm against the SMAC ability to upgrade units in the field: they must be inside a city, a fortress, a port (a must add: you can build one on a shore square to serve the nearest city), an airbase.

Back to multipurpose units, in a SMAC unit workshop you can add abilities to units (with reasonable limits) to have some very powerful one, but at a (game balancing) very high price to build it (or upgrade to).

Do you want a settler more able to defende itself? Are you ready to pay it twice the usual to add some strenght?

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

[OrangeSfwr]

Someone hit on a good point there. The defense for a settler is ridiculously underestimated. In American History Settlers defended against indian attacks by circling up the wagons. Plus, Settlers are usually not defenseless. More early settlers carried weapons (in my example, rifles) they just weren't as trained or orderly. They should be able to defeat horsemen and archers. (IMHO)

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

[Adm.Naismith]

Crustacian, my question about "pay per reinforced settler" isn't a criticism about your idea. I was only pointing out what's main balance problem when you decide which unit design and produce on SMAC workshop.

Actually, you can't build a "settler" or "engineer like" unit that can also attack (same slot for attack weapon and special like building ability). You can add defense or special (Anti Aircraft bonus, free support etc.). I'm not sure it will be fair to make a special unit so strong to attack, build, defense, settle and so on; better force the player to stack more specialized units into an army.

I suppose this clarify also my point to OrangeSfwr: settler can be more strong, but I can't believe they can resist to an attack from well trained and equipped soldiers: simply no match. I understand that when in history the "settler" where equipped with weapons far superior than enemy (winchester rifle against bow) they had more chance on defence, but I don't remember any carriage attacking redskins in John Wayne's "western movies"

[Crustacian]

Your points are well taken regarding the settlers current fairly well ability to defend as well as possibly beefing them up a bit even if at a greater price.

But legions (independant from any settler issues) were able to build roads, forts, and bridges. They were awesome units.

I am sure Rome also had its settlers too, but thats another story.

[Par4]

Don't forget Roman legions built aquaducts too. Maybe they could give a building bonus in the city they are stationed at? Just another dumb idea from Par4.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[Crustacian]

So maybe somewhere in between a super unit and what it is currently in Civ II.

If the legion was something to be sought after, it would maybe reduce the tendancy to rush to MC. So there are other reasons to beaf it up.

Maybe just increase the legions hit points and or firepower, and allow it to build roads, forts, and/or/not bridges at a reduced rate from settlers.

------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

[Crustacian]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 05-10-2000 10:27 AM Do you want a settler more able to defende itself? Are you ready to pay it twice the usual to add some strenght?

Myself i would rather like a military unit able to do a little construction, and yes it is worth more than the usual price of a legion or a settler.
(This is only on the basis of historic legions abilities, plus the need to lessen rush to MC as a main strategy)



------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

[OrangeSfwr]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 05-10-2000 06:23 PM I suppose this clarify also my point to OrangeSfwr: settler can be more strong, but I can't believe they can resist to an attack from well trained and equipped soldiers: simply no match. I understand that when in history the "settler" where equipped with weapons far superior than enemy (winchester rifle against bow) they had more chance on defence, but I don't remember any carriage attacking redskins in John Wayne's "western movies"

I don't intend on giving them an attack at all. Settlers shouldn't be able to attack (maybe explorers, but that's in another thread). Just a higher defense. Think about my scenario with the Indian tribes with horsemen and other primitive weapons getting killed by settlers with rifles. I think settlers should have a defense equal to the attack of horsemen and/or archers in Civ 3 that way it is sort of a 50/50 chance for the settlers.

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