New PtW Units

[dunk]

Medeval infantry... Maybe Man at Arms.

Who knows about stats? 4-3-1 seems to high to me. Mounted knights should have a stat advantage other than movement over these units. But, 4-2-1 is the immortal, 3-3-1 is the legion.

Here's where more subtlty in the unit ADM values would be helpful.

[dunk]

Guerrilas...

Probably are available with Nationalism. 4-5-1, treats all as roads.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Call them "footmen."

Another vote for Footmen.

At the right price, 4-3-1 isn't too high for the stats. And the extra movement for mounted knights does make a large difference in my opinion. Being able to retreat from combat is priceless.

I wonder if Guerrilas may serve the same purpose as Partisans in Civ2 (spring up around newly conquered cities)...? Or have hidden nationality (so you could fight a sort of like a proxy war - like we did arming the Guerillas in Afganistan vs. the Soviets)? Or are they just cheap no-resource weakened infantry? Would be fun if they added more to them than just that.

[Jon Shafer]

You forget something though. Firaxis isn't bound to the original stats for units. Swordsmen may end up being 6.4.1 before it's over with (same stat ratio as before). That leaves a lot of 'middle ground' for stats to be altered for UUs in various ways. We can't really specualte on how that will be done. I'm sure every combo of numbers has been achieved between 1 through 10 in the various sets of Civ 3 units by now, so I'm sure they're coming up with a new way to organize things. At least, I hope so...

[Spiffor]

I don't think they'll completely overhaul the rules... Modders already do so, and I think Firaxis doesn't want to force players to change their Civ3 experience. You can bet that a rule-overhaul will create much whining.
I too think that 4.3.1 for 60 shields is reasonable, because the ability to retreat is great. I think that Persians and Romans shouldn't upgrade their UUs to medieval infantry though.

[Carver]

Originally posted by dunk999
Guerrilas...

Probably are available with Nationalism. 4-5-1, treats all as roads.

But guerrilas are offensive units. They attack things, they don't defend positions because they are conventionally weaker than a "regular" army.

Maybe 4-2-1 or 4-2-2.

[Cyclotron]

Guys... one of the firaxians in the chat said that guerillas would be a wimpy version of infantry that needed no resources... which means that they do not come around nationalism, probably closer to replaceable parts. It also means that a 4-2-1 is a bit too weak for them.

My guess is 6-6-2.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Carver

But guerrilas are offensive units. They attack things, they don't defend positions because they are conventionally weaker than a "regular" army.

Maybe 4-2-1 or 4-2-2.

Are they really offensive? Think about it. How many guerillas are on an offensive campaign? They are defending their homes.

I think a higher defensive value reflects their actual use more acurately. They hide in jungles, mountains, forests and ambush passing enemies. They sabotage equipment. They slow down enemy advances. Etc, etc.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Trip
You forget something though. Firaxis isn't bound to the original stats for units. Swordsmen may end up being 6.4.1 before it's over with (same stat ratio as before). That leaves a lot of 'middle ground' for stats to be altered for UUs in various ways. We can't really specualte on how that will be done. I'm sure every combo of numbers has been achieved between 1 through 10 in the various sets of Civ 3 units by now, so I'm sure they're coming up with a new way to organize things. At least, I hope so...

Good point. Maybe, maybe not.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by dunk999
Are they really offensive? Think about it. How many guerillas are on an offensive campaign? They are defending their homes.

I think a higher defensive value reflects their actual use more acurately. They hide in jungles, mountains, forests and ambush passing enemies. They sabotage equipment. They slow down enemy advances. Etc, etc.

Very good point. I'd have to say that Guerillas are used more defensively than offensively. I mean, how often did you see waves of Partisans assaulting heavily fortified positions in Civ 2? I think that making them invisible though is a must... I mean sheesh, that's the whole point of Guerrillas...

[Spiffor]

If Guerillas are invisible, I can already hear the whining come : "it's unrealistic ! my tank died against a Guerilla I didn't see in the mountain ! Damn You Firaxis "
(Kinda redundant with the Soviet-Afghan war, isn't it ? )

[Jon Shafer]

Except the only problem with that is... Tanks dying against Guerrillas in mountains is quite realistic (Spearmen though, is another story ). I think the Soviets and the whiners should get together some time and have a pity party.

[Carver]

Compared to a unit of infatry or armour a good guerilla unit should be virtually invisible on the terrain, that's how they survive. When I think of guerilla operations I think of attacks on infastructure: powerlines, damms, harbours, oil platforms, bridges and roads - maybe quick ambushes of gov't troops. They like quick in-and-out operations because guerillas don't have the capacity for sustained conventional combat against a "national" army with infatry, armour, aircraft and artillery.

Dunk, they hide in jungles, mountains ect. becuase they know if they get exposed and have to fight a real fight, they're in trouble. I don't know what Firaxis will do but at least we can always change the values in the ed.

[Spiffor]

To me, it's clear that Guerilla will treat all terrain as roads, will have hidden nationality, and will be very weak (5.6.1 if they replace infantry).
The only problem is that, if you don't have rubber, your "normal" defenders will be guerillas

[Harlan]

Can anyone find the exact chat quotes about the Guerilla and Medieval Infantry units? I would like to know for sure if they're called cheaper versions of infantry that require no resources. And I believe I saw M. Infantry called Knights without horses or something to that effect.

Having Guerilla not come till Infantry times seems pretty late. Maybe the start appearing spontaneously with Nationalism or Communism or the like, but you can't actually build them until later? In either case, it seems pretty obvious they should have the hidden nationality flag.

If M. Infantry come around the same time as Knight, and thus Pikeman, what's the point? Maybe Pikeman will be weaker but have a double bonus against mounted units, a la Civ2. Then you'd want to build both. If M. Infantry are "Knights without horses" then they should be called Men at Arms, cos that's exactly what those were.