military tree!

[drake]

I like the idea a lot!
Variety is the spice of life and same goes with games. Being able to choose the type of units you get with a particular advance (offensive or defensive minded) is a wonderful idea.......

So what if you miss out on the opportunity to build certain kinds of units? I don't see anything wrong with actually having some unique qualities for seperate civs.........

[Colonel Rhombus]

WARNING: Long post

I'm starting to question the validity of the current attack/defense system used in Civ2 and, unless I am mistaken, soon to be used in Civ3.

I think we're taking the sight of a cannon destroying a group of musketeers for granted. Cannons, and other siege weapons are, by themselves, not particularly useful. They are support weapons to complement the main forces - usually infantry. The Yin and Yeng of combat isn't reflected all that well in Civ, in reality tanks are quite vulnerable to footsoldiers with anti-tank weapons, archers are vulnerable against pretty much anything up close. Carriers are bizzare in their attack/defense value. Why is their defense 9 irrespective of the presence or absence of aircraft? They're a floating target and require massive amounts of protection. I think you get my drift.

When one whinges about the current system, they're obliged to offer a solution or an alternative. Sadly, I can't think of one. Nothing definite, or complete, just a few disjointed and occasionally contradictory ideas. So I shall summarise.

Dispense with attack/defense ratings such as they are and divide all units into different categories. All units have profficiency ratings regardless of whether they are being used in defense or attack. Once combat is initiated, who started it isn't really that relevant, the one obvious exception being in the case of an ambush, but I'll try to deal with that later. Such ratings would be things like:[list][*]Range: This is how far the unit can fire. Units armed with swords and pike would have 0 as their range. Longbows, muskets, modern firearms and catapaults about even, armoured vehicles mounting heavy machine guns a little farther, tanks farther than that, ending in naval bombardments and artillery.[*]Firepower: how hard a unit hits. Medievel archers with their huge longbows actually hit a lot harder than modern combat rifles, but to keep things as uncomplicated, this category will take into consideration accuracy and rate of fire also. Modern artillery units with their wide range of munitions (from air-bursting fragmentation charges to delayed-fuse bunker busters) obviously deal much greater damage against a wide variety of units, wereas a catapult would theoretically be just as effective against even modern infantry units (human bodies have not got any tougher, though a catapult's survivability on a modern battlefield would be roughly less than zero) but be completely ineffective against armoured vehicles. I mention this because even one badly damaged M1A1 or T-90 would be able to destroy as many catapults as it had ammunition. Though a huge improvement over Civ1, Civ2 lacks enough failsafes to completely prevent absurd situations.[*]Melee: English knights and Roman legions are about as devastating as melee gets, unsurpassed in modern times. But the firepower rating of the musket or the repeating rifle ensures that this remains sadly irrelevant. Infantry fare reasonably well, able to attach bayonette or simply use their rifle as a club. Though such a unit will initially take a beating from archers, once they close the distance it's pretty much all over.[*]Speed: I can't really think up any ways to tweak this setting, so we'll leave it be. Maybe separate values for combat and strategic movement, but that's a bit finnicky. The reasoning behind separate values is that infantry can move much faster than a catapault, so a retreating catapault should always get run down and routed, but at the strategic map level, they would both move at a rate of 1 square per turn. I can personally live without this, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.[*]Attributes: There are a few subsets of unit attributes, actually.

