Unit model discussion!

[Dale]

Okay................ Units. How should they be modelled in a Civ-style game? Is the method employed by Civ1, 2, 3 and CtP1 & 2 efficient? Or is a SMAC template style more appropriate? Here's my thoughts on the issue. Feel free to comment/add.

1. Currently in Civ and CTP series, you get a heap of static different units depending on your technology. Some units slip off the bottom of the available list (redundant) as new ones are put on top. Upgrading of units is manual (IE. You must build the "newer" units and disband the "older" units).

Pros:
- Easy to tell an opponents top tech level by type of units built.
- Easy to find the best unit path through history as each unit has static specific stats/abilities.

Cons:
- Manual upgrade of units forces unit rotation, more micro-management.
- Information Age civs can still have "sticks 'n clubs" units running around. (Anchient Age unit rush in Modern Era strategy) For those who don't know this one, you use all your old anchient era units to pull the AI's/Human's units away while your modern army strikes from a different direction at the civ's heartland.
- The "Phalanx kills fighter" problem.

2. In SMAC, a different method is employed where you use unit templates and add technologies to the template when discovered. Upgrading of units is automatic as when a new tech is discovered, it is implemented to the template and existing units immediately for a cost.
Pros:
- Lesser units in build list, and more up-to-date units.
- Less micro-management as program routines upgrade your templates.

Cons:
- Lack of individualism with units. (IE. The difference between a Pike and a Marine is evident, but not between a Phaser XVLI and a Phaser 5HGu7).
- No distinction between different era's units.

My Idea!

- Each military era (anchient, medieval, renaiscence, modern, atomic) has a different military style (graphics in other words).
- Each military era has different templates for the type of units of the era (IE. Militia, footmen, horse, artillery for medieval; Infantry, Mobile, artillery, air, guerilla for modern; etc)
- Each template upgrades due to tech research (IE. Phalanx receives +2 Def and +1 Att when iron shields and swords are invented; Knight get +2 Def, -1 Move when horse-armor is invented).
- The TOP of one era is slightly better than the BOTTOM of the next era. (IE. Fully equiped and trained footmen/archers were better than brand new invented arquebusiers/bombards).
- Have a Civ-Project (fits into my Wonders model: Natural Wonders/Great Wonders/Minor Wonders/Civ Projects) to UPGRADE a template's units from the old era to the new era (All units of the upgraded template are now of the NEW template).
- As era's progress, eliminate the template/units two eras behind. (IE. When entering Renaiscence, delete the ancient templates. Modern era entry, delete the medieval templates.)
- For old era templates, as technology for the newer era template is invented, the old template "loses" what the new template "gains". This simulates old style manufacturing converting to newer (harder to get older products) and lower morale/support for older style tech. Eventually this will result in completely useless older templates when they get deleted at the dawn of an era two ahead of it. (IE. Infantry templete gains +2 Att for machine-gun. Muskateer template loses +2 Att as machine-gun so much more powerful than a musket.
- Air units can ONLY EVER be hit by a ranged/air/SAM unit.

I see this sort of setup causing a player/AI to continually want the higher level of template/unit as the older one is degenerating at the same rate the newer is increasing. Basically, for ever tech invention, the gap between the two templates doubles. Eventually, the older template is completely useless and scrapped, all the older units with it.

Any comments?

[rid102]

I think your idea is a good one but AFAIK, isn't it really just the same as the SMAC template model just with a bit more refinement?

Seems to me that it'd work pretty well though, but I think it seems slightly complex. The only potential draw back I can see with this is that as 'upgrading' only has limited effect and older units will become obsolete and disappear anyway, as soon as a new template is available, there will be a mad rush to convert all your units to "new" ones. Players can potentially get pigeonholed in a single era. Hmmm.... not sure if this is good/bad really...

Have you checked out c-evo and the unit workshop it has? You may get some ideas there (it is more SMAC style anyway).

I don't really think there's anything wrong with "fixed" units. I think it could do with some slightly expansion to give units better defined tactical roles and allow combined arms, but fundamentally I don't think any of the "cons" you listed are really huge problems:

- Manual upgrade of units forces unit rotation, more micro-management.

Then make it semi-automatic. E.g. have an "Upgrade All Units of " option in the Military Advisor that does just that. If you don't have enough gold/resources, then you need to save up. This removes the MM aspect.

- Information Age civs can still have "sticks 'n clubs" units running around.

There are two sides to this: if you give automatic upgrades (not in a city) then you have the Warrior/Leo's Workshop exploit. Otherwise, you may have a unit e.g. in a fortress which can never get upgraded unless you move it back to a city.

Maybe it would be better to introduce increase penalties for keeping older units. E.g. everytime a new unit is discovered, the cost (in gold/resources/whatever) of the old one doubles. Who's going to keep Riflemen that cost twice as much as Infantry?

- The "Phalanx kills fighter" problem.

When air-units attack something which can't defend against air attack then do something like: defender's D reduced to 1, combat ends (attacker breaks off air attack) when/if the defender wins a round, no damage inflicted to the attacker.

You could do the same e.g. for Battleships, or any other "bombarding" type of unit to which the defender either can retaliate or not.