UNITS (ver1.1): Hosted by JT

[Mo]

I'm undecieded on including the unit workshop, but if they include it they should have weapons limited to a chassis. This would prevent outrages desigens from being built, like a boat armed with a sword.

[JT]

Still chuckling at that one, Mo.

That's true. I definatly want a workshop. If not that, the ability to combine units. I also want to be able to upgrade units with a new tech, like in SMAC.

And, like Mo said, different chasies(sp?) should have different weapons.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

[VaderTwo]

Very good point Mo. A jet with a sword would be even more ridiculous.

[JT]

Yeah. I hope they add a workshop, but as Mo has pointed out, there need to be limimts.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

[EnochF]

Okay, let's assume the existence of an Alpha Centauri-style customize units screen. What would be the "chassis"?

Soldier, Mounted Soldier, Wooden Hull, Iron Hull, Submarine Chassis, Tank Chassis, Prop Plane Chassis, Jet Plane Chassis... and then what about helicopters or mobile SAMs? Would destroyers and battleships have the same chassis? What about triremes and caravels?

Y'see, it starts out sounding like a good idea, and pretty soon you realize you'll just end up with just as many "elements" are there are separate units in the first place, and there's no economy in it. There appears to be in the early stages of the game (how much difference can there be between a dragoon and cavalry, for example), but in the late stages, chassis will be in a constant state of flux. Especially, it would be more a hindrance than a help in designing once naval and air forces.

[JT]

That's probably true. But, why would there be a battleship/destroyer chassis? I've got a better idea. For every, say, three levels of armor on a sea unit, the MP goes down. So, you could have a 12-1-6 Destroyer that could beat the heck out of anything attacking, but when defending would lose to a 3-12-3 cruiser. There could also be a limit to how many total points(not counting FP or HP) you could put on a unit. That way, you couldn't get a 12-12-6 Howitzer(although I wouldn't mind having an army of those ). See, there are many options that they could put in to make things work out right.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

[Coug]

I really miss the ability to make more customizable units in CivII. My suggestion is to add the Hard and Soft attacks and defences. This would allow for much better control while keeping things simple.

How to set it up:
Type (Type of unit. soft unit, hard unit)
Soft Land Attack
Hard Land Attack
Soft Sea Attack
Hard Sea Attack
Soft Air Attack
Hard Air Attack

same for defence. Thing is, I would also like the units to be listed in a programming kind of way, much like the events language.

Simple... A tank would be something like this:

Unit69 {
name="Early Tank";
type="soft";

hard_land_attack="5"
soft_land_attack="7"

hard_land_defence="4"
soft_land_defence="6"

etc etc etc. It would be more programming, but also give the units more characteristics.

------------------
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to."
-- Dorothy Parker

[Diodorus Sicilus]

- First Post This Thread-

Been thinking a lot about Upgradable Units for Civ ever since I started playing Civ II and especially ever since SMAC...
Most historical 'units' are a result of a combination of developments, not all of them technological. If all was related to tech, then the Hittites would have had Legions when they developed iron working (forced draft forging) in 1000 BC - didn't happen, 'cause it took developments in tactics, formations, and even sociology to result in the Legion - an organization, not a weapon type.
In 4000 BC, you have 2 basic weapons/units available: the spear, either thrust or thrown, and the simple or self bow. Thus, in Civ terms you get a bowman (leather brown in hue, carrying bow) or a spearman (leather again, spear underarm, no shield)
Develop Bronze Working:
You can upgrade three ways:
1. (Slashing Swords) can now be forged: turn your spearman into a Swordsman, which is a minor increase in attack value
2. (Shields) can now be hammered out (literally!) - increases defense of any unit BUT bowman can't use them and shoot
3. (Bronze Armor) which is more expensive than shields, but can be hung on anyone - more defensive increase.
NOTE: If we adopt Ranged Weapons (one of the good ideas from CtP) then Shields increase defense against Ranged Fire, not against hand-to-hand - that isn't entirely historical, but usable in Game Terms
Now, if you also have a cultural development: Armed Citizenry (as opposed to a Warrior Class) you can form Phalanxes out of the spearmen. These Require Shields, but not body armor (the late Greek, early Macedonian phalanx did not, in fact, use it). Phalanx gets attack and defense bonuses over simple spearman BUT it can't operate in rough country, gets severely penalized in woods, forests, swamps, etc - anything but open ground like plains or grasslands.

