 |
| |
|
|
grap1705
|
|
A little add on military units:
- indeed armor points and fire power are missing data to compute better battles. In real life, an archer can shoot for ever at a tank without ever causing him trouble (although a good walking mechanic can be lethal to the machine...). Just look at the intifada to see the difference made by armour point of isreali armoured infantry against fire power of stone throwers!
- helicopters should also exist in a fighting version, and not just transport. In mountain battles (may be against those damned partisans of Civ2), bombing is not very effective, while combat helicopters are a very efficient weapon. (If you haven't followed the russians in Afghanistan through the 80's, then try looking at Rambo 3 for a pale evocation of this)
- another thread speaks of straits, which land units may cross, albeit in several turns... an idea I don't abide by. But how come the civ3 team didn't even implement amphibious capacities? In CTP2, I loved the freedom of movement given by those copper irons cruising both over land and shallow waters to go invade the neighboring continent without tedious boat logistics...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
I think the whole ZoC debate would be ALMOST moot if you divided turns up into Move-Fight-Move. This way, if a unit tried to slip past you, but you had enough movement to intercept them, then you would be able to do so in your movement 'phase'. Only after all sides moved would combat be resolved!
Thats how I think it should work IMHO!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
swabby
|
|
I'm new to this and hope I'm not posting this in wrong thread. Submarines should have stealth ability when attacking shipping. If you were torpedoed you'd never know who hit you. Like Privateers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
grap1705
|
|
STEALTH should enable to hit unknown. If you are torpedoed by a submarine, whether you detect it or not depending on your technical developments doesn't tell you whose unit this is.
Of course, in the movie "search for red october", the ears of the US navy can identify the sound signature of subs and know what type it is. But what if you sold your unit to another country?
So like Corsairs of Civ3 that allow you to attack even your allies without having troubles, subs should give you the ability to hit anonymously.
AIR UNITS: I don't like the full abstraction of it made in Civ3. Just moving unlimited in one turn from one side of the world to the other, bombing without moving, etc... in some way one can say it is logical if we consider that in modern times a turn is still one year long, but if we start taking this into account, we'd have to change the whole military aspect of the game. So I like moving my planes or helicopters around, with a limited range, having to think of cover so that they don't be caught unprotected in between 2 turns, etc...
As it is, I feel air unit management has become much less present.
MOVING IN ENEMY TERRITORY:
I can understand that you don't have use of trains when invading a new territory, but I don't see why you wouldn't be able to use their roads. This feature of Civ3 is totally unrealistic. If you have roads for your own use, they can also serve an opponent or invader. There's no reason for depriving you of their use.
Only a commando wanting to go unnoticed should have that handicap.
There is an BAD MATCH BETWEEN TECHS AND UNITS. Someone pointed out elsewhere that he'd never search for archery when he has more powerful spearmen. Only too true! And I still found no use for TOW infantry given that it is less powerful than armoured infantry (which by the way should look less like a tank, the Civ2 display was better). I never build cruiser or destroyers because I don't see why I should build something that indeed moves a little faster but that has high odds of getting destroyed as soon as it'll encounter a battleship. So I only build battleships...
Too many units seem useless, because they don't have sufficiently distinct capacities. If archmen where able to shoot on the next square without moving (i.e., a bombing capacity), then it would have a use in complement to spearmen.
A number of useless units still appear in the production menu of the city because they are not eliminated by units which outpower them in every respect, even without being their logical successor. May be to give the choice of having cheaply produced units to allow an enemy to train his troops?
MARTIAL LAW:
It drives me  when I conquer a city, it's full of my troops and I don't give a damn about what the citizens think say or do because I'm ready crush any opposition, but nonetheless on the following turn, it sometimes decides to go back to its former civilization out of a cultural choice!!!
Culture has nothing to do there. it can motivate more resistance or partisans attacking my troops etc, but it definitely should not allow a captured city to switch back to its former "culture".
A way of preventing this could be the ability to enact a martial law for a given number of turns (5 or 10?) in a captured city before you again have to care about its defection.
Side effects:
- the longer the martial law period the harder it'll be for you to become popular in that city,
- the longer the martial law period the more incomfort it spreads to neighboring cities of your empire.
- during martial law, all outputs in shield, food or gold is downgraded by a factor to determine. 50%?
So that those side effects motivate you to make this martial law period as short as possible.
Last edited by grap1705 on 13-05-2004 at 14:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
swabby
|
|
How about a different USA UU? SNIPER! Available with gunowder. Has bombard capability but slightly less defense than musketman. Upgradable to RIFLEMAN SNIPER and INFANTRY SNIPER with comparable offense/defense bonuses. Stealth capability in forest or jungle. Maybe increased fire range if placed on hill or mountain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
 |
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirastos
1) I think we should introduce in civ the SMAC morale scale and it's consequences (+ or - xx% in attack/defense) rather than just having more HP at each upgrade. |
Morale is already figured into the skill level of the unit and should not be a seperate factor in CIV style combat
quote:
2) We should be able to build armies (I really get pretty f***ing bored moving hundreds of units across the map at each turn). And not limitate to 9 or 12 units per tile, but each type of unit, according to its size, would occupy a number of place, and the number of places available in a tile should be determined by the nature of the terrain (e.g. 20 slots available in prairy or grassland, 15 available in hills, 5 in mountains, etc...). This requires more uniform landscapes (not excessivly so). |
I am opposed to any limit on units in a tile and using stacked movement makes moving units much easier so its not really an issue that needs addressing IMO.
