Suggestion For Making Marines More Useful

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by The Pioneer


Nice! But what did you do with your MAs? Left them as is? That would diminish their significance as they only would have an adv. of 1 movement? What stats did you give Abrams?

So long...

Adrams are the name of the MA. They are one and the same.

Both the MIs and MAs are the same stats, it's just a cosmetic effect for which civ gets what.

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by Thrawn05


Adrams are the name of the MA. They are one and the same.

Both the MIs and MAs are the same stats, it's just a cosmetic effect for which civ gets what.

So MA loose all their purpose in your mod!

So long...

[vmxa1]

I did find one use for Marines. I could make them faster than Calv or Mechs so I created them to sit in a "safe" city and let me remove the existing unit that was better for attacking.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by The Pioneer


So MA loose all their purpose in your mod!

So long...

No, the MI has the speed, cost, attack, defense, resources etc... as MA. It's just that SOME CIVS use MIs, and the rest MAs. THey are both the same unit in every way expect in Name and Animation.

What part of this don't you understand?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I did find one use for Marines. I could make them faster than Calv or Mechs so I created them to sit in a "safe" city and let me remove the existing unit that was better for attacking.

Marines are also good for those One Way ROPs.

[cgannon64]

On CFC, they claimed that Marines don't need oil (says oil and rubber in the manual) and are 8/6 (10.8 in manual) like you guys said. IF they are 8/6, then I do realize that they wouldn't make too much of a difference in combat. Is the manual wrong?

And still, like you said, they are a neccessity when the island is surrounded by units...but have you ever seen a computer do that? In MP they will get more useful.

[Catt]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Is the manual wrong?

In numerous places, but particularly in the unit statistics list towards the end of the manual. If you look closely, you'll see that a good number of industrial and modern age units stats are wrong. Fact is, writing, proofing, printing, and distributing manuals takes a good chunk of lead time and the game designers play with unit stats well past the manual "print" date.

BTW, that's why we should also be cautious about predicting exactly what unit stats will look like in PTW, no matter what the early screenshots seem to imply.

On-Topic: I happen to like the Marines in Civ III (see this thread). But they are specialists, sometimes quite useful, oftentimes a near total waste of time and shields. I do think that they'll be more widely used in MP (assuming games make it to the near Modern era in many MP games).

Catt

[cgannon64]

I wonder, is the fact that there is no good non-oil units in the late Industrial by accident or on purpose? Was Firaxis trying to portray the mass suicide and stalemate of WW1? I wonder, because cavalry vs. infantry quickly become suicide runs and trench wars...maybe Firaxis is smarter than we think.

[Wormwood]

Originally posted by cgannon64
I wonder, is the fact that there is no good non-oil units in the late Industrial by accident or on purpose? Was Firaxis trying to portray the mass suicide and stalemate of WW1? I wonder, because cavalry vs. infantry quickly become suicide runs and trench wars...maybe Firaxis is smarter than we think.

I've always thought of it that way. When infantry show up, they become my attack unit, since they have the same attack as cav. Often, a war at that time will be based on artillery pounding cities and troop positions, then infantry moving forward to gain that little bit of ground, just as in WWI. When tanks and aircraft appear, I can have a dynamic and mobile war once again, just the same as in WW2.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by cgannon64
I wonder, is the fact that there is no good non-oil units in the late Industrial by accident or on purpose? Was Firaxis trying to portray the mass suicide and stalemate of WW1? I wonder, because cavalry vs. infantry quickly become suicide runs and trench wars...maybe Firaxis is smarter than we think.

You're right. Firaxis tried to convey these issues.

Other areas are the Knight v. Musketmen and Tank v. Mech Infantry.

However, the naval history is shot to heck. I lost many Iron Clades to Firgates and Galley's.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Wormwood


I've always thought of it that way. When infantry show up, they become my attack unit, since they have the same attack as cav. Often, a war at that time will be based on artillery pounding cities and troop positions, then infantry moving forward to gain that little bit of ground, just as in WWI. When tanks and aircraft appear, I can have a dynamic and mobile war once again, just the same as in WW2.

This is similar to my strag. of skipping knights to Cav. Since I play as Rome all the time, that extra defense point in the UU actualy makes for a good offense.

Using terrain to your advantage, you can safly move Legionary units to enemy cities and take them (Pikemen are a chalange, and require some Catapults to soften up). You won't have to worry about knight counter attacks if you stay away from open terrain as much as possible, that extra defense point comes into play here. If you use the Civ Combat Calculator, I believe the chances of a legionary unit surviving a Knight is about 66 - 75% of the time.

[cgannon64]

Yes yes, I think Firaxis underestimated the importance of naval combat and naval power. One time, when I was bored and felt like trying out new strategies, I tried what I call a "first response" system. It was in the "Now" scenerio over at CFC (the modern world). I put a whole fleet of ships in the Atlantic, and kept a bunch of offensive units in my harbors, with boats ready to take them. With this, I could see when a sneak attack was coming before it happened. Unfortunately, because the movement rate of ships is bad, it took me several turns to reach the enemy continent, completely nullifying the point of my system.

Will Firaxis make changes to ADM in PTW? I hope so, because several areas need changes.

[Wormwood]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Yes yes, I think Firaxis underestimated the importance of naval combat and naval power. One time, when I was bored and felt like trying out new strategies, I tried what I call a "first response" system. It was in the "Now" scenerio over at CFC (the modern world). I put a whole fleet of ships in the Atlantic, and kept a bunch of offensive units in my harbors, with boats ready to take them. With this, I could see when a sneak attack was coming before it happened. Unfortunately, because the movement rate of ships is bad, it took me several turns to reach the enemy continent, completely nullifying the point of my system.

Will Firaxis make changes to ADM in PTW? I hope so, because several areas need changes.

I do a very similar thing to your first response. Once I become a dominant power ( most players are by modern age) I create several small fleets, equivalent to real amphibious ready groups, consisting of a carrier, a number of support ships, and two or three transports full of marines, and one or two with tanks and artillery. I position them at important points throughout the world, usually by acquiring a single small city through negotiation demands with weak civs, or through rop's. Each group has an area it patrols regualrily with destroyers and aircraft, and should anything happen, I can put down a decent force within a few turns. It really helps to curtail any aggressive action on the part of Ai civs, because half the time, when your force lands, their invasion fleet will turn around to help with the threat. It also allows me to place observers in war zones, to analyze AI versus AI warfare.

[Straybow]

Nope, Firaxis considered altered rates and alternate movement models in the primary phases of game design. All were rejected. Unless you merely mean a 2x mode as in MP Civ2, in which case I'd expect to see it.

[Wormwood]

Originally posted by Thrawn05


This is similar to my strag. of skipping knights to Cav. Since I play as Rome all the time, that extra defense point in the UU actualy makes for a good offense.

Using terrain to your advantage, you can safly move Legionary units to enemy cities and take them (Pikemen are a chalange, and require some Catapults to soften up). You won't have to worry about knight counter attacks if you stay away from open terrain as much as possible, that extra defense point comes into play here. If you use the Civ Combat Calculator, I believe the chances of a legionary unit surviving a Knight is about 66 - 75% of the time.

I do a similar thing to your similar thing

I like to play as Japan, and I usually won't upgrade all my samurai to cavalry, because I like to have a strong defensive unit, with increased mobility and a decent attack backing up my assault forces. Samurai on strong terrain have a decent chance of surviving a cavalry attack, and then counterattacking. Basically, my cavalry surges forward, attacking units and weakly defended cities, and my Samurai change roles from my assault unit to my frontline city defenders, sort of a mechanized infantry of it's time.