Military design.

[Blomman]

i don't know if anyone have posted this topic before, if that is the case I'm sorry. But I really think that this should be very interesting to implement.

What about making it possible to "modify" your troops. With that i mean that you should be able to change the specifics of a unit. For example, you want to build a Battleship, you should then be able to decide how thick the armour should be(decidig the def. points) how big and how many the guns should be (deciding the off. points) and the propulsion system (deciding the movement rate). The bigger the ship the higher the cost to produce it. When you have produced it you should also be able to name the unit. Building units like this you get closer to reality. You get for example diffrent classes of ships. Perhaps a second class cruiser or a forth class Battleship. You can specialise your units more. For example when you are making a destroyer.
1. You can make a lighter one with a higher moving rate, for scouting and perhaps
sub-hunting.
2. You can make one with a little bit more fire power and armour for escort service for your transports.
3. Or you can make one with a higer degree of firepower to use as coastal artillery support for your attacks.

This was done in some degree in Alpha Centauri, but it can be done in a better and more advanced way.

What do you guys think?

[DarkCloud]

That's a great Idea. I for one would love to make a horsed legion
1-2-2 even if it costs extra or perhaps an armor loaded with lethal weapons
+25% attack biological weapons (atrocity)

[Jordal]

Wasn't this done in Master of Orion II?

[Vitmore The Great]

Yeah it was done in MOO2. You could add new weapons as you discover new techs. But in a game like Civ2, where you would probably build more units, it might become a drag. If any modifications are made, it should be the chances of a Civs unit winning in combat increases the further ahead that Civ is in tech.


Vitmore

[Evil Capitalist]

There's only one major problem I can see with this- the contempory differences may be great between a 72 gun ship of the line and a 120 gun ship of the line, but they are both useless against a decent ironclad, so you have to up the attack and defense values considerably to represent that.
A way around this as I see it is to make far greater use of the hit points and fire power values, meaning many small units together can beat a huge unit of the same era. (but they should both be useless against the next era unit, which was never properly represented)

[Napoleon I]

Once again I have to agree with Evil Cappie, and say that the attack and defence values in Civ and Civ2 were woefully inadequate. There has been much talk about the "phalanx and the bomber" problem, where a fortified phalanx in a fortress on a mountatin was able to defeat a bomber. There has never really been a proper system to account for the differences in the diferent era units.

However, there is one more objection that I would like to raise to a system that would allow you to tinker endlessly with your units. Such a system was ok in SMAC because SMAC is a fantasy game, but Civ3 being based on earth, should not have such an ability. After all, who ever has heard of a horsed legion?

I would like to see a system like this implemented for the scenario editor, there it would be a real blessing. However, I would object to having such a system in the main game.

------------------
Napoleon I

[Blomman]

To get around the problem with the age difference between units, why not grade the different armors and weapons.
Lets say;
Trireme (wooden armour), grade 1 (early skills in wooden building.

Ship of the Line (wooden armour), grade 2 (more advanced carpentring)

Ironclad (Steel armour), grade 3 (early steel producing techonology)

Destoyer (Steel armour), grade 4 (more modern steel production)

And you can use the grades by using a hitpoint system. Lets say;
Trireme Not modified HP 10
Ship of the Line Not modified HP 25
Ironclad Not modified HP 40
Destroyer Not modified HP 80

And the you can multiply teh HP with the armour grade.

So lets now say that you build one Ironclad with a thicker armour, which gives a HP of 65. You then take 65*3 and you get a hit point of 195. You then build a Destroyer with wore firepower and less armour, which gives a Hp 65. that gives 65*4 which is 260.

you have now built to boats from different eras, the older one specialized i armour and the new one specialized in firepower. Even then the newer boat is far better then the older one.

This system could be a starting point on trying to take away the "phalanx-bomber" problem.

What do you think?

[DarkCloud]

You could also put "modules" on the ships such as (when discovered)
Trieme
1. Arrow Launching port (The arrow attackers are concealed behind a wooden barricade. Defense +10%)
2. Ramming Pier (This would elliminate the need for a longship and give the ship a +10 Attack)

Ironclad
1. 'Fire' Cannons (A cannon mounted in the inside of the ironclad *Hey they did it and shoots out. -1 Movement it is tricky to keep the water out +20 attack.)

