 |
| |
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
I mentioned this in some other thread, but no one read it, so I will put it here for discussion.
Many people seem to be annoyed that every civ has exactly the same units-with technology being the only thing that sets units apart. Clearly, civ-specific units are NOT the way to go - both from general concensus and the fact that this would make every game equally predictable as before.
The answer is this. When you discover a tech like iron working, you should be able to select whether you want a legion or a samurai - both with unique pros and cons. (this requires a times10system for attack and defense values)
Anyway the point is the most military units should come in two varieties each would be similar, but have slightly different attack and defence values. If you selected one, you could not build the other. (you could say that this reflects a civ being set in its ways or the values of a civ (more aggressive) whatever)
The result would be that every civ has a UNIQUE set of units EVERY GAME!
Well what do you think!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
samurai
|
|
Kristiansand,Vest-Agder,Norway
Sep 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Agree, a good idea. A suggestion would be to be able to discover iron working two times if you want both units, but only need it once to go furter down the tech tree. Mabye not so interesting early in the game to have both samurai and legion, but maybe tank and artillery. Possible to do the same thing with buildings as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pingu:
|
 |
Exeter, England
Jan 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
I agree too, more or less.
Of course every civ having different units would be alot of work, so how about having different units for every group of Civ. Similar to the different city sprites you get in the early game... These would converge as the the game moves in to the modern/future stages, when all soldiers start wearing cammoflauge. Just as the cities do.
I don't think that these units should actually be that different though. I agree they should look different, but to give them wildly different stats and abilities would mean that the different civs would have advantages based on what we dicide is appropriate for them, based on how history happened on Earth. That's not what Civ games are about, you make your own history.
It would be nice though, if only Oriental themed civs built Samurai, while a European type of civ built a foot soldier in Knight's armour etc. I just think that these units would be the same basic unit underneath, ('UNIT_ADVANCED_ANCIENT_INFANTRY' or something like that), but the sprite and graphics would be different.
Of course this would be a complete pain in the backside to put into the great library... perhaps there would be only one entry for each type of unit, and the picture flashes up a cycle through the 6 or 7 different themes of that unit.... Don't know...
The fact that Civ3 appear to have at least 2 types of tank is promising, although it might just mean that the Panzer is made obselete by the next generation of tank (the Abrams is a modern american tank isn't it????).
Pingu:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
schubert37
|
|
Wiesbaden, Germany
Mar 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
I think it could be very difficult to decide. Think about how difficult it will be with loads of units to decide whether to attack an enemy or not. Different armies need different looks. In high resolutions over 800x600 it will be hard to divide them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Schubert,
the reason why I originally stated that there should only be 2 choices per unit type (legion v samurai, light cavalry v heavy cavalry etc.) was to keep things simple. With there being only two types of each unit, it would be one or the other with no space for confusion. To solve the civilopedia problem, both units could come under the same heading (eg. legion/samurai)
Another complementary idea. Some people have suggested there should be HEAPS of types of each unit. There is a simple way to implement this without adding confusion or complexity. If you are confused as to what an enemy unit is, you could click on it, and it would say 'iron footsoldier' for example to represent all the legion/samurai/etc. that exist, give the specific name eg. 'samurai' and give is att/def/mov stats. As for the civilopedia reference, simply put 'iron footsoldier' etc., and describe its general strengths/weaknesses, and tech needed/obsolete it. No need to all the various types. This would add a sense of adventure and discovery of new units as you encounter them and find out their exact stats by clicking on them. After all, in the real world, the Romans would not have heard of samurai's unless they had come across them in battle!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral PJ
|
 |
Southeast England , UK
Dec 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
It would be good to have 'special/specific' units, maybe the Alpha Centauri system would work well, where just one type of unit, like a samurai is prototyped, I think this could still be used for each new unit made, we just don't get to mix and match things in civ3 (which is a shame, i hope theres something to represent gradual unit improvement)
Alpha centauri was good, it just needed the AI improved and better sound/ I'm glad we're getting lots of interesting unit graphics though like civ2.
Viva la difference!
Sounds like your system for only research one type of tech for legion/samurai (samurai should be lower defence and faster? more like a mounted legion) is just like Master of Orion 2 's where most alien races except psilons had to select 1 of 3 or so sciences for each advance (though the tech tree was linear, it just went physics 1 , physics 2, 3 more or less) and we had to trade the other science techs with other nations.. which was good to encourage peaceful diplomacy.
I think Civ3 etc could have this style system you mentioned,
LOOK at
how Russian cold war technologies , like Mig aircraft have Gone to China and vietnam (fast and manoverable) wheras America has its F16(good weapons and missiles, weak defence?) and europe can have the Harrier JEt, and the Eurofighter ..
