 |
| |
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
Even if the units do fight together, I still feel that 3 units is too few. A more reasonable upper limit is 8 (9 with Pentagon!). Of course this should only be achievable if you are at war or mobilised for war. Militaristic societies should have a limit of 5 units (6 with Pentagon) when at peace. Non-militaristic units should be limited to 4 units/army (5 with pentagon) when at peace!
Note, that this limit should only count for direct-attack units, not bomardment units, which would probably soften up the target from a distance and would probably never engage a unit directly (From all I've heard, this is how bombardment units will work).
I also feel that armies with larger numbers of ranged units (bowmen, riflemen etc) than their opponent should get a bonus to attack strength based on how many extra ranged units they possess!
As for limits on # of armies/Civ, I only think this should apply during peace-time. Militaristic societies should be able to have 1 army/2 cities and, during war, all bets should be off (i.e. number of armies should be limited only by number of appropriate leaders and maintainence costs!).
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Uh, am I missing something? Exactly what good are armies if they are just like transports that hold units but have no attack value or do not add to the value of member units? Sounds lame to me - another perfectly good CTP concept ruined by Firaxis
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Phutnote
|
|
Whoa. I'm confused about armies a bit. They pool their hit points as in the first attacks, but stops before it is destroyed, and then the next attacks, but stops before it is destroyed, and lets the third attack instead.
In other words they attack in sequence?
Or do they attack as one group with a big glob of hit points? Do units in cities share hit points when they defend, or do they defend one by one? Attack values have been shifted alot. I wonder what tweaks hit points have had, and if firepower even exists anymore.
Sounds like some significant changes to the system. Tantalizing new tidbits of info.
1 army per 4 cities . . . hmm. In the modern age on a large map a big empire might have what, 20 or so cities? That'd be 5 armies. Sounds like a decent number.
I guess there'll be an impetus to found an extra 4 cities if you really need an extra army . . . but all those pop point losses from the big manufacturing cities to do it would hamper the war effort as well . . .
I think civ III warfare is shaping up to be rather interesting.
Phutnote
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
Funny, my browser show no sign of a link to last AskTheCivTeam on official CivIII site, while I can read it via Apolyton. 
Is it mine proxy/cache problem? Do you regularly see the new link on the official site or reached it by e-mail list announce?
Back to the stack:
quote:
Even if the units do fight together, I still feel that 3 units is too few. A more reasonable upper limit is 8 (9 with Pentagon!). Of course this should only be achievable if you are at war or mobilised for war. Militaristic societies should have a limit of 5 units (6 with Pentagon) when at peace. Non-militaristic units should be limited to 4 units/army (5 with pentagon) when at peace!
As for limits on # of armies/Civ, I only think this should apply during peace-time. Militaristic societies should be able to have 1 army/2 cities and, during war, all bets should be off (i.e. number of armies should be limited only by number of appropriate leaders and maintainence costs!).
|
Sorry Aussie_Lurker, but how can you support these tuning? They seems more a matter of game balancing, and one difficult to do without actually playing the (beta or demo of) game.
The difference you proposed between militaristic civ and not, seems too much an advantage on the side of warmonger, and before you askthis can be guessed before of a played game because it's only a comparison between "quantities" of the same object. 
The limit related to number of cities is obviusly a game design trick, so can been liked or not. It doesn't seem unfair, because in the past armies weren't very numerous, and that matches with the limited number of cities you are likely to have at the early part of game.
Sure, Roman Empire have quite enough Legions, and they can be translated on a great number of armies... hmmm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kenobi
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG
as dan posted just now, leaders are like "transports" with attack/defence values
as many armies as you can(1/4 cities)
that is a good question, especially for the movement part |
Some more questions:
- Can great leaders stack ships? Bring on Horatio!
- In combat, does an entire stack get annihilated in the event of defeat, or can you retreat at some point to conserve your forces?
- Can a great leader stack more than 3/4 units if he's in a city?
- For that matter, if you have a stack in a city and non-attached units, how does combat play out?
On the subject of maximum number of stacks, I agree with their plan (i.e. one stock for every four cities). Too many potential stacks and you run the risk of hordes of low value units running rampant and defeating their betters.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
To answer your first question, in Civ III we introduced the concept of an army. To build an army, you need either a great leader or the Military Academy (Small Wonder). Great leaders can appear when an elite unit wins combat. Once an army is built, you can load three units onto the army, and those units will pool their hit points during an attack. If you build the Pentagon (Small Wonder) you can load an additional unit into an army.
It is also important to note that you can only have one army per four cities, and militaristic civs have a greater chance of producing great leaders.
Elite units are not the same as civ-specific units. Elite units refers to units that have been promoted to elite status (regular->veteran->elite) by winning battles.
Yes, IIRC they are like transports that can carry units, but have no inherent attack or defense. |
Ok from the site and Dan's follow up, this gives me a question...
Does the Elite unit turn into a great leader, or if an elite unit wins combat does a great leader unit appear on the map along side the elite unit?
