UNITS (ver. 2.0): hosted by JT3

[Jon Miller]

hi

topic: generals

If there are generals in this game they should not be like in moo2 (and diffinitely not like in mom) because they would be too powerful

If generals are in the game they should not be bought as in moo2 or mom, did the confederacy pay an arm and a leg for Lee or Jackson? was pay even a factor for them? The answer is of course no and no like it would be for every other famous leader of men. If history provides any telltale of human experience (which we are at some level trying to recreate) mercenaries have rrarely proven to be the greatest generals.

mercenaries themselves matterred numerous times in history (and that should be added in diplomacy as I will add later) but their leaders did not go arround selling their personal services and neither did domestic governors

it is true that military and domestic leaders were bought but most of the payment was for bribe to facilitate the betrayal of that leaders city or army

if generals are in the game there should be a disabling option

generals (or domestic leaders) should come via random events or when your civilization is in trouble

if generals are in the game they should just provide help to the army, not be a seperate powerful unit (maybe they could be a weak diplomat looking type unit and be weak in themselves but help surrounding units) by themselves

generals should age and die after like 20 turns (this would help limit them and keep them from dominating so much)

also generals should not provide as many plus as leaders did in moo2

Jon Miller

[The Brain]

This is about my religious units- I know you can bribe units and cities to join your civ, but with priests you can covert them and have them join your civ WITHOUT paying money to bribe them. It is sorta like a diplomat but he preaches religion while he goes along.

[EnochF]

Converting a city without paying any gold? So what is it based on, a percentage chance? And have you given any thought to how mind-meltingly annoying it would be if the computer got priests before you did? The balance of the game would be shot to hell. And not only would it ruin game balance, but it's unrealistic as hell. "A wandering mystic entered Chicago today. Soon afterwards, Chicago became an official protectorate of Saudi Arabia..."

[Flavor Dave]

Enoch--maybe if terrorists softened up Chicago first, then it would be realistic;-)

Seriously, tho, if you want priests to convert, then just play Age of Empires. It works in AoE b/c the production model is so different from Civ2.

I like soccer. I like basketball. I don't think basketball would be better if the goal was 24 ft by 8 ft.

[The Brain]

Yes there would be a chance that it would happen, the witch doctor would have less a chance on doing it the first time than a bishop would. Civs who are more advanced would also be harder to persuade than a primitive one. They wouldn't have a ANY attack but a little itty-bitty defense, the only exception is the "Jesus" (or maybe disciple would be a less offensive name?) would have alot more defense since he has followers that would fight for him. So in a nutshell, they're like Spies who can convert units and cities without giving up some cash, and they make people happy in your city as a bonus!

------------------
Acctually I'm a genetically altered lab mouse plotting to take over the world!

[Flavor Dave]

Brain--what weakness in Civ2 are you trying to address? In what way would priests make Civ3 a better game?

I don't see it making the game more challenging, or more realistic, or more balanced between expansion and perfectionism, or more balanced between city management and wonders and civ management and the military.

[Jon Miller]

I also would like to vote against having clerics giving you free cities (JT3 put down that many disagreed with this idea), just because I join a religion does not mean I join the state that that religion was started in and this is not only true in todays current seperation of church and state but was also true long ago too, religion did change the political landscape by urging wars or peace but for the most part religions did not even try to make people change earthly overlords, all they would care about is who the people worshipped, maybe a particularly aggressive religion might tell its followers to revolt if the king of that land would not do what they wanted him to but most religious groups that where active politically where active behind the seens and any religion that was as strongly controlled by a particular nation (as Brain's ones would have to be) there would be rules against and information on (that all the other rulers would provide) that would stop any converting of that sort from going on

the idea is extremely unrealistic and if it is included (without in option to turn it off) I would not play the game

move this idea to the religion thread and let them take it on if you want more discussion of it

besides it would be unballancing and add nothing to the game as already stated

Jon Miller

[korn469]

about the debate on whether units should take a population unit to create here's my suggestion

instead of subtracting a population point to create a unit i think the way units are supported should be changed. do away with support costing sheilds. i think that a certain number of units should create a soldier specialist. the soldier specialist would be like all other specialist (scientist, tax collector, entertainer, doctor, engineer, transend)...one population of a city not working the land and this would represent the logistics and people need to keep a military machine running. like specialists in alpha centauri the soldier specialist would modify labs and economy and psych.
the modifier would be -2 economy -2 labs +1 psych

this would require that to have a huge modern military machine you would have to have a large well developed population

some units would require more support than others. have units rated in support points from zero to three support points. a freedom fighter/muja-hadeen(sp?) unit might take zero points. a regular army infantry division might cost one point. a armor division might cost two points. finally a stealth bomber wing might cost three points.

