 |
| |
|
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
Lets see:
Tank costs 100 shields, modern Tank is 20% more expensive, but over 50% better.
Also Tank is just a little more expensive than Cavalry, but 3 times better.
But, lets look Musketmen vs Pikemen: Musketmen costs twice more then Pikemen but is 33% better in defending.
Generally Modern units are very cost-effective compared to Industrial units,
but Middle Age/Rennesance units are completly cost-uneffective compared to ancient units.
These things needs to be fixed in next patch.
How whould I do that:
I'll put Longbowman to have cost of 30, since this unit is very similar to swordsmen which has cost of 30 & that way it whould be MORE cost effective compared to Archer.
Musketmen to 40, since it has defense of 4 & Pikemen 3 (and you can't use Pikemen after discovering Gupwoder & obtaining Saltpeter)
Riflemen to 60 (similar reasons)
Infantry to 80 (just a little cheaper, it is still superior to riflemen)
Pratrooper & Marines to 90 (just a little more expensive compared to Infantry)
Knight 60, since with a price of 70, I whould still use a Horesemen from time to time (but you can't now, since it is obsolete)
Cavalry 70 (just a little more expensive then Knight)
Also some other things conserning units:
Carriers movment of 4 (in should be 5 like battleship)
Nuc. Submarines movment (should be faster)
Pratroopers & Marines look weak (maybe that should be 8/8/1 for Marines & 7/9/1 for Paratroopers)
Jet Fighters should have Rate of fire 2 (come on, they have ROCKETS)
Submarines should have attack of 10 (still lower then of Destroyer)
AND PRIVATEER OF COURSE SHOULD BE 2/1/4
Knights don't have ZOC, but Horsemen do, so by upgrading horsemen you lose that ability
(should be both with or without ZOC)
Also Tanks, Mod Tanks, Mech. Inf, Artillery, Rad. Artillery don't have Wheeled flag in editor (prevents moving on Mountaing & jungles without roads). Is that intentional or bug?
Personnaly I think that all Artilley type units should have ZOC (but it's Firaxis decision).
After getting Mech. Inf. you should be able to build Infantry units also (who whould move on mountains without them, marines?)
P.S.
And one last question:
Why modern Infantry type units need rubber?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
I don't agree at all. There is no reason whatsoever to have a linear cost/effectiveness relation. It's not more fun, it's not realistic and it's not fair even considering the 'cost of a shield' develops over the course of the game. In modern well-irrigated cities with maybe improvements like factories, a shield is cheaper than in bronze-age towns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy
I don't agree at all. There is no reason whatsoever to have a linear cost/effectiveness relation. It's not more fun, it's not realistic and it's not fair even considering the 'cost of a shield' develops over the course of the game. In modern well-irrigated cities with maybe improvements like factories, a shield is cheaper than in bronze-age towns. |
But, the main problem is GUNPOWDER.
I think if I could I whould rather use 2 Pikemens for defnse then one musketmen.
So, that's the main reason why infantry (type) units should be cheaper.
But on the other hand Modern units are SUPER-COST EFFECTIVE.
Just compate Cavalry(80) to Tank(100), or Tank(100) to Modern Armor(120), or Infanrty(80) to Mech. Inf. (110).
These units are SUPER-EFFECTIVE.
So why would be renessase gupowder units be COPLETLY cost-uneffective copared to their melee counterparts.
And, in fact I don't wan't LINEAR cost-effectives, I just wan't uneffective GUNPOWDER unit to be more effective, which will make Modern units less effective compared to NEW CHEAPER INFANTRY.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
I dunno....I've not studied the numbers closely enough to say for sure, but my impression is that the numbers are good as is.
Grim Legacy makes an excellent point with his comment. Asking 40 shields of production from a modern city is *very* different than asking that same 40 shields from a middle ages town.
The other thing to consider is this:
You go ahead and buy your two Pikemen for defense, and at the moment...when my choices are Pikement and Musketmen, I go the other direction.
Fast forward to the Modern era.
You get to cash in your Pikemen for 10 shields or so of production you don't really need (I'm assuming all your cities have factories etc. in them), and I get to spend a smidgeon of cash and upgrade my musketeers to infantry. 
It's a matter of late-game shelf life.
-=Vel=-
Edit:
"But on the other hand Modern units are SUPER-COST EFFECTIVE.
Just compate Cavalry(80) to Tank(100), or Tank(100) to Modern Armor(120), or Infanrty(80) to Mech. Inf. (110).