[Christantine The Great]

I have noticed in past games of SMAC that not many of the AI controled factions took the full potential out of every weapon and component that they could have so even though I love the idea, I think that the AI might have trouble fighting your arrow launching, ramming prow fielding trireme with a lowly "regular" trireme.(Unless Sid can teach the AI to be GOOD at playing the game )

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[Evil Capitalist]

You shouldn't make armour modules- it isn't accurate (or really applicable). When you have steel armour, why return to thin wood? The main reason units get outdated is firepower and range.
Repeating rifle totally outdates musket (Gettysburg)
Long range guns on dreadnoughts outdate ironclads
Decent muskets replace longbows

Occasionally there are things which are outdated by armour, but the only fairly recent one is the ship of the line. Sometimes they are outdated by innovation- pike by bayonet, but generally that could be shown by upgrading a/d/m when you research it.

[Blomman]

I didn't mean that you should be able to choose to build either tree or steel armor.
I meant that you should be able to decide the "thicknes" of the armor (Amount of HP). When you discover a new armor tech, the old one should be obsolete. But what I meant with the grade system, is a way of giving the older ones less chance against the new ones (phalanx-bomber problem). But you should be able to alter the numbers in the tech that is valid at the moment.
Ex.
Destroyer. standard value "XX"
HP 40-"80"-120
Att. strength 30-"50"-70
movement 5-"7"-9
Or something like it.

[Adm.Naismith]

Napoleon I, we had horsed legions, in fact, simply we named it knights .

About this fear of "SMAC like" Unit Workshop in CIV III now I have the feeling that often people that are against it are unhappy because units could have silly names.

That could be addressed easily, because we haven't so large numbers of different combos (special features apart). It's not too difficult to link every main att/def/mov mix to a historically proper name, leaving the more strange (and probably less likely) units to composite names and/or renamed by player.

I agree some other problems must be addressed:
- the ugly SMAC Unit Workshop interface
- the AI ability to design useful units and properly use them
- a better balancing from building a new unit vs upgrading an older one. This was historically a main military "management decision" with ships, planes, artillery and mechanized units, as technology evolve.

That said, I'm against overdetailed choices. Blomman, IMHO armour thickness is not an independent factor building tanks or ships. We can't simply add more expense, because to be realistic you should related armour to engine power, chassis resistence, manuvrability, etc. etc.

We are managing fleets of ships, or groups of tanks. Fine tuning of singular unit will be lost on the strategical scale of the game.

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

[Napoleon I]

Adm.Naismith:

You really got me there with the horsed legions

Perhaps there would be some merit in a SMAC - like system for designing units, but if there is a fixed number of historical names that we can attach to units, then why not just define all those units?

I would completely support support a design workshop that will allow to make special modifications to the unit such as
"add engineering ability" or
"reinforced defence mechanism".

However, I still feel that shifting the entire unit production system to the design workshop basis will be a mistake for Civ3

------------------
Napoleon I

[DarkCloud]

We should completely get rid of discovering units and only discover unit 'modules' such as I proposed above, this would be in the strain of SMAC and would make CIV III a better game.

Perhaps we should make a modules thread?
If there is any interest I will, or if I have time I will anyway, interest or no interest.

[Adm.Naismith]

Napoleon I, to answer you question

quote: if there is a fixed number of historical names that we can attach to units, then why not just define all those units?

I meant that we should have a "backbone" or "predefined list" of default (historically realistic) units, at least just to help novice players and AI.

Still this doesn't limit players to personalize them a bit, adding of course a name of choice or relaying on the name generator a la SMAC

E.g. adding the "NBC trained" special to a plan Mech.Infantry (it nullify the attack bonus of enemy unit provided with "Nerve Gas") you will get proposed the name "NBC Mech. Infantry".

That mean that you must have more hints on unit power that you see at map, because no name nor graphics will help a lot.
Call them "scout info" or "intelligence info", they should appear as a help tip when you left your mouse pointer over an enemy unit for a couple of seconds.

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