support level

three it takes 4 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 6 support points the first soldier specialist doesn't cause a econ/labs penalty

two it takes 4 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 6 support points

one it takes 3 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 5 support points

zero it takes 3 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 4 support points

minus one it takes 2 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 3 support points

minus two it takes 2 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 2 support points

minus three it takes 1 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 2 support points

minus four it takes 1 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 2 support points each soldier specialist has a -3 labs/-3 economy modifier +1 psych

naturally when units were disbanded or killed the soldier specialist would turn back into regular workers

if you lost soldier specialist for whatever reason then the units they supported would be disbanded

[wesley32]

I agree with many of you, the nukes should be much more powerful! They should not only level the city they strike, and also pollute
nearby cities also. The radiation affects of
the earliest atomic bombs (that are much more
powerful today) were felt for 100's of miles
throughout Japan and in the Russian desert. I think nukes should kill 80% of a cities population, destory all military units (but not city improvements), and pollute out from
a 4 square radius from where they detonated.
That way they will likely "harm" nearby cities by their pollution. Hey, they are weapons of mass destruction aren't they?

[Flavor Dave]

Nukes being more powerful only makes sense if they increase the diplomatic penalty for using them. I mean, if you want to talk about realism, what does the fact that only two nukes have been dropped in 50 years tell you?

It would be more realistic to only allow one nuke to be built, by any civ, anywhere. That's really real.

Of course, if you want realism, play two turns and die of old age.

[Rambler2]

Here's a new unit. Tourist: unofficial spying units. at a minumal cost these units could 'take a vacation' at an opponets city and find out usefull info about it.

[wesley32]

I agree with your above comments. Here is what I would do with the nukes. I don't think
they should totally destroy a city just level" it. Sorry, that's the best way to put it. I'd
make the kill 80% of the population,
all military units within a 4 square radius and pollute all squares in that 4 square radius.
Their definitely needs to be penalties, specifically diplomatic, but should they last forever?
No, we drops 2 bombs on Japan and our diplomatic relations are good. Penalties I would
support are:
every other civilization declares you an enemy for the next 20 turns (although you might be
able to pay some countries off, this would end all foreign alliances, trade and support of
any kind. How and when should the computer nuke? I say keep track of the largest # of
cities each civilization has ever had at anytime, if their current # of cities (cities, not
population) drops by 80%
then they will use their nukes on anyone that is not on good terms with them. The only
other scenario for the computer to use nukes is if they themselves have been nuked. This
would also make the computer nuke another computer civilization sometimes. What do
you think?

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Reference Nukes:
Make 'em as powerful as you want, but note that, as stated in the previous post, the effects of even the smallest nukes used spread far beyond the target. In other words, make a more powerful nuke, and a turn later get a message that you've got pollution problems in your own cities downwind of the target - and thousands of miles away!
The prohibition against using nukes is two-fold: first, there's a serious diplomatic penalty for using them - you have no friends left anywhere. Second, and more important to most gamers, I'm afraid, is that you cannot drop a large nuke (megaton city-killer) ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET without affecting your own civ in some way. I used to plot Downwind Messages (radioactive contamination spread from a strike) in the Army, and the spread of pollution from even a tactical nuclear strike can be extensive. Also, as Chernobyl indicates, cleaning up radioactive pollution is practically impossible using current technology.
Given those three additions: extensive pollution from nukes, universal diplomatic negatives, and the impossibility of cleaning up the pollution (altough it does go away in time - parts of Los Alamos/White Sands where the first test was conducted are quite nice today!) - then you can increase the 'size' of game nukes all you want - and the players would have to be idiots to use any of them.

[Theben]

wesley32,
It would depend on the power of the nuke. The bombs dropped on Japan killed 60,000-80,000 people each, in cities of several hundred thousands. So you're looking at about 10-20% casualties instantly, with pop decline over the next several turns (radiation). I have no raw data, but I assume today's nukes would cause more damage & deaths. Plus I've heard that some of today's "tactical" nukes are 1/2 the strength of the bombs we dropped...another can o' worms...

Also not everyone in Japan has forgiven & forgotten the bombing. Many in Japan still consider it a war atrocity committed by the U.S. govt. Their leaders are just less vocal about it. All of which ties nicely into my suggestion (on other threads) about how leaders & the people view diplomatic actions differently-genocide rarely affects leaders, so they are quicker to forgive. Obviously it's not to the point where Japan will declare war on us for the slightest provocation, but it does affect some people's decisions.

[Ecce Homo]

To limit nuke production more, they should only be buildable in cities with Nuclear Plants.

Talking about nukes, why not include biological/chemical weapons?

They would kill/decimate units and population, but as a less grade than nukes.
City/terrain improvements would not be harmed.

------------------
The best ideas are those that can be improved.
Ecce Homo