quote:
3) Keep the helicopters. They are more than useful when you know how to use them. They should also be able to carry infantry units. |
Helicopters can carry any foot unit, this includes Infantry.
quote:
4) We should have land transportation vehicles. |
Why?
quote:
5) I would like more diversified sea units. |
an example would be helpful.
quote:
6) More anti-aircraft units like in CTP or SMAC (as well as automatic anti-aircraft improvements, whether in the landscape or in cities). |
Flak and mobile SAMS in C3C make this point pretty moot (unless the new unit is a stinger [or SA-7] carrying infantry)
quote:
7) Ability to fortify coastlines (like in WW2). |
A stack of arty or a stockpile of cruise missles is effective enough.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
|
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Apparently, judging by comments 3) and 6), Kirastos hasn't played Civ 3 yet! |
Actually # 7 is the most telling, a stack of arty has long been the accepted way of protecting against naval vessels and there is nothing stopping anyone from fortifying infantry along the coast. 
quote:
I don't pretend to speak for Kirastos, but a larger variety of ship-types in the ancient and middle ages would be nice. Right now, all we've got are galleys and caravels in those ages, and they're both transport ships. (There are Curraghs in Conquests, but that's just for early exploration.) I'd like to see offensive and/or bombarding ships added to those ages in a future Civ game. |
C3C does have new naval units, but they are all UU's (Dromon, Carrack) except for the curragh. The problem is that no matter what new naval unit you add to the ancient age it will be of limited value and likely have a latin name I can't pronounce.  :
I would like to see more naval units (some examples are: Oil Tankers, Super Carriers, Corvettes, Sloops, and Luxury Liners) but I can't think of an ancient naval unit to add that would be substansially different than what is in the game at present.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
On infinite stacks:
If you pull all the people on earth and lined them up back to back, they'd fit a large town.
Also remember the South Korea has huge military presence (equal that of the north) but no cripping economics.
(demo = + gold on tiles, unlike Nkorea that has negative income and is slowing selling improvements to maintain the army while all the shields are used for the army while lacking a factory)
Of course if one can't send 100 divisions in a 30km radius and have them all fight at the same time, but they can be fit there.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
|
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Platypus Rex
How about a twist using Fog of War. Once you declare war on a civ (vice versa). This reduces the ability to really know what is in an attacking stack... maybe include modern military scouts?
If one was attacked my nothing but moblie inf/tanks,etc, would you have time to entrench?
Same thing with terrain, one could entrench in open, forrest, what about inside a city...maybe add guerilla warfare? |
1) Fog of war should be inclusive regardless of whether one is at war or not. The overall information known should be (without reconassiance units) the best defensive unit, the best offensive unit and the overall # of units in a stack, no other info should be provided without a recon mission (which mobile units should be able to perform as well as satellites which would be a new unit)
2) It only takes a few hours on most terrain to create earthworks so entrenchment time really is not a significant issue. Fortifications should not change in needing to be built. Also entrenchment should be possible except in the following terrain; Cities with walled fortification, Forts or fortresses (barracades), swamp or marsh, tundra.
quote:
Origionally posted by Lajzar
Hmm, Im against tactics for two reasons.
1 - I am not the general in the field in charge of ordering the soldiers on which tactics to use. I am the zeitgeist of the people. This level of control is beneath me.
2 - For any particular attacker - defender combination, there would always be a single optimum tactic to use (unless you turn it into a shell game where the defender chooses a random tactic). This turns combat into a micromanagement festival. It doesnt really add anything to gameplay. |
These would just be combat enhancers or reducers(e.g envelopmet reduces retreat possibility by 10%, frontal assault decreases defender HP by 1, ect. ) but I do see your point. For me anything that is possible to shake up the CRAPPY RNG system is a good thing and I think it would add a bit of flavor to the game. It also should be an option, not part of the stock rules.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
|
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trifna
The fact that bterrain changes combat is major. I think that having bonus/malus % to certain units in certain environments for certain tasks could do the trick.
It is espescially important in the case of infantry units entering a city: as in SMAC, they should get a +X% since they're more efficient in urban combat. Just look at the case of Bagdad: they discussed at length on TV of the problems of going in a city for a tank. It's infantry that goes in houses, secures areas...
The same issue exists in a dense forest or jungle. The day when a tank batallion starts shooting in a dense forest, I get myself some popcorn
For more detailed information, we'd need to look at battles done in Vietnamese jungles. |
Bonuses for certain units in different terrain is another possibilty.
For instance archery defence should be doubled if located in defensive fortifications, Bombardment values halved in forest or jungle.....
Your example of infantry in a city is a correct one but armored forces have been able to operate in dense forrests, so I'm a little dubious about that example.
One thing is certain, the combat system must be modified so that the combat results are not just a calculation of A/D values. I want to see some of the following in the combat system for CIV 4
* Retreating more common
* Standoffs (defender neither wins, nor loses)
* Terrain modification for different unit types
* More units to utilize (Special Forces, Partisans, Unit between Ironclads and modern ship units, howitzer, Self-propelled artillery, Terrorists (spy type unit), Motorized Infantry, Light Cavalry...)
* A rudimentary supply system (units not "in supply" lose a HP per turn, perhaps?
* Units able to move/ attack after parrachute drops.
* More units able to make amphibious assaults (Greeks, Romans and Persians were able to do this)
* Air units should be able to select their targets ( like subs)
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004 18:24
I was just saying the starting units (warriors and galleys) shouldn't be 1/1 for the exact reason you stated above.
|