Stacking units

[Seeker]

That brings up the TRULY important point...how will Sid and Co work 'the King' into the next game? In Civ I, elvii made happiness, in Civ II Elvis was an official advisor...Civ III? Elvis, the wonder?

[Stuff2]

I was very disappointed when i realized that stacking units in SMAC did not mean that you could move them all in one move (wich was what i had in mind). Or actually you could tell them in one order but they would still move separatly. It was not that time-saver i had hoped for.

I suggest that stacked units can be moved with one move just as if it was only one unit. I don't think anyone disagree with this. But during fight the stacked units should fight one by one. That is my opinion. Beacouse loss of units is a realization in civ-war (unless you spend all your time saving the game and retry every attack).

I'm not in favor of a command unit or anything like that. the commanders are invisible parts of the existing units.

[Az]

quote: Originally posted by Seeker on 10-15-2000 11:37 PM That brings up the TRULY important point...how will Sid and Co work 'the King' into the next game? In Civ I, elvii made happiness, in Civ II Elvis was an official advisor...Civ III? Elvis, the wonder?

LMAO >

and what would be the effects ??


any way ...

I am really dissapointed with that leader ****.
It's not heroes of Might and Magic ... it's Civ !


that will look weird . I am almost sure.

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti on 10-17-2000 07:52 AM I am really dissapointed with that leader ****. It's not heroes of Might and Magic ... it's Civ ! that will look weird . I am almost sure.

I didn't understand that...what leader is that?

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 10-16-2000 11:03 AM I suggest that stacked units can be moved with one move just as if it was only one unit. I don't think anyone disagree with this. I'm not in favor of a command unit or anything like that. the commanders are invisible parts of the existing units.

Actually, as you probably know, in CTP stacked units can be grouped together and moved with one MOUSE click. I like using the keyboard, so this advantage was lost on me... I refuse to move from keyboard to mouse to keyboard, etc, etc, etc. The lack of an undo function caused heartache when unit went where I didn't want them to go... Needless to say, for many reasons, I don't play CTP...

I ONE HUNDRED percentage agree with you that commanders are part of the existing unit. Earlier comments about veteran status, etc are right on the money. That's why we got Schwarzkopf and that drunk knight in armor. They are our leaders...

We don't want Civ to turn into Squad Leader (for those of you familiar with that very intense, squad level war simulation from Avalon Hill). Boy, do I wish I was 12 years old again to have the whole summer to play combat on Eastern front, man by man... I just don't have that kind of time anymore!!!

[Tiberius]

I don't understand what do you have people against leaders.

A cavalry unit isn't a man on a horse, right? It is a cavalry brigade, or battalion or something like this. In the same way, I imagine the leader beeing a commanding unit, which is not necessary a man, but the group of officers a brigade/battalion has. An army is nothing whithout command. So if the commander is a special, costlier unit, which is neccesary to make stacks and maybe add bonuses to the army (stack), what is the problem? It is realistic, adds only a bit of tactical micromanagent to the game, but increases a lot the pleasure of going to war (just for the record: I don't like wars and I always try to play/win in peace).

[UltraSonix]

quote: only a bit of tactical micromanagent to the game

You'll have to micromanage your leaders a lot more when your opponents only go for your leaders!

I think the thing about leaders is that when you play civ, everything is on a grand scale - each unit is more akin to an army, cities have millions of people, etc. All of a sudden, there's this unit that at max is composed of just a few people - it's just a bit weird...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Adm.Naismith]

Well, Sid already spoke of leaders IN the game. I don't enjoy it but... can we change that? More important: it's worth to lobby against it?

OTOH, can we suggest the best way to implement leaders, just to drive Sid and co. to the right way?

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

[Tiberius]

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 10-18-2000 06:39 PM I think the thing about leaders is that when you play civ, everything is on a grand scale - each unit is more akin to an army, cities have millions of people, etc. All of a sudden, there's this unit that at max is composed of just a few people - it's just a bit weird...

You have right, everything is on grand scale in Civ. The problem is, I'm not sure that this is always good. Factors that aren't important in small scale, shouldn't be included in the game, that's true. But still exist elements of human society, which are small but important. One such an important factor is "the leader". Sometimes in the history of mankind, one leader changed the world more than 1.000.000 people. Why shoudn't they be included in the game than?

I'm not saying that we should have hundreds of leaders running all around the world, but implemented with a proper balance, I would like to see leaders in Civ3.

Just one more thing: not everything in Civ is represented on the same scale. A cavalry unit represents how many men: 1000? 10000? Maybe even more. And a spy? Or an explorer? Certainly not 10000. Maybe 100 or even less. Not necesarry the number is important, but the importance of that unit.

As for the micromanagement: there are things that worth to be micromanaged, while others not. Some people love to micromanage cities, others like to micromanage armies and others hate to micromanage everything. After all, I think you can't find two players here with exactly the same preferences on every issue. Let's hope Firaxis will find a good balance for everyone's desires.
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited October 19, 2000).]

[Az]

IIRC there were these leaders of the armies in HoM&M
it depended on the kind of city you rise your armies in.

I would prefer making a thing like that :

stack options/abilities .

just like Units I want the whole stack to have a Green/Veteran/Elite strength . if the stack looses some units they could reinforce the stack ... you see my point ?

[UltraSonix]

The crux of the argument against leaders:

quote: 4. Unit-mania.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius on 10-18-2000 01:49 AM I don't understand what do you have people against leaders. A cavalry unit isn't a man on a horse, right? It is a cavalry brigade, or battalion or something like this. In the same way, I imagine the leader beeing a commanding unit, which is not necessary a man, but the group of officers a brigade/battalion has. An army is nothing whithout command. So if the commander is a special, costlier unit, which is neccesary to make stacks and maybe add bonuses to the army (stack), what is the problem? It is realistic, adds only a bit of tactical micromanagent to the game, but increases a lot the pleasure of going to war (just for the record: I don't like wars and I always try to play/win in peace).

I'll tell you why i don't wan't command-leaders-units

1. Every unit is a small army that consists of BOTH leaders and soldiers. Why have two units doing the same thing that one unit can do? There is no need getting in to more deatils, especially considering that every turn is atleast a year.
2. You are the ultimate commander.
3. This is a civ-game not a wargame. Command leaders units belong to wargames rather than civ-games. In civ i wan't an abstract form of warfare not a day-to-day-strategics.
4. Unit-mania. If you will include commanders, supply-lines e.t.c. as units civ3 will end up as a very messy game with tons of units. Personally i most often play on small maps just to avoid getting too much units.

[Tiberius]

I don't want tons of units either. I want commanders only for the purpose of stacking. I'd like to have the possibility to make an army, formed by different types of units AND leaded by a commander unit. That's all.

[Tim White]

Tiberius, Im right with you. I would like commanding units. For (only) armies. They would add bonuses to armies. Think about it, in all of history, very often commanders did much more to history then large armies. I also dont want civ3 to be a war game, like Red Alert, but I also want it to be realistic, and a game cannot be realistic without realistic war! and war cannot be realistic without commanders! What would history have been like without Admiral yommamoto (japanese navy during ww2), or Alexander the Great, or Nepoleon, or, General Washington!?!?
[This message has been edited by Tim White (edited October 23, 2000).]

[Tiberius]

quote: Originally posted by Tim White on 10-23-2000 07:00 PM Think about it, in all of history, very often commanders did much more to history then large armies. ... What would history have been like without Admiral yommamoto (japanese navy during ww2), or Alexander the Great, or Nepoleon, or, General Washington!?!? [This message has been edited by Tim White (edited October 23, 2000).]

Exactly my point.