UNITS (ver 1.2) hosted by JT

[JT]

Sorry, but I have to leave right away, so I can't post a summary until I get back.

[EnochF]

Ah, no problem.

Diodorus: Hey, I actually like your ideas for coming up with a rational unit workshop. I don't dread it as much as I used to...

[Mo]

I don't think there should be a unit workshop in Civ III. Instead how about that your units stats improve once you have discovered a certain tech or after you have built a certain number of units.
Tech: Example submarines could be outfited with reactors once nuceuler fission is discovered, this would upgrade their movement.
Also after you have built a certain number of that type of unit. The upgrade would be explained that your people now have more expirence developing that weapon and have better training since it was tested in the field and the results analyzed. Archers could get a 1+ attack because longbows have been developed.

[darkgrendel]

But what if you want to build a unit QUICKLY, so you don't WANT the upgrade on it? I think you should be able to select when you build something what upgrades you have on it. And personally (except for how crowded it got, but with if they kept Civ2's Build dialogue, that wouldn't be a problem) SMAC's unit workshop.

[Andy B]

I think somebody has said this before but not
here: How can alpine troops travel across deserts, plains and grassland?

[NotLikeTea]

Interesting point.

Would giving units terrain bonuses and handicaps be just oo much detail to handle?

Tanks with trouble through mountains, forests. Horses travelling best on plains. Etc.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

This probably belongs in another thread, but it pertains to the last couple of posts here:
Terrain Effects and Types have to be better defined, and it dovetails with Unit Capabilities: There are a host of unit types, whether they are game-defined or player -designed, that have special pluses and minuses in movement and combat vis-a-vis terrain.
To use modern examples for a change, Armor (tracked) is notoriously ineffective in "close" terrain" mountains, cities, swamps, forests, etc. This relates to both its movement, which is much slower and much more heavily penalized than that of foot infantry in those terrains, and its combat factors.
I always thought of 'Alpine' as representing all the types of modern Light Infantry - and representing them poorly, at that. Lightly equipped infantry forces, like the Ranger battalions, German Jaeger Divisions, everybody's Mountain units in WWII and modern Light Divisions in the US Army, are designed to be easily moved strategically (by air or sea) and to operate effectively in all types of 'bad' terrain - like the list of armor-unfriendly stuff earlier in this post.
What's left out is that they are also relatively lightly armed, and unless equipped with light motorized vehicles (which the US Army experimented with right down the road from me at Fort Lewis) they are slower than regular troops on roads, plains, grasslands, etc. Their combat factors are pretty good relative to everything else in the bad terrain, but they get ground up in the open: don't have the heavy firepower of armor or mech. infantry. The reason they do well in the bad terrain is that everyone else's combat factors go DOWN dramatically there, because they can't bring their firepower and mobility to bear in swamps, mountains, cities, etc.

None of these terrain effects show up in any of the games, and they skew the unit effects and capabilities as well...

[CormacMacArt]

Forgive me if I posted this here already.
Perhaps instead of CtP SLAVER unit, have a SLAVE unit. Use him to build my roads, build my bridges, make my coffie. Build at 2x rate, half support.

[Harel]

I will say that one more time: SMAC workshop WILL appeer in civ III.
why?
A. It appeared in SMAC. CIV III will probaly be based losely on SMAC game engine.
B. It does make lots of sense, even if you don't agree with it.
C. Many people do support the workshop, myself included.
D. You dont HAVE to use it. I really dont understand why people care. You don't like the workshop, choose the standard units! Let us the workshopholic get what we want... This way both sides are happy... it's a win win sitution... I don't really understand whats the problem.

[NotLikeTea]

That is not true.

A) SMAC also had PSI combat.. will CivIII? That the two are based on the same engine (which is not confirmed) does not guarantee perfect similarities.

B) This is debatable.. do we really need all the possible units? If a unit we can design is succesful, but was NEVER used in real life, then there is something wrong with the game. I find it hard to believe that a player can top thousands of years of history. SMAC made sense, since it was the future.

C) All that matters in the end is if Firaxis supports it.

