UNITS (v. 1.3): hosted by JT

[JT]

The other one was over the limit. See UNITS Summary for (gasp!) the UNITS Summary.

[Sieve Too]

WOW, what a list so far! Great job organizing all this JT!

New class of Units: Biological/Chemical Weapons (I didn't find it on the list but I might've missed it)

Early biological weapons need be no more than a diseased corpse catapulted into a besieged city. This was a common ancient tactic to overcome the impenetrable City Walls problem. A diseased unit loses 1/3 or their hit points. Further attacks by early diseases have no effect on the unit, as it becomes resistant.

Later biological weapons are more devestating : 1/2 hit points lost, mobile units lose mobility for a turn, loss of veteran status due to green troops replacing sick ones, more contagious diseases affect 2 or maybe more units, highly contagious diseases affect all units in a 1 square radius.

Spies would have a chance of "planting" a disease. With Rocketry, civs could deliver biological weapons from a long distance.

Users of biological weapons should run a risk of self infection each time the weapons are meant to be used. This class of weapons would carry the same unhappiness penalty in Democracies as nukes. Likewise, the use of these weapons is generally frowned upon in the world community, but to a lesser extent for Fundamentalist civs.

SDI would be a good defense for cities, similar to nukes. Advances like Sanitation, Medicine and Genetic Engineering could reduce or eliminate the effects of earlier weapons. In the field, a Patriot Defense System Unit could protect an area against later rocket delivered weapons.

[JT]

It _was_ on there, but it was defined differently than that.

[Cartagia the Great]

I'm not sure if this was on there, but I'd also like to see the inclusion of refugees. These units would be created, much liek Partisans from Civ2, but would have differant affects. They would have the 'everything is roads' ability, to show their fleeing from a fallen city. They would also take food from what ever space they ahve landed on, even in your own civilization, denighing food, and resources, to your permenantly housed civilians. For this reason you might have them flee, for a short period, to an allies territory, but it may make them angery at you. Unlike real settlers, all refugees could do is build cities, not roads, or irrigation, and their food consuption would make sure you don't want them on your land much anyway

[NotLikeTea]

I advocated for refugees in SMAC too, but never got them.

I don't think that they should be able to found cities, but should be able to join existing cities, and add a population point.

I also like the idea of having them accepted by allies, but not to add a population point, obviously. Once they can come back to your civ, they should.

I also don't think they should be too much of a drain on resources. Let's just say that each refugee unit (representing one population point) requires the same food as one population point in a city, and would take it from the nearest city (not crossing borders)

Of course, attacking refugees is an atrocity, in the later game, at least. And whenever it happens, legal or not, it would cause some major hard feelings.

Refugees cannot be disbanded.

[Francis]

Not sure if this should go here or elsewhere, but NONE units should be eliminated. In the real world military units require support from somewhere; bribed barbarians should be no exception. Note that I'm not talking about your three free units under monarchy, etc. When you bribe a unit, you should get the option to home it to any of your cities, so that you can pick the one best able to support another unit. Exceptions to this would be partisans (always NON), perhaps settlers/engineers (in theory, might be able to support themselves on the fat of the land or something) and fanatics under fundy. But you'd still have to home the fanatics, because if you switched govs they might then require support.

[Mo]

I think refugees should consume food from the nearst city with which their country isn't at war with. That city can refuse to give food but unless they truly don't have enough food to support them their reputation should go down.

[Mo]

I think that you should be able to burn a city to the ground similar to smac, but it shouldn't be an atrocity early in the game.
Artillery and ranged attacks against a city should destroy a city improvment or 2 during each turn they bombard.

[Eggman]

Good call on the NONE units. But I think it would be better if they did away with a specific city supporting the unit. Make it the civ at large that provides the support. New York doesn't pay for the army, the United States does. Anyway, unit/city support optimization is boring. Get rid of it.

[Lung]

Message to Francis -

Many early military units lived off the land when they left their city of origin, and therefore should not incur any production penalty. This should be considered for certain units in the ancient age.

[Bird]

My apologies if this has been mentioned before. There should be an air transport unit that allows you to transport more than one unit by airport each turn. I hate the limitations on using airports each turn, but I understand that it may be necessary for game balance. But there's no reason you shouldn't be able to build a transport, put x number of units on it, and send it off. Game balance is less an issue because (1) you have to build the transport and (2) there is a risk of losing all the units if the transport is shot down.

[Ecce Homo]

Yes, units must be fed. The demand of food should depend on the number of people minus the yield of the terrain.

This will mean that small armies can easily make it without food supply if they are not on a mountain or in a desert. Large, modern armies would always need food supplies.

[NotLikeTea]

How much food? Keep in mind that one citizen only needs 2 food units (I think), and this represents many, many times the number of people as would be in a single millitary unit. I don't think feeding should be a major factor in the game. Realistic, maybe, but not really fun. Giving shields as support is good enough.

[Ecce Homo]

Alright NotLikeTea. The idea of food support requires that the concept of food production is redone.

Also - I think only vehicles should need shields (representing fuel and spare parts).

[Mo]

I think it is better to just increase the limit that an airport can handle instead of making a seperate airtransport unit. Using airports there is also the risk of having your incoming unit being shot down if there is an enemy antiair unit within range.
The only air transport unit that I think might be usefull is a transport helicopter. It can transport ground units small distances and can unload them even if there isn't an airbase around.