Point is, all these units (spearmen, bowmen, swordsmen, phalanx) can be represented by 3 icons (spearmen, bowman, swordsman) with appropriate color changes (leather brown to bronze, add shields) to indicate the Upgrades.
For Ground Troops, mobile Chassis would consist of Horses, Elephants, or Chariots until the internal combustion engine allowed you to Motorize (haul in trucks) or Mechanize (haul in armored vehicles and build tanks) Horsemen are not Upgraded by putting a phalanx on a horse - riding horses is a Special Skill usually connected with a Special Class of People (equestrian Order in Rome, Knights in Indo-European cultures - the term is found in ancient Rome and Greece as a Social Class) So the basic leather-cloth-clad horseman gets bronze armor, changes his spear for a sword, adds iron (mail?) armor, adds a Lance (not the same as a spear) and eventually Upgrades all the way to a Steel Plate Armor + Lance = Knight.
Then someone builds Musketeers and Gunpowder weapons have the Special Attribute of ignoring all armor effects on non-mechanized chassis! Goodbye knight, hello unarmored cavalry again...
The entire gamut of current military ground CivII/CtP units up to the modern period can be represented by less than 25 icons with variations like color changes added to them. This is doable, or should be by any competent modern game design group...

[JT]

Hmmmm.....intresting...realistic.......doable..... .makes people think of tactics......would provide fun as heck wars.... DANG THAT'S A GOOD IDEA!

You've made my list of 3(I think) posts to be officially copied and E-Mailed to BR with the MASTER LIST. Congratulations!

PS: Unless, of course, someone can come up with a really good argument against you, but that's unlikely to happen.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

[EnochF]

Yes, I agree, Diodorus, but what about after that? I agree that early units basically consist of a Soldier and Mounted Soldier chassis, but once you reach Steam Engine, you're discovering one chassis after another. An ironclad, a destroyer, a cruiser, a battleship and an AEGIS each has its own chassis. The amount of "pieces" to assemble will spiral out of control in modern ages.

[JT]

As I have pointed out before, the cruiser, battleship, destroyer, and AEGIS do not have to be different chasies(sp?). There are several ways to simplify the chasies. In my version, these would be the chasies:

Infantry
Horseback
Trireme
Frigate
Ironclad
Cruiser/Battleship/Destroyer/AEGIS(haven't come up with a name)
Vehicle
Fighter
Bomber
Copter

With the appropriate tech, the chasis could be advanced, for example, with Navigation, you would get the Frigate tech, but it would only have the strengths of the Civ2 Caravel. Then, with Magnetism, the movement points are advanced, with Metallurgy, the A/D/F/HP are increased, and so is the transport size(can build bigger ships). Also, the "limit" for A/D/F/HP/M points for sea units could be be set higher. Let's say it advances with Navigation, Magnetism, Metallurgy, Steam Engine, Electricity, Automobile, Steel, and Rocketry. There could also be certain special abilities that take a way a number of points and certain areas. The carrier deck could take away 5 pounts and attack, transport ability could take away 3 points and attack, the 2x air defense could take away 7 points.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

[Captain Nemo]

I suggest more flexible unit capabilities:

Give certain units better abilities against certain others in a "flexible", tabular format: For example assign an "motorized vehicule" flag to units A, B, C and D, then assign a "double attack against motorized vehicule" flag to unit E (Call it an anti-tank weapon)(This idea stems from my experience with a lot of scenario work where the inflexibility of the CivII "rules" becomes noticeable)

Same idea for air defense, air attack, cavalry defense etc...

The same should be the case for the ability to travel on each type of terrain...For example tanks, cavalry, trucks should not be able to go through jungle/swamp terrain (Except if road/railroad). Mountains should be real barriers to most units except units with mountaineering ability. Some units should be able to travel both land and sea. Glacier squares should require special type of units too. Some units should be confined to road/railroad squares (Freight trains, freight, trucks).

In the same way there should be some modular way to turn off attack capability between two units such as the land/sea units no being able to attack air units and submarines
not being able to attack land units... For example air units attacking minefields?

Some new unit ideas:
Sea trade unit (Merchant ship)
Air trade unit (Cargo plane)
Sea mine/land mine (Invisible to most units)
Units that can attack from a distance without risk of being destroyed (Artillery & bombers)
Get rid of the stupid combat rules where entire armies are wiped out by a single attacker!
Ability of air units to fly over enemy land units without attacking them.
Ability to engage ground forces under air cover with ground forces(Why can't a battleship engage an Aegis cruiser located under a stealth bomber??)
Air and land transport units
Air refueling units...

[Trachmyr]

How about diffrent sizes for chassis... this would allow for a real diffrence between cruisers and battleships, ect.

Even ancient units can use this... you choose "Mount" as a chassis then for size you big "Large": poof, you got an Elephant (can't forget elephants).

Also Locomotion should be diffrent than the chassis. Land+small+wheel you get a jeep, Land+large+track you get a tank.

This will allow for the plethora of modern units currently available IRL.

[JT]

Exactly. The "plethora" of units would be too many. We need a small number of customizable units.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

[VaderTwo]

JT, I like the list of chassises, but we're missing: missile and/or any satellite and space units.