These units are SUPER-EFFECTIVE.
So why would be renessase gupowder units be COPLETLY cost-uneffective copared to their melee counterparts.
And, in fact I don't wan't LINEAR cost-effectives, I just wan't uneffective GUNPOWDER unit to be more effective, which will make Modern units less effective compared to NEW CHEAPER INFANTRY."
*****
The reason this is so is because ancient (melee-based) troops had been around for a while. There were established, existing industries who knew the business of making armor and weapons and such for these troops. It was a well-known quantity, and so they were easy to supply.
The musket and all the potential it brought represented something entirely new. As such, new industries began springing up clamoring to supply their inventions to governments. But of course, being a new business....being a new and untested technology, there was something of a learning curve to go through. Thus....early gun-based units are expensive (cost:benefit) compared to their later cousins, when the kinks got worked out of the system.
-V.
Last edited by Velociryx on 12-11-2001 at 19:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
Just one thing, if I could build a Pikeman instead of Musketmen, I won't mind a cost of musketmen, BUT YOU CAN'T BUILD PIKEMEN AFTER YOU GET SALTPETER (and you still wan't that saltpeter for cavalry).
P.S. That Cavalry is nicely balaced cost effective compted to knights, I just wanted similar differece of 10 shiled (knights-70, Cavalry-80), to be used for Footmen units
Musketmen - 40 or 50 (from 60)
Riflemen - 60 or 70 (from 80)
Infanrty - 80 (from 90)
Specail infantry units - 90 (from 100)
Also I just tought that we can kill to probelms (cost unefectivenes of early gun, and cost super-effec. of late armor) with one fix.
Just make footmen guns cheaper a little.
Still with those setting Musketmen is not more costeffective than pikemen.
pikemen 3 - 30 , mustekmen 4 - 40, riflemen 6- 60, and armor is still relativly supereffective.
And, early musketemen is already handicaped with that low attack rating, so you still need to use costly knight, or cheap Swordsmen.
And also remember price of musketmen in Civ2, +50% more of pikemen, cheaper then legion, better both offense & defense + x2 HP
GUNPOWER has made Europians Nations A WORLD POWER, which is not easly possibile in this game.
P.S.S Anyway the biggest problems are Musketmen & Riflemen, which should be cheaper for 10-20 shields
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mmike87
|
|
Charlottesville, VA
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by player1
Knights don't have ZOC, but Horsemen do, so by upgrading horsemen you lose that ability
(should be both with or without ZOC)
Also Tanks, Mod Tanks, Mech. Inf, Artillery, Rad. Artillery don't have Wheeled flag in editor (prevents moving on Mountaing & jungles without roads). Is that intentional or bug?
Personnaly I think that all Artilley type units should have ZOC (but it's Firaxis decision).
|
I agree - tanks, etc. should have wheeled flag. Knights should keep ZOC. In fact, I liked ZOC. It made is possible to fortify borders. It is not nearly imposible to fortify borders with out a wall of units. Simply not cost effective, at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sprint_ST_NYC
|
|
I don't necessarily agree. Defensive ratings are more powerful than offensive ratings, all other things being equal. There are more multipliers for defense than offense, and it's generally worth paying for even a small bit of extra defense.
Also, the real killer is upkeep costs - having one or two powerful defensive units is more affordable (especially in Republic or Democracy) than having four mediocre ones. Once you need to pay for every unit, there's a significant reason to upgrade them to the latest and greatest, or disband them. Why pay 1/turn for a warrior?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprint_ST_NYC
I don't necessarily agree. Defensive ratings are more powerful than offensive ratings, all other things being equal. There are more multipliers for defense than offense, and it's generally worth paying for even a small bit of extra defense.
Also, the real killer is upkeep costs - having one or two powerful defensive units is more affordable (especially in Republic or Democracy) than having four mediocre ones. Once you need to pay for every unit, there's a significant reason to upgrade them to the latest and greatest, or disband them. Why pay 1/turn for a warrior? |
At least I should have AN OPTION to use Pikemen, it this version of Civ3, I am forced to use Musketmen.
P.S. By similar logic Mech. Inf. cost should be 180? Of course not.
At least in Civ2 Armor was 2 times more expensive then Infantry.
Anyway if other units are SUPER-COST EFECTIVE (including also a Swordsmen), I don't think that having Musketmen, Riflemen & Infantry to much expensive is a good idea.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-11-2001 15:43
|