Why guerrila?

[SpencerH]

Zurai is correct 'Hidden Nationality' and 'Submarine' (invisible except to the appropriate units AND to the AI's movement sub-programs) are the two seperate flags in question. Hidden nationality land units are quite fun land versions of the privateer that you can use to raise some hell with your enemies without starting a war. The drawback is that you can capture cities with them and so they can be a little unbalancing. When I was talking about invisible before I meant submarine .

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Zurai


No they aren't.

??????

"Invisible" is different from "Stealth" in the unit flags in the editor. Invisible is what the submarines have; Stealth is what the Stealth planes have. "Hidden Nationality" is something else completely.

Sounds like you missed some of thread. But what is "stealth". For air units it throws unit into different category of intercept rates. There is no concept of intercept rates for land or sea units. Therefore the question, what does "stealth" do to, say nucl subs? We know they are invisible. We know they can be set to have hidden nationality. If steath is checked, does the interaction of this unit change in game play or not?

The question about both is based on a report that Firaxis had problems getting invisible working with guerrila in PTW so came out without invisible checked as unit attribute. Based on AI action of attacking and seeking out invisible units just as it does for hidden nationality units, the proposition is made that there is some programming level link between both invisible and hidden nationality. Until that hidden link is corrected we can't have invisible active without having the AI treating the land unit as hidden nationality. Our only hope for balancing the AI is to turn on hidden nationality so we get balance.

Oh, and to change their movement to all terrain to grasslands, look up the Keshik - it has mountains treated as grasslands. Try to figure out where they made that change and you should be able to change all the other terrain types to 1 movement for Guerrilas. I'd be more specific but, as I mentioned earlier, I still don't have PTW.

Good obsersevation, think it is in unmodifiable code, but will check preferences.

== PF

BTW-- are others noticing a severe degregation of apolyton forum responsivness? I am noticing greatly increased latency.

[Comrade Tribune]

Guerillas should have 'Pirate' ability. (Able to infiltrate and attack opponents you are not at war with -but not allies, perhaps.)

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by planetfall

Sounds like you missed some of thread. But what is "stealth". For air units it throws unit into different category of intercept rates. There is no concept of intercept rates for land or sea units. Therefore the question, what does "stealth" do to, say nucl subs? We know they are invisible. We know they can be set to have hidden nationality. If steath is checked, does the interaction of this unit change in game play or not?

So far as I know, nothing, but it sounds like you're gonna try to find out for sure

The question about both is based on a report that Firaxis had problems getting invisible working with guerrila in PTW so came out without invisible checked as unit attribute. Based on AI action of attacking and seeking out invisible units just as it does for hidden nationality units, the proposition is made that there is some programming level link between both invisible and hidden nationality. Until that hidden link is corrected we can't have invisible active without having the AI treating the land unit as hidden nationality. Our only hope for balancing the AI is to turn on hidden nationality so we get balance.

The AI certainly did go after my 'assasin' units (submarine) but I think I also activated hidden nationality.

[Comrade Tribune]

Only problem with hidden nationality is it allows you to attack friends, which is not appropriate for Guerillas.

[Zero]

Theres a box with all the terrains. U just have to higlight them to consider those terrain as grassland for that unit. U'll see wat I mean if you get into unit editor.

As for invisible/stealth/hidden, all those feature wouldnt help guerilla IMO.

make them 6/6/2! (with maybe treat all terrain as grassland)

I would increase their stat to 7/7 but that would mean they would be better than infantry in attacking and one short of marine's attack capabilty. BTW in off topic note, who here thinks marines should be 10/6/1 instead? its weak as it is IMO.

[sabrewolf]

i reality, guerillas are very effective offensive units when used as surprise, e.g. attacking places you wouldn't expect.
well protected places and counterattacks however make the use of the guerilla quite useless.

so my conclusion:
- definetly NOT stronger offense than infantry (6 is good)
- worse defense then infantry (6 seems ok)
- because they are mobile foot units, either 1 movement (and all terrain as road) or my prefered version: 2 movement points, but treat all terrain as grassland
- cost must be low, because guerillas are usually just a handful of people. small but very effective.
and maybe with the stealth option

something would be nice, but it's currently not possible, because ZOC has changed in civ3: that the guerilla can't go past enemy units, only retreat backwards.

so if i could vote again, i'd now say: only reduce cost. but i don't know how balanced that would be.

