 |
| |
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
Hmmm, always the UUs again...
Though I have to admit that they make the game more colourful, they're not realistic in the way that only one civ should be able to build them. What's so special about the German civ that noone else will ever be able to build panzers, no matter how the world looks and how history went? Their language? Their culture? IRL everyone could just go and copy the necessary technics. Limitations caused by strategic resources are a great idea: Without elephants (they'll need jungles) you can't have war elephants, without a harbor you can't build ships, without iron you can't have knights.
OTOH, if we were talking about a fantasy or SF game where you have fantasy or alien races with different abilities, then UUs would be an absolute must!
BTW, the Carthaginians used siege towers, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elias
|
|
Wasent Carthrage Part of rome? There should be some other way deciding who gets to get UU's maby if you have more specific of a unit x it will transform into a UU or maby tech related? or leader related?
The AI sucks Useing UU's they always keep them no mater what age there in just so mabey theyll get a golden age.
In order to make better units the AI must first understand how to use them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
After the 3rd Punic war, Carthago became a Roman province. Before, they were independent (and for some time stronger than Rome).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elias
|
|
This is what I have typed up so far for the final units Ideas for faraxis Please tell me you coments and anything I left out or misinterpreted the final version is needed on aug 15 I will finish on the 14
Introduction
Unit Ideas
Summary
This includes most of the Ideas on Civ4 units. The Major request was a change in unit grouping. It is hard to decide how units should work without knowing the other aspects of the game first especially combat.
Related Threads
Fill in Later
Ideas
1.1.0 Unit grouping
This was the biggest debate in the forum. I believe however that the majorities want small armies ten or less units that can be combined into one without the use of a leader. However there should be some disadvantages to armies this will allow the single unit to still be useful. Tech should be more of a deciding factor in armies because organization is the key more then a leader.
1.2.0 Unit special abilities
Some units should be given special abilities to make them seem more realistic and closer to the real world. Such as a navy seal unit could be invisible and have a percentage chance depending on other factors to destroy an improvement such as a S.A.M in a city. These special abilities could go to such units as spies, pirate ships, snipers, terrorists, subs, or helicopters.
1.3.0 Unit Production
1.4.0 Attack Values
1.5.0 Unit Bonuses
There were several Ideas to give units in a specific class bonuses to attack or defense depending on there class, and tech level. Such as cavalry could receive a +2 attack bonus against infantry or a x2 Bonus against a unit from a previous age. There was also talk of giving bonuses to units if they had allies or other units close or surrounding a unit/city.
1.5.1 Unit support
How about making bombers artillery and every other bombard ready unit be able to support over another unit. This would allow artillery to fire at anything attacking a specific unit as to protect it.
1.6.0 Experience and moral
1.7.0 Civilization specific Units
The general Idea on this subject was to make each nation have a specific look in accordance with their culture. This way you don’t have a European looking Frigate belonging to an Asian nation or white superman belonging to an African nation. There was also an Idea of changing who may get a bonus unit based on tech, leaders, or victories.
1.8.0 Simultaneous attacks
There were several suggestions on how to eliminate rushing or moving around fortifications. The first was to have an attack phase where in everyone could decide there unit movement then have a simultaneous move. There was also a suggestion of having patrol’s similar to the current air interception.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tall_Walt
|
|
California
Dec 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
IMHO the American UU should be the Supercarrier. The US is the only country that has carriers of that size. No other proposed unit is as unique, and supercarriers are the foundation of US power projection: a floating airbase you can move at 30+ knots.
To the armies/stacks topic, the essential thing I want is to be able to glue a stack together and move it as one (but still upgrade the units in it). You just don't want to let X-1-1 units out without a 1-X-1 unit along for protection. For examples, you want your catapults and archers protected by spearmen or pikemen; you need an escort ship for a transport. This mechanism might allow a fighter to escort a bomber. Aside from making sure you don't accidentally have your destroyer run away from the transport it's supposed to be protecting, it makes moving the units around a lot faster: you're moving multiple units with one command, and you can take a group of different speed units (like a carrier battle group) and move them with the Go To command and they'll stay together. Otherwise, they'd just act like a bunch of units you moved one at a time.
After that, naming those stacks would be nice, but not essential.
I really don't care whether leaders or Civ3 style armies are in Civ4. They're so rare, they seem to be unbalancing: the side that has one has too much of an advantage, and they tend to make cities too easy to take.
However, it seems to me Civ3 has a mid-game problem where cities get too hard to take until tanks come along. I've proposed elsewhere a Sapper unit which could reduce the city wall or fortification defense bonus. Later, Sapper would upgrade to Combat Engineer who could additionally act as a temporary bridge or generally increase the speed of units through enemy territory. Possibly these units could be the only units allowed to destroy improvements: demolition is a specialized skill.
Oh, and tactics is how you move your units on the battlefied, such as making sure an enemy unit can't retreat, or can get attacked after it retreats. Strategy is everything leading up to the fight on the battlefield: how many units you build, what you build, and so forth. Check out m-w.com.
Last edited by Tall_Walt on 17-08-2004 at 03:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
30+ knots? That would be more than 50 km/h... is this true? A few decades ago, only destroyers were that fast... sorry, just sounds too amazing...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tall_Walt
|
|
California
Dec 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
Yes, US supercarriers officially go "30+" knots. Enterprise, the first, has reportedly gone 35 knots. Nimitz class carriers reputedly "only" do 32 or 33. Ships lose 10-20% performance as they age, so that could argue speeds of 33+ to 36+ knots bran new. The next generation supercarriers are being built now, and include an improved propulsion system.
It should be said you don't redline a nuclear reactor or propulsion system without a very good reason, like someone shooting at you. Or you want to visit scenic Afghanistan. And if you want to water ski, you better have a damn long tow rope!
Just for people not used to knots (nautical miles per hour):
30 knots = 34.5 mph = 55.6 kph
35 knots = 40.3 mph = 64.8 kph
Some online sources:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib...ps/ship-cv.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...vn-65-specs.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/...IE~1/sld010.htm
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-06-2004 02:37
|