From what Jeff Briggs said before, that the most powerful fights first and then when it is damaged it steps down and the new most powerful units fights then, taken along with "those units will pool their hitpoints" means that lets say you have the egyptian war chariots attacking a greek hoplite
here is how i theorize that combat would work, all three chariots are undamged but one is veteran, the veteran chariot would attack first, the first turn it scores a hit, the second turn the hoplite scores a hit, but a damaged vetern war chariot is still stronger odds wise than an undamaged normal war chariot so the vetern attacks again scoring another hit, then another hit, then the badly damaged hoplite hits it, so now the undamaged normal war chariots have better odds than the damaged veteran war chariot so one of them attack, it is damaged, the next round the other undamaged normal war chariot attacks and it kills the hoplite...that is the most likely way that combat will work
what that means is that a three unit army will still have the same attack/defense values since they attack one at a time, but it will now have three times the hit points...the big change here is that before in civ2 when units attacked one at a time you might lose two units and the third unit would win taking a little damage...now most like all three units will survive but all will take a roughly equal amount of damage, this will let more units have a chance of becoming veteran and elite and of spawning more great leaders...also armies means that low defense units have a better chance of surviving a counterattack
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
Kenobi
quote:
- Can great leaders stack ships? Bring on Horatio!
- In combat, does an entire stack get annihilated in the event of defeat, or can you retreat at some point to conserve your forces?
- Can a great leader stack more than 3/4 units if he's in a city?
- For that matter, if you have a stack in a city and non-attached units, how does combat play out? |
unknow if a great leader can form a fleet, or if you could stack aircraft either
i have heard that retreat is in the game, and your forces can retreat as long as you have more mobility than the units attacking you, except there is an all out attack command where your units fight to the death
i would say that a stack counting as one unit would be limited to 3/4 nomatter if it is in a city or not, however you should be able to put multiple armies on the same square
as for the combat if you have a stack and non attached units in the stack...the strongest unit would defend, so if you have three horsemen stacked in an army in a square and a musketman then the musketman would defend, but if you had three knights in an army then a chariot in the same square the knights would defend
this brings up another question though...you have two equally strong armies of three legions each and one unattached horseman, the square gets attacked by an army of knights and the knights win...are both armies and the horseman destroyed like in civ2? or is it the collateral damage system in SMAC or is it something else?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
At least for now, until we play the game, the CTP unit stacking seems much better.
Their system gives you more tactical options and decisions to make.
In here the only advanatage over the Civ II seems the better survival odds for an army, as korn pointed out, which is good but not near the CTP system.
In CTP series the army benefited defensivly and attacking wise, you had ranged units, normal ones and flanked ones, so it really mattered how are you going to organise the army to get the most out of it, and i feel it added greatly to the gameplay. You had a battle screen to, which added to the war feeling even more. Wars were not easier to win since you could defend quite well in stacks too. Moving units accross the map was easier, and spying becomes a 'must' part of the game.
Well Civ III system seems to be a step down, but well we cannot have improvements in every aspect I guess. 
And on the Pentagon wonder. Doesnt it unbalance the game in the favour of warmongers?
If you can have a stack of 4 units and the enemy can only have 3. That is a 33% advantage in hit points 
I guess that you could build two such armies with some support and overrun the enemy easily. if you could have more units in a stack that difference would not be so great.
But what i feel is missing is
1. no ranged units or flanking ability
2. no battle screen
3. small number of units in a stack seems to take a bit of the gameplay out.
All in all, this seems that could have been done better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
I'm pleased to see that the army stack is limited in several ways, most notably by it's size and by the number of supporting cities. I was afraid of having to deal with endless piles of units before.
This way, the army is an interesting and valuable asset, not just some of your units heaped together to roll over a few enemy cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonofDogbreath
|
|
I'm curious about the effect losing cities will have. If I have 4 cities and my army is elsewhere on the map, could an enemy take over one of my cities (conquest or spy) and thus eliminate my army? I figure you would keep the units but lose the leader. This would still suck since the leader was an elite unit.
Might be worth having an extra city as a buffer in this case....
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
jglidewell
|
|
manassas va usa
Feb 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
I'm not positive on this, but I'm pretty sure that "battlefield promotions" take into account the opponent you've defeated. That is to say, I doubt you'd make elite just by picking off settlers and workers, and I assume this would be true for the appearance of great leaders as well.
Dan |
Me too, I hope it isn't just a 'unit destroyed'(which includes every one) count.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sekong
|
|
How many Great Leaders can each civ have?
In civfanatics forum, somebody raised a interesting question:
if you have Military Academy, and already have number of armies up to the limit based on your city number, say, 3 armies when you have 12 cities.
Now when you get a new leader, he don't have any army to form(because of per 4 city limit). Or there can be a new army formed by him, or he can't be spawned at all, when your army reached the limit?.. It almost caused mental probelms....
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
I'm not sure whether defeating barbarians can spawn great leaders, but you can attain elite status if a veteran unit defeats barbarians (I've seen this happen when a horde of barbarians attack a single unit and the unit defeats them all)
I don't *think* leaders replace any of your units, I believe they appear as a completely seperate unit...
Dan |
Last edited by sekong on 23-08-2001 at 21:12
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2001 06:22
|