[Minmaster]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
yeah, the poll should be revised so they can be made invisible only in the jungle.

When they are in the jungle, the only way you should be able to spot them is by moving right next to them. Instead of giving them 2 movements, I think they should be able to sit in "ambush", then if something accidentally comes next to them, they can attack and disengage. They trade punches with the enemy for a percentage of their status (say 2 for normal, 3 for veteran, and 4 for elite) and then disengage regardless of whether they are winning or losing. Guerilla warfare is not necessarily about killing an enemy. However, I think a large enough force of guerillas stationed in ambush could take out an enemy unit by each making small strikes and then disengaging and getting the choice of still moving after their initial attack so they can disappear back into the jungle.

by the time they're available, i dont think many jungle tiles would remain. they'd all be chopped down and cleared.

[SpencerH]

well if we're going into details I think guerrillas should be dirt cheap with a 4/2/2 ADM and no unit maintenance cost (if thats poss I havent looked at the editor yet). Also upgrade from medieval inf and longbows so I dont have guys with morningstars fighting mech inf.

[sabrewolf]

spencer: 4,2,2? that would make them the same strong as medieval infantry, just a little bit faster. do you REALLY think, that a well trained fanatic group of heavily armed soldiers is the same strong as a bunch of peasant with swords and shields? i don't think so...

[SpencerH]

I could ask the question in the other way. Do you think that a bunch of peasants armed with machetes and a few rifles has the same capacity to attack as professional soldiers. Not a chance. Guerrillas are not heavily armed troops, almost by definition. Show me a single example of guerrillas defeating (real) professionals in a battle (not a war).

[sabrewolf]

they don't stand a chance against professionals. not i clear fight. but they do use terrain, nigthtime, surprises, etc. for their advantage (guerilla warfare) which can make their assaults extremely effective.

with heavily armed i meant machine guns and explosives. sometimes jeeps for speed.

infantry usually have better equipment (but still the same sort: guns and explosives), come in bigger numbers and are better organised, that's why they should have a lot better defense.

i just don't want to make a guerilla have a weaker attack than cavalry (with primitive guns) or berserks. imho, infantry should be stronger (maybe 8/10), not the guerilla weaker.

[sabrewolf]

i can't give you an example, sorry. i don't know when such a group is called rebels, paramilitary, terrorists, guerilla, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, etc.

[SpencerH]

Well one problem is that CIV3 is not a wargame and it's not possible to create good combat models. Its also true that the relative strengths between units are way out of proportion. I think of these guerilla units as say company size (a good size tribe) with a smattering of small arms not something on the scope of the vietcong battalions.

Guerrilla's are definitely going to be weaker than cavalry in a stand up battle. It took the advent of massed machine guns (with plenty of ammunition) to end the calvary charge. It took a ****-load of training and/or guts to stand up the charge of a calvary Regt. It was the calvarys shock value rather than their hand weapons that was the main offensive factor.

[sabrewolf]

you're right about the guts needed to stand up against a cavalry regiment. but you're forgetting the era-factor.

iirc, the cavalry's time time ended in beginning of the twentieth century when armored vehicules started coming up. so the cavalry soldiers represented in civ3 where armed with fairly simple rifles with weak firing power (it could still kill you), bad accuracy (well, sitting on a moving horse makes that difficult anyway) and a danger for the soldier himself (how often did the weapons blow up in their hands?). also reloading the weapon took time... time you don't have in a battle.

the guerilla however is a unit of the 2nd half of the 20th century. weapons will work even if they are wet. bullets come in magazines (is that the english word?) which can be replaced in less than a second.

now if i have the choice of riding on a horse with a primitive rifle and charging or lying in a trench with a neat machine gun and plenty of ammo... i'd choose the guerilla