Civ Customized Units?

[Cavalry]

How about customized units for each civ? eg, at the start instead of warriors, Romans would have Gladiators, Japanese ninjas, and Chinese Samauris. Instead of Phalanaxes, Greeks would have Hoplites. English could have Longbowmen instead of Archers, or Longbowmen could be a whole new unit.

[phunny pharmer]

This has been discussed before I think. However, this does not mean that it isn't a cool idea! It would be nice to see; however, there is the problem if identifying enemy units. For instance, if a super unit and a regular unit looked alike, there would be confusion in multiplayer.

However, if you go off the deep end with custom units, then there will be a problem. Having only a ***few*** units is one of Civ's strengths. All civilizations are essentially the same, and this brings tactics and strategy to the forefront.

So, it would be great to see some custom units, but in moderation

[Shadowstrike]

But these units would have to give around the same level of benefit, lest Civ 3 devolves into AoE 2 (where some civs are dramatically better).

[OrangeSfwr]

I think this idea is great. Of course as already stated - the Civs must be balanced. You can't have one civ better than the other. You also have to dictate the unit a barbarian will use.

I wouldn't have to many differences though...Like a drastic difference between eastern/western and northern/southern units. But not diff. for each civ. For example: Romans, Greeks, and Carthaginians can all use the Phalanx unit. And Indians and Carthaginians can use Elephants. Samauris for the far east civs. But it shouldn't get to specific (e.g. longbowmen vs. archers)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - well who am I?~~~
- "When man first discovered that milk comes from a cow, what did he THINK he was doing?"
- "Women's breasts are like toys: They're meant for kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playin' with them."
- "Practice makes perfect, but if nobody's perfect...why practice?"
~~~Oh well oh well so here we stand, but we stand for nothing~~~
- Apolyton Picture Contest IV

[Father Beast]

I believe this was talked about in the EC3 list, under "each civ to have its own folder".
Does anyone have the link to the EC3?
and did that suggestion make the final cut?

[Dr.Oogkloot]

The customized units feature is a good idea as long as you can:
1. Edit it
2. TURN IT OFF

Dr.Oogkloot

------------------
"Het leven is een publiciteitsfilm voor de dood"
- Kamagurka

[wernazuma]

Customizing units really could be a great thing, but be careful with “special units” for different civs. It’s really the problem of balance then. Personally I don't mind that Vikings attack with elephants, especially if their starting location is in tropical regions.
Talking about customizing: I think basic unit models should be unchanged, but you could make a unit with 1/10 catapults, 2/10 archers, 1/10 cavalry and 1/2 phalanx. I know, that sounds similar to CtP, and certainly I don’t want to see the lame battles like in CtP, only on a smaller scale, but this would be a way to customize units. Battles could be calculated like in CtP, but please not such a boring and long animation.
What other concepts of customizing do you have in mind?
I hope it’s not: Infantry with level 2 arms and level 3 armour or something similar.
Has there already been a general discussion about what units could be added to Civ3?


------------------
Wernazuma

Comrade of the aztec peoples republic

[Youngsun]

Same strength but different unit icons based on the culture the unit belong to...Just like the diffrent city icons of 4 major cultures in civII.

[Evil Capitalist]

So long as there is no samurai unit, that was one of the worst parts of CTP for me. One nation had them, not the world. It's like those indian (feather) warriors.
I think civ specific units might go too far: Perhaps the relevant files could be downloaded, rather than provided on the CD, with the basic cultures installed with the game (like the city editor in Simcity 3000).

[Sir Shiva]

At least someone shares my views

Anyway, I think its a great idea. The units will be the same in every respect except for the icon and name. The same principle can be extended to flags and names of techs..

And of course, it will be totally customisable.. or I won't play!

And come on guys, don't you'll want to earn some money? If you use the program for long enough, and with enough referrals, you could earn enough to buy Civ3, pay for your phone/internet costs etc.

Check out http://referral.jotter.com/join/bulk

------------------
Get paid for every second you spend online at http://referral.jotter.com/join/bulk
Refer people (like what I'm doing) to earn even more. $50 a month is not uncommon.

-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980

[Youngsun]

Any civ specific unit which have/had made historic significance/impact deserve to be represented in the game such as "phalanx" or "legion" otherwise units that were generally used by more than 1 political entity within the culture bloc will be pretty legitimate if we have only 4~5 major culture bloc(Europe,Near Eastern.Oriental,African,misc)

Unfortunately, "Samurai" doesn't fall into either category of "historic significance" nor "general usage" within the culture bloc. Unlike European knights which were used by all European culture bloc only Japan used Samurai within Oriental culture bloc and I rather use Oriental style spearmen(massive number!!)as main Oriental unit which was widely used by all Oriental civs including Japan.

[Evil Capitalist]

Well amny samurai were spearmen. Having just bought Shogun I know that most close combat samurai were equiped with pikes, called Yari. In other words they're just spearmen anyway.

[Adm.Naismith]

Good point, Evil Capitalist.

I want to add to the "unit difference" topic, that we are mainly concentrate on (historically) difference in unit name and weapons, where often were mainly the developed tactics that exploit in full well trained soldiers.

The pike was an important weapon, but the use of "close ranks" of pikeman was as much important to their succes in battle.

This is probably an unnecessary detail to add at Civ III strategic level game, if not implemented via "minor tech" discoveries.

If I remember right the related List proposed, minor tech should be avoided but if researched would lead to minor benefit. I suppose that upgrade from Phalanx to Pikeman or Spearman to Samurai will fit nicely on that model (some game you discover and use them as minor enhancement, some game not).

The difference in researching path for minor discoveries will also help to differentiate Civilization, because not every nation in game will have exactly the same tech tree exploited in full (trading tech apart?).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited August 11, 2000).]

[Shadowstrike]

Chinese samurai? That's a good one.

*rolls over with laughter*

Seriously though, it will take a balancing act to make sure all of these civ-based units are equal (and undoubtedly they will be not)

[DarkCloud]

There should only be one custom unit per civ if the feature is implemented, which I hope it is not because then the modules could not be initiated.
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001617.html