Overabundance of Military Unit Types

[polymths]

In Civ2 (far more than in Civ1), there are simply way too many units. So much so that most units never see the light of day because by the time they are available, better units are just a couple of turns away.

Hopefully in Civ3, there won't be this overabundance of unit types.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-11-2001 11:13 PM In Civ2 (far more than in Civ1), there are simply way too many units. So much so that most units never see the light of day because by the time they are available, better units are just a couple of turns away. Hopefully in Civ3, there won't be this overabundance of unit types.

I disagree! There can never be too many unit-types in Civ-3 (and there wasnt to many of them in Civ-2, either). Well, "never be too many" within reasonable limits of course. One dont necessarily has to build them all, you know.

The only problem here is that the AI prioritize far too many upkeep-costly military units, instead of concentrate on building fewer, more keenly updated ones; with better combat-values. This however depends ultimately on the game-situation, I guess. If more then two AI-cities is conquered within a certain amount of game-turns (depending on tech-level and RR coverage); the AI-civ should interpret that as an "full-scale invasion" and automatically switch to builing military CI:s/units only.

Also; AI military land-units should either have a reasonably clear offensive objective, or stay fortified within cities or fortresses. For passive AI look-out purposes, its better that each developed AI-owned terrain-tile automatcally comes with a built-in game-mechanical tread-alarm feature, instead of having buckloads of scouting AI-units shuffling back-and-forth, with no clear objectives - other then pass the time and annoing the HP-players patience.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 12, 2001).]

[ancient]

i also didnt think there was enough military units..

[Sava]

One of the ideas I have isn't to generalize and restrict an army to being "phalanx" or "musketeer". Those armies are just guys with spears and muskets, respectively.

In a commodity based system, would equip troops with weapons. And for more advanced units, mainly ships, planes, etc, you would upgrade your workshops to produce the newer units.

Read my topics about Production, military units, etc, to get the full jist of what I'm saying.

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-11-2001 11:13 PM So much so that most units never see the light of day because by the time they are available, better units are just a couple of turns away.

This is true mainly for the ships (frigates almost pass by in an instant)

I don't think there were too many units.
But it we should be able to upgrade our units when better ones come along instead of having to rebuild our whole army (if we don't have Leo)

I think I read somwhere the upgrade system is in in civ 3?

[ajbera]

quote: Originally posted by SoulAssassin on 05-12-2001 09:37 AM One of the ideas I have isn't to generalize and restrict an army to being "phalanx" or "musketeer". Those armies are just guys with spears and muskets, respectively. In a commodity based system, would equip troops with weapons. And for more advanced units, mainly ships, planes, etc, you would upgrade your workshops to produce the newer units. Read my topics about Production, military units, etc, to get the full jist of what I'm saying.

This is similar to the unit workshop of SMAC. It was a design I (and others) enjoyed for its flexibility of design, but it has already been stated that Civ3 will not include a workshop.

Maybe next game.

[Mathphysto]

I don't think that there has been an overabundance of unit types - just a lack of time to use them properly. Having more units corresponds to increasing the "resolution" of technology (giving finer degrees of distinction between one era and the next). Instead of jumping straight from phalanx to musketeers, pikemen give a finer scale of technological and militaristic progress.

However, in order for this greater technological resolution to be useful, we also need a greater temporal resolution. Only if there is more time between one era and the next will the units characteristic of that in-between time (eg - pikemen, between ancient and renaissance eras) be able to be built and used.

The drawback of adding more temporal resolution is, of course, making the game longer to play. But is it really so intolerable to have a longer game, given that the added length is there to make the game more enjoyable. To me, the added length wouldn't just mean more hours of Civ, it would also mean more enjoyable hours of Civ.

[Cyclotron]

Are you kidding? The more, the merrier (within reasonable limits)!

Nobody is forcing you to use each and every unit. More units is part of more choice. I just hope we won't be stuck with the Civ2 middle ages problem: One infantry, one cavalry, and one artillery... no variation!