1. Unit Type - Such categories may include "Footsoldier", "Mounted", "Towed", "Vehicle", "Armoured", "Amphibious", "Airborne", "Seaborne", etc. The primary concern of these is how the unit interacts with terrain. Infantry are granted access to just about any terrain type, and receive defensive bonuses from rough/dense terrain like mountains, hills, jungle, etc. Armoured vehicles would be appropriately penalised in such terrain to reflect reduced mobility and access (maybe even banned from traversing some terrain like mountains unless it has a road). These also affect combat, in that an "Armoured" unit cannot be affected in any way by primitive melee units. Also certain types of attacks (cruise missile, for example, don't do much damage to infantry units, which are spread out and often well concealed. Cruise missiles are for blowing up big, strong, expensive things, not little people spread throughout the countryside.
2. Unit Role - Determines the purpose of the unit, mainly in regards to warfare. Infantry, backbone of offense and holder of ground. Defensive bonus in cities as well as nasty terrain, for the simple reason that they can dig in, while a tank, on the other hand, has no room to manoeuvre and is at the mercy of a lone soldier poking out of a 3rd storey window with an anti-tank weapon. One dead tank is also an effective roadblock, forcing others to back up and find an alternative route through the city. Siege weapons and artillery would be grouped together, both used solely for supporing other units by pounding enemy units at extreme range, into adjacent map squares without having to engage in combat in the case of the field gun or rocket artillery. By themselves they aren't much good, except in the defensive role behind heavy fortifications. If used at range, the "artillery" system used in SMAC would do nicely, if a little more powerful. A lot more powerful, actually. Artillery accounted for over 50% of all casualties in the second or first world war, possibly both. Likewise, airstrikes would have similar effect. Just a random amount of damage done to a unit or city with no reprisal (unless target has SAM capabilities, otherwise the air unit may strike with impunity). What constitutes as "SAM capabilities" changes with the times. The infantry man's rifle was a potent enough weapon against early WW1 aircraft, which flew very slow and low by comparison with modern aircraft. Naval units also work similarly, able to bombard costal units without so much as a scratch (exception being artillery). Modern naval units ought to possess their own missiles, (after researching rocketry, of course) able to strike enemy ships (or ground targets) at up to ranges of 2 to 4 map squares. Their effectiveness against most land targets would be minimal, their main purpose for taking out installations (city improvements) and other naval units. The possibility of combining aircraft carriers with aircraft-launched missiles would provide phenomenal range and actually demonstrate just why the carrier is the king (or queen) of the seas.

[/list=a]Special note on air warfare
This is not handled particularly well, as we all know. So here I go:

• ALL air units must land on the same turn they take off.
• Fighters, though they can attack ground targets, don't do particularly well. Either impose a 1/2 attack vs. ground or a x2 vs. air flag. This isn't that bad since they can't be touched by units without SAM capabilities.
• "Squadrons" or "formations" of air units can be set just like "armies" or "stacks" of ground units. More bombers for increased effectiveness of attack and fighters for protection.
• Air strikes can target specific military units, city improvements or terrain enhancements (like airfields, oil rigs, farms, etc.) to bugger up production.
• Defense against airborn incursions is handled by the presence of fighters in cities or airfields. All impose a "sphere of influence" and any aircraft that invades this stands a certain chance to be intercepted for each movement they make inside the sphere. Technologies like Radar obviously increase the chances for detection drastically. Once intercepted, an air battle takes place just like a ground battle.
• Helicopters can be used for either ground support or transportaion (both at once in the case of the Mi-24 "Hind" which is actually a tranport chopper first, although, through the help of Hollywood, they are often mistaken for dedicated gunships).

Experimental stuff
First and foremost, I'd love to see camouflage and concealment implemented. Infantry units in camouflaged clothing hiding in forests may be undetectable to units that wander past, instead of all ground units being visible to others in adjacent squares. Accidentally moving a unit onto a square that contains "hidden" enemy unit results in an ambush, giving a sizeable initial bonus to the ambushers.

When two empires are at peace, they may even be able to have their units co-occupy the same map square. Why not? If a war is triggered, they may immediately attack each other (maybe with an ambush bonus for the empire that triggered the conflict, a'la sneak attack). I considered the units of allied nations fighting together as one "army", but ruled it out. Armies just don't work like that for the most part, especially nowadays.