D) Not a valid point. If I don't use the editor, the AI still will, giving them an advantage. Same as in multiplayer games.

Besides, most of these situations can be resolved by just having more default units.

BTW, I really liked the workshop in SMAC. However, this is not SMAC. Not everything can, or should be transferred.

[This message has been edited by NotLikeTea (edited May 27, 1999).]

[CormacMacArt]

That's a good point. It is kind of nice to have an idea of what kind of unit your enemy is bringing to bear.

[Ekmek]

As an addition to units, I'd like to see an improved engineer unit. I already had some home made scenarios with airborne sappers that would drop in and make roads to aid mobility, but what about building obstacles, minefields, and some other combat engineer aspects. They're big combat multipliers.

Also there has to be better chem and biological weapons, ones that create one square of pollution or can shift at random (to simulate wind)

I noticed logistics is going on on other pages but give artillery and bombers some range or munitions, how often can infantry fight back against arty? I've been fighting to find a way for civii to let ground units carry air so I can simulate rounds...

[St Leo]

A workshop a la SMAC will really screw up scenario design. Could one make a middle ages scenario in SMAC? Fat chance.:-)

------------------
St. Leo
www.sidgames.com/imperialism/

[EnochF]

Oh. Perhaps the argument about a unit workshop wasn't quite as one-sided as it appeared.

I get the feeling that Firaxis is probably still on the fence about a unit workshop right about now. It worked fantastically for Alpha Centauri. But the Civ II system of units worked just as well for Civ II.

Part of the reason the workshop was so helpful for Alpha Centauri is because thinking up fifty completely new futuristic units is simply too daunting a task. Call to Power tried, and even with its handful of fifteen-odd futuristic units, they came off looking silly. Alpha Centauri sidestepped that by simply snapping bits and pieces together and giving it a name.

The six thousand years of human civilization has involved more significant advances than merely snapping bits and pieces together. The evolution of Legions into formations of Pikemen was more than just adding wooden sticks to their arsenal. It was a tactical evolution. Groups of pikemen gathered into square formations, able to point their pikes in all cardinal directions to withstand any enemy charge.

Battleships, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, frigates, transports, ironclads... they have different and distinct names for a reason. They're different, inside and out, through and through, in terms of the hull, the armaments, and the crew. You could strip all the weapons off a battleship and use it as a troop transport, but it wouldn't be as effective as a troop transport. You could mount dozens of huge gatling guns on a cruiser, but it still wouldn't be as effective a combat vessel as a battleship.

And what if the workshop does give you the ability to construct fantastical wonder-ships, say, AEGIS Battle-Carrier Transports? Well, it creates a schism between the real world, in which such units are fanciful and impractical, and the game world, in which such units are highly desirable for naval superiority. Got a problem? Just take three ABCT's, fill them with nuclear weapons and mechanized marines and watch the enemy fall. And while you're at it, construct a few Stealth Heli-Bomber Tanks, and guard your coastal cities with Submersible Infantry, and conduct your city sieges by parachuting AEGIS Howitzer Para-Tanks into the enemy's territory... bleah!

[Harel]

I never ment that the workshop could create "super-units", as you know very well. We discussed that allready. The workshop should allow you to build only things that allready exists now.
Then why we need one, you ask? Well, if we will try to put toghter all the different kinds of ships, subs, tanks, planes and infantry we can have, we'll get a very long list.
The cIV III kind of workshop suppose to allow you to re-create any unit you wish with ease, and not choose from a pre-set collections of dozens of dozens... which will confuse everyone.
Do you want to open up the city menu and see a list of 50 combat units?
That's isn't just true for the modern age, it's also true of the middle ages...
Do you want a huge list, combining heavy cavalry, light cavalry, rider archers, small bows, long bows, crossbow, knights, riders, scouts... the list is very long.
And then you need to remember the different use of weapons and armor by various countries..
The workshop should be fitted to allow small changes into existing models: we'll the new sub prefer infra-red probing or better torpedos? That is the questions that will rise from the workshop, not if it could fly or belch quantum bombs. The work-shop should be a "tweaker" place, to allow us to build the various models and espects of the existing military units.