Admiral of the Intergalactic A Centaurus Fleet
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Colonel Rhombus
|
 |
Happyland
Jan 1970
time: 15:12
|
|
WARNING: Long post
I'm starting to question the validity of the current attack/defense system used in Civ2 and, unless I am mistaken, soon to be used in Civ3.
I think we're taking the sight of a cannon destroying a group of musketeers for granted. Cannons, and other siege weapons are, by themselves, not particularly useful. They are support weapons to complement the main forces - usually infantry. The Yin and Yeng of combat isn't reflected all that well in Civ, in reality tanks are quite vulnerable to footsoldiers with anti-tank weapons, archers are vulnerable against pretty much anything up close. Carriers are bizzare in their attack/defense value. Why is their defense 9 irrespective of the presence or absence of aircraft? They're a floating target and require massive amounts of protection. I think you get my drift.
When one whinges about the current system, they're obliged to offer a solution or an alternative. Sadly, I can't think of one. Nothing definite, or complete, just a few disjointed and occasionally contradictory ideas. So I shall summarise.
Dispense with attack/defense ratings such as they are and divide all units into different categories. All units have profficiency ratings regardless of whether they are being used in defense or attack. Once combat is initiated, who started it isn't really that relevant, the one obvious exception being in the case of an ambush, but I'll try to deal with that later. Such ratings would be things like:- Range: This is how far the unit can fire. Units armed with swords and pike would have 0 as their range. Longbows, muskets, modern firearms and catapaults about even, armoured vehicles mounting heavy machine guns a little farther, tanks farther than that, ending in naval bombardments and artillery.
- Firepower: how hard a unit hits. Medievel archers with their huge longbows actually hit a lot harder than modern combat rifles, but to keep things as uncomplicated, this category will take into consideration accuracy and rate of fire also. Modern artillery units with their wide range of munitions (from air-bursting fragmentation charges to delayed-fuse bunker busters) obviously deal much greater damage against a wide variety of units, wereas a catapult would theoretically be just as effective against even modern infantry units (human bodies have not got any tougher, though a catapult's survivability on a modern battlefield would be roughly less than zero) but be completely ineffective against armoured vehicles. I mention this because even one badly damaged M1A1 or T-90 would be able to destroy as many catapults as it had ammunition. Though a huge improvement over Civ1, Civ2 lacks enough failsafes to completely prevent absurd situations.
- Melee: English knights and Roman legions are about as devastating as melee gets, unsurpassed in modern times. But the firepower rating of the musket or the repeating rifle ensures that this remains sadly irrelevant. Infantry fare reasonably well, able to attach bayonette or simply use their rifle as a club. Though such a unit will initially take a beating from archers, once they close the distance it's pretty much all over.
- Speed: I can't really think up any ways to tweak this setting, so we'll leave it be. Maybe separate values for combat and strategic movement, but that's a bit finnicky. The reasoning behind separate values is that infantry can move much faster than a catapault, so a retreating catapault should always get run down and routed, but at the strategic map level, they would both move at a rate of 1 square per turn. I can personally live without this, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
- Attributes: There are a few subsets of unit attributes, actually.
- Unit Type - Such categories may include "Footsoldier", "Mounted", "Towed", "Vehicle", "Armoured", "Amphibious", "Airborne", "Seaborne", etc. The primary concern of these is how the unit interacts with terrain. Infantry are granted access to just about any terrain type, and receive defensive bonuses from rough/dense terrain like mountains, hills, jungle, etc. Armoured vehicles would be appropriately penalised in such terrain to reflect reduced mobility and access (maybe even banned from traversing some terrain like mountains unless it has a road). These also affect combat, in that an "Armoured" unit cannot be affected in any way by primitive melee units. Also certain types of attacks (cruise missile, for example, don't do much damage to infantry units, which are spread out and often well concealed. Cruise missiles are for blowing up big, strong, expensive things, not little people spread throughout the countryside.
- Unit Role - Determines the purpose of the unit, mainly in regards to warfare. Infantry, backbone of offense and holder of ground. Defensive bonus in cities as well as nasty terrain, for the simple reason that they can dig in, while a tank, on the other hand, has no room to manoeuvre and is at the mercy of a lone soldier poking out of a 3rd storey window with an anti-tank weapon. One dead tank is also an effective roadblock, forcing others to back up and find an alternative route through the city. Siege weapons and artillery would be grouped together, both used solely for supporing other units by pounding enemy units at extreme range, into adjacent map squares without having to engage in combat in the case of the field gun or rocket artillery. By themselves they aren't much good, except in the defensive role behind heavy fortifications. If used at range, the "artillery" system used in SMAC would do nicely, if a little more powerful. A lot more powerful, actually. Artillery accounted for over 50% of all casualties in the second or first world war, possibly both. Likewise, airstrikes would have similar effect. Just a random amount of damage done to a unit or city with no reprisal (unless target has SAM capabilities, otherwise the air unit may strike with impunity). What constitutes as "SAM capabilities" changes with the times. The infantry man's rifle was a potent enough weapon against early WW1 aircraft, which flew very slow and low by comparison with modern aircraft. Naval units also work similarly, able to bombard costal units without so much as a scratch (exception being artillery). Modern naval units ought to possess their own missiles, (after researching rocketry, of course) able to strike enemy ships (or ground targets) at up to ranges of 2 to 4 map squares. Their effectiveness against most land targets would be minimal, their main purpose for taking out installations (city improvements) and other naval units. The possibility of combining aircraft carriers with aircraft-launched missiles would provide phenomenal range and actually demonstrate just why the carrier is the king (or queen) of the seas.
