UNITS (ver 1.2) hosted by JT

[Depp]

Harel:

The workshop in SMAC made all the units look exactely alike, which sucked bigtime. Having chassis types makes that happen, and it´s really boring. You can´t go "NO, he´s attacking me with knigths", but No he is attacking me with..some horse-y kinda unit...

what´s the point of unit graphics if you can't separete them from each other?

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

[Mo]

I think the workshop shouldn't be included. Yes you can make a large variety of units if you do include the workshop, but some of the differences are so small that they wouldn't even affect how the unit performs in combat. Are swords man better than macemen or men with axes? All these changes would be big enough to change a one of the unit stats. Are the differences between migs and f14 or other fighters so great as to change the stats for them?
To make the graphics easily distinguishable will be much harder with the unit workshop. Like how do you know the difference between a normal sub and one with better torpedos or one with infared probing.
The things that I disliked about the SMAC unit workshop are that you couldn't have a transport with attack capability ala frigate in civII, and that it got cluttered with units that are almost identical.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'd like a unit workshop after you've moved out of historical time and into the future. After all, my guess is as good as yours as to what future military units there will be.

Trash the ski troops, replace with "guard units" of some kind. Also include special forces/commandos with the WWII period units. increase airlift capacity (have hercules style planes) and increase effect of conventional bommbing.

[CormacMacArt]

Now there's a good comprimise! Have the workshop a future "advance". It would still be nice to be able to update my phalanx into a legion when I reach the apropriate technology and tactics.

[Mo]

Should there be actual air transport planes or should it just be handled with airports and airbases?
CivII air transport was a bit lacking. You could only transport 1 unit out of a city with an airport or from an airbase to another city with an airport. You should be able to send and recieve more than one unit per turn. Maybe for play balance you could add a transport cost to it. Also I would like to be able to recieve units at airbases, instead of just being anle to send them.

[EnochF]

Mo: Good point. I'm the sort of player that builds airports everywhere and loves inter-continental trade, so I get incredibly frustrated when I want to send my Uranium across the world and can't because I'd already airlifted a handful of tanks somewhere...

(Does that belong in the Units thread or the City Improvements thread?)

[Subzero]

Well, why not simply put airlift functions in a "transport plane" unit? give it fantastic range, lousy combat numbers, and the ability to carry a unit or two..

------------------
"May God grant them mercy. I won't."

[ember]

The trasport plane would add another layer of micromanagemnt without improving a players flexibility. I think all air and ground units should be 'deployed'.
When a unit is built (i prefer regions and units built by a region) it is placed in a list of units to be deployed. Other units can be added if they have not moved yet. At the end of your turn, you deploy these units. The AI suggests a location for each unit, and you can change it or keep it as is.
Deployed units are not combat effeective until your NEXT turn, preventing instant defenses. They are destroyed if attacked. Deployment can only be made to cities, bases, and some naval vessels. cities under siege, bases and ships have a limit to the number of units that can be deployed per turn. You can deploy to allied cities and bases as well.

For a historical civ game i think the unit editor is cumbersome. it is too dificult to trim unwanted units, too many variations are available, and they don't have much impact on the game, especially if all it is doing is giving your armour +1 attack (pazers), for an extra row of resources.

Units should aoutomatically upgrade. any obsolete unit has a 5% (random number) chance of upgrading each turn.

To simulate the economic burden of waging war, units should be supported by gold. Repairs also cost gold. The support cost is unaffected by unit status (1 gold / 20 shileds?) Repairs cost 1 gold per shield worth of repairs. Units repaired in the filed pay full price. At a city they pay 2/3 price and if the city has a barracks/airport/port it costs 1/3 price.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Mo]

You shouldn't be able to deploy units to a city under siege. Or to naval vessels except if they are in port. I think upgrades should be handled similar to SMAC where you can upgrade units individually or all at once but have to pay a price for it. You shouldn't be able to upgrade units in the field either.

[jof]

I would like to suggest to start 6000BC with one NOMAD(0/1/1) unit: Like a walking city it gathers food&shield&trade from the field it moves to (nothing if fortified in emergency) while trying to explore the neighbourhood.
It needs no support and splits into two nomads when the foodbox reaches 20(?).
It can only build warriors & (after discovering riding) horsemen (it can't build other units, roads, irrigation, mines, city improvements or wonders).
Through the collection of trade points it can gain the early advances fire making, horseback riding, farming, crafting...
Once the farming advance is aquired, nomads may build villages or cities.

[TAVIN]

some ideas for more realistic ...
Cleric in stacked combat +20% (only Theokracy)
Despotism, Monarchy units can change the sides (in combat, if there a big unhapenes).

[Mo]

I like the idea of the nomads. I think they should be able to build other units too. This will allow a completely nomadic civilization. There has to be a limit to what they can build I would set it at knights.

[Depp]

jof: cool idea!

[Shining1]

There obviously needs to be a couple of options here - the default civII designs, in 2D 'cartoon' form, and the unit workshop to allow great looking 3D units from the weapon component system.

Hence you get the best of both worlds - scenario editors can introduce new units at will (maybe even allow a 2D weapon component system?), and the best graphics don't suffer for it.

But any 3D units should be polygons, not voxhals. Voxhals suck. Majorly.

Shining1

[Giant Squid]

Ideas on bombs

We all agree that making some pollution, destroying a few units, and cutting city size in half wan't enough for a nuke. Here's my idea.

A-Bomb: Can be carried by a bomber. The bomber has to first attack the city. If it wins, the A-Bomb is dropped (This means that, with enough air defense, it can't get in to drop its payload) When it is dropped, the following things happen.
-All units in the city take a random blow to their health. For about half, it's enough to kill them. For the rest, it's enough to make them pretty much useless until they recover.
-Two-thirds of the city's improvements are destroyed.
-Half of all the people in the city die.
-A random number of squares are polluted.

H-Bomb
Again, must be carried by a bomber, which must successfully attack. The city is wiped off the map, and every square in the city radius gets polluted.

ICBM
Not even really a unit. When you build one, you "set" it to an enemy city. by using a separate screen, you can choose to fire one (This is a major action, requires your confirmation and that of the Senate, and may cause very large diplomatic problems)
The cities it is aimed for are destryoed, but only AFTER getting the chance to fire any ICBMs they have aimed at you. SDI can stop it, but it has a small chance of getting through anyway.