Along with the discussion of optional units per tech advance (the Samurai/Legion), many note that this becomes irrelevant in modern times when all armies are very much alike. An alternative is to have different units in accordance with the two major philosophies, specialists and all-rounders. You can have the all-rounder, for this example the Mi-24 Hind, which can transport troops and provide a massive amount of supporting fire as it drops them. Or you can go the specialist route and develop two units that specialise in one thing, in this case the AH-64 Apache and the UH-60 Blackhawk. For balance, the Apache would have better firepower than the Hind, and the Blackhawk larger troop capacity, but you would have to build and maintain two different units. The choice would be yours.

That's about it, really, and by the way, this is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made anywere ever. Just a piece of worthless trivia to end on.

------------------
Regards,
Col. Rhombus
[This message has been edited by Colonel Rhombus (edited April 20, 2001).]

[Gammaray fan]

It seems that a lot of people in this thread didn't quite understand my original post so I will clarify it again.
What I did not say: I did not say Romans must pick legions etc.
I did not say that civs should be locked into picking
certain units. Quite the contrary!
What I did say: Every time you discover a new tech that lets you build a
military unit (eg iron working) you should be faced with
a choice between two similar units (one will be more
offensive, the other more defensive)
Finally, you cannot have both units unless you capture one
or find one in a hut. This forces you to THINK about the
military side of the game as well.
EXAMPLE: I discover 'ironworking'. A menu pops up asking me to
select 'legion' or 'samurai'. I am building a peaceful defensive
empire so I select legion. I can now build legions but will never
be able to build samurai's.
IDEAS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS THREAD: Could this 'choice' model be applied to other game elements such as buildings, or wonders?

[SerapisIV]

Thank you Gamm, even the instigator of this thread agrees that getting both units is not a good idea (with the exception of captured units).

About buildings, I don't think there'd could be enough variation. With wonders however, I could easily see a few Wonder options that would either favor a momentum or builder game. That sounds like an excellent idea. And with the added benefit of throwing even more wonders into game, without overloading the player with too many of them existing in one game.

[Stuff2]

I like the initial idea. But I think that every unit should have some kind of tech of it's own. I suggest Iron working can lead to both 'Samurai Codex' or 'Legion warfare'. Both units are equal beneficial but they may leed to even further different but equal units in the future. (Actually I think that a bunch of samurais would kill an ancient legion anytime but that's not my point).
You could ofcourse if you wanted research both but it would probably be a waste of time. I think every unit should be researched from the 'overall tech'. Then you can decide if you wan't to focus on military upgraiding or if you wan't to research for new knowledge.
[This message has been edited by Stuff2 (edited April 23, 2001).]

[SerapisIV]

Stuff2, your idea then is just for expanded tech tree and more units (something I'm all for mind you) But the legion/samurai arguement was just an example of being given a choice of different types of units with each tech, say with an offensive unit vs. defensive unit, so although you can't tailor the units to your playstyle (SMAC workshop), you can tailor what units you have.

I think it'd be a nice feature, especially as it would add another strategic layer to the game, but I won't be too troubled if it isn't.)

[TechWins]

Bringing this thread out of the dead because I really like this idea. Plus I've noticed a lack of threads because of not having any new information supply.

I think this system should be the way that I have previously stated " If you research Iron Working you should have a choice of Legion or Samurai.
You choose Samurai because your looking for an offensive unit per say 3/1/1 instead of the more defensive Legion unit per say 2/2/1. Then after choosing Samurai you should not be able to re-research Iron Working to also get Legion. The only way you could get a Legion unit is if you find one in a hut or capture one. The choice of either having to take a samurai or a legion is the whole strategy of having the choice of two units. If you want to be a more aggresive on the war side then take a samurai if you're looking for more defense then take a Legion. There should be careful planning in your strategy of taking a particular unit. "

I know I didn't come up with this idea. Tell me what you think. I don't think that there should be an option for two units on every tech that involves one unit. Meaning on some techs there wouldn't be any untis unlocked for your availibility to build, on some you could unlock only one, and on other you could unlock two.