[/list=a]Special note on air warfare
This is not handled particularly well, as we all know. So here I go:[list] - ALL air units must land on the same turn they take off.
- Fighters, though they can attack ground targets, don't do particularly well. Either impose a 1/2 attack vs. ground or a x2 vs. air flag. This isn't that bad since they can't be touched by units without SAM capabilities.
- "Squadrons" or "formations" of air units can be set just like "armies" or "stacks" of ground units. More bombers for increased effectiveness of attack and fighters for protection.
- Air strikes can target specific military units, city improvements or terrain enhancements (like airfields, oil rigs, farms, etc.) to bugger up production.
- Defense against airborn incursions is handled by the presence of fighters in cities or airfields. All impose a "sphere of influence" and any aircraft that invades this stands a certain chance to be intercepted for each movement they make inside the sphere. Technologies like Radar obviously increase the chances for detection drastically. Once intercepted, an air battle takes place just like a ground battle.
- Helicopters can be used for either ground support or transportaion (both at once in the case of the Mi-24 "Hind" which is actually a tranport chopper first, although, through the help of Hollywood, they are often mistaken for dedicated gunships).
Experimental stuff
First and foremost, I'd love to see camouflage and concealment implemented. Infantry units in camouflaged clothing hiding in forests may be undetectable to units that wander past, instead of all ground units being visible to others in adjacent squares. Accidentally moving a unit onto a square that contains "hidden" enemy unit results in an ambush, giving a sizeable initial bonus to the ambushers.
When two empires are at peace, they may even be able to have their units co-occupy the same map square. Why not? If a war is triggered, they may immediately attack each other (maybe with an ambush bonus for the empire that triggered the conflict, a'la sneak attack). I considered the units of allied nations fighting together as one "army", but ruled it out. Armies just don't work like that for the most part, especially nowadays.
Along with the discussion of optional units per tech advance (the Samurai/Legion), many note that this becomes irrelevant in modern times when all armies are very much alike. An alternative is to have different units in accordance with the two major philosophies, specialists and all-rounders. You can have the all-rounder, for this example the Mi-24 Hind, which can transport troops and provide a massive amount of supporting fire as it drops them. Or you can go the specialist route and develop two units that specialise in one thing, in this case the AH-64 Apache and the UH-60 Blackhawk. For balance, the Apache would have better firepower than the Hind, and the Blackhawk larger troop capacity, but you would have to build and maintain two different units. The choice would be yours.
That's about it, really, and by the way, this is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made anywere ever. Just a piece of worthless trivia to end on.
------------------
Regards,
Col. Rhombus
[This message has been edited by Colonel Rhombus (edited April 20, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
It seems that a lot of people in this thread didn't quite understand my original post so I will clarify it again.
What I did not say: I did not say Romans must pick legions etc.
I did not say that civs should be locked into picking
certain units. Quite the contrary!
What I did say: Every time you discover a new tech that lets you build a
military unit (eg iron working) you should be faced with
a choice between two similar units (one will be more
offensive, the other more defensive)
Finally, you cannot have both units unless you capture one
or find one in a hut. This forces you to THINK about the
military side of the game as well.
EXAMPLE: I discover 'ironworking'. A menu pops up asking me to
select 'legion' or 'samurai'. I am building a peaceful defensive
empire so I select legion. I can now build legions but will never
be able to build samurai's.
IDEAS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS THREAD: Could this 'choice' model be applied to other game elements such as buildings, or wonders?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stuff2
|
|
I like the initial idea. But I think that every unit should have some kind of tech of it's own. I suggest Iron working can lead to both 'Samurai Codex' or 'Legion warfare'. Both units are equal beneficial but they may leed to even further different but equal units in the future. (Actually I think that a bunch of samurais would kill an ancient legion anytime but that's not my point).
You could ofcourse if you wanted research both but it would probably be a waste of time. I think every unit should be researched from the 'overall tech'. Then you can decide if you wan't to focus on military upgraiding or if you wan't to research for new knowledge.
[This message has been edited by Stuff2 (edited April 23, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-04-2001 13:27
. 
). Because it wouldn't be until you've done battle with the unit that you know how it fights.
|