Army Transports

[UltraSonix]

I got this idea from Par4's post in recent threads.

Basically, it's that there should be a means to carry troops (infantry only) by an APC-type unit.

The APC would have higher hitpoints/movement points, and you can load people with the "sentry" command like you load people onto sea transports. The slight disadvantage to this would be that any unit carried by the APC (even over railroad) would not be able to move/attack the turn they are dropped off.

The same idea can also apply to air tranports, of which there will be two types: helicopter and cargo plane (eg Hercules). The helicopter transport can travel infinitely until its hitpoints run out as per usual, and the plane is ranged.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Frank80878]

I believe Civ 3 should have APC's. If only for the basic reason that APC's are the infantry's way of keeping up with tanks when attacking or advancing on enemy territory. Whether or not the infantry unit should lose it's turn is up for debate. Although in the real world soldiers dismount from APC's quickly in Civ loading troops on one having it move, then loading the troops off and attacking sounds like alot for one turn.

[UltraSonix]

In fact, I was just thinking that as a result of my idea above, that the paratrooper in its existing form should be abolished. Because right now it's too easy to simply paratroop ten units right next to someone's capital. Instead, forcing units to be carried by an airborne transport means that the transport would have to obey all the usual air-engagements rules (ie need to avoid fighters, missiles, etc). As a result of this, paratroopers in Civ3 would then only have the special ability of being able to attack as soon as they eject from the plane - other units need to wait a turn.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Zulu Elephant]

I always thought that the Mechanized Infantry unit was soldiers in APCs and other troop carrying vehicles

[Ralf]

It is Zulu Elephant, it is - mechanized infantry means, well exactly what it says: infantry that is mechanized

[UltraSonix]

Despite mech infs being in existance, having APC's will be good 'cause it'll allow infantry units to be transported quickly.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Stuff2]

I think, that in civ3, a game where one turn is much more than one week, there shouldn't be any annoying transportation units. It will make warfare far to annoying (loads of units to keep track of). Instead, i think that units can have as an option to be transported in the menu. A unit that is transporting will simply move much faster than otherwise. It will simply move anywhere in one turn. Well, maybe not anywhere. Before flight is dicovered it will be limited by the infrastructure. I suggest this unit to temporary work like a trade route in ctp (it can be pirated, so don't send soldiers straight ahead into enemy territory). I also suggest it to be showed on the map as a route and not as a unit. It will be able to cross oceans and after the discovery of flight, flying into enemy territory (but with risk of being shutdown as it already works in civ2). Transporting a unit should cost some money.
I think that the risk of being shutdown should work on paratroopers aswell. (just like it works in civ2 when sending units between cities bye air). This way you get some challange and realism without tons of annoying micromanegement.
Also, i think that islands should be able to connect with ferry traffic. Ferry traffic will be like roads on the water (but whenever an enemy ship is passing through it will risk being destroyed).

[Quartz Dragon]

You can build vehicles like this in SMAC, in fact, I use hover transports as MASH units, and gravship transports are great for moving single units to the frontlines quickly

[Youngsun]

Stuff2's suggestion always makes sense to me.
Mech Inf. was the representation of APC/IFV plus infantry but I wouldn't have any problem with producing APC and mobilising infantry then mix them into Mech.inf. Also you may add some armour too your mech inf to increase firepower of your mech inf. Long Live the "unit workshop"!!!!.

Maintaining armoured/mechanised elements of your army should be expensive thus you can not afford to have your troops all mechanised. So if you have enough manpower but lack cash then you may create massed infantry divisions but very few armoured/mechanizsed divisions.

[Adm.Naismith]

Right, with a unit workshop better than SMAC one we don't have real need for tactical level move as load/unload APC.

Stuff, about your menu movement idea, what do you think of a pop-up menu that appear near units when you release the drag&drop go to cursor?
I mean, moving a unit in SMAC I simply drag it (the pathfinder line in fact) to the target point. When I release the cursor it should simply appear a submenu with detailed movement order like:

. convoy
. move
. attack
. charge

Every choice has pro&cons about movement and fight penalties, at the acceptable cost of an added mouse click.

In a convoy you move quickly but cannot counterattack. If you are a unit defined by workshop with the special attribute of "mechanized" you have better defense (otherwise a "convoy movement" will be considered by truck). You are more exposed to "ambush", too (attack from enemy units you can't see because hidden by terrain or out-of-sight when you order to move).

In a charge you have better attack, but you'll be more vulnerable next turn (just an example).

for special troops (when applicable) we can have more menu voices as

. paratroop (no more need to chose paratroop, then click where to jump)

It's a bit on a tactical side, but its simply enough IMHO, and it reflect quite well modern concept of integrated army.
A better "Stacked units" should fill others part of battle model (as the mix of tanks, artillery and mech.infantry).


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

[UltraSonix]

Hey, Stuff2's suggestion is great! It would also give the AI more of a chance because the game would be simpler - see Diplomat's post in http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001101.html. Hopefully this way would allow the AI to coordinate longer distance movements better.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Stuff2]

Adm.Naismith, I think I like your popup version.But keep it in the ordinary menu also.

[Evil Capitalist]

The idea is correct for the classic APC, but not the modern ones. The Bradleys, Warriors and BMPs of the world are designated AFVs, armoured fighting vehicles. These carry and support. Several are armed with chainguns, to give an idea of the firepower. In the most extreme version, the Israeli Merkava, has a tank gun and a troop campartment.
The paratroop order is a good idea, allowing the paradroppable tanks idea.

[Seeker]

I think it is important to remember that the Civ icons represent large concentrations of force, the mech inf, for example, must include support units.

Why an APC is inappropriate for other units.
Marines and Alpine Troops are specialists, who don't need them.

The Rifleman unit represents an older type of infantry, the kind that was lightly armed and moved by train (1865-1943) and so an APC would be inappropriate for them.

What you could do is give the existing Mech inf a 'mount/dismount' command which would alter its att/def and movement abilities.

Adding a mount/dismount command would be good for many units, ie artillery and rifleman turns into trains, ect.

Idea I agree with: paratroops should be changed to an air transport/cargo plane, that can deploy inf.

[Deathwalker]

Great idea troops could keep up with tanlks the problem is most players just one or two types of units not well ballenced armies, so who would us it, like C and C most players only every built tanks never infantry, or even used an APC in it's propper role.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow