05-01-2003 12:10									#1
	Naming Units & other patch suggestions Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Is it just me or is anyone else pissed off that Firaxis has not included the ability to name ALL units in Civ3?

There's just nothing like being able to customize your armed forces, giving your ships names, your aircraft squadron numbers...etc.

Considering that my Civ3 games end up with huge 500+ unit armies (at least I do because I love huge maps and 16 civs), I would love to name units. Its just not the same to have a bunch of nameless generic tanks strewn out across the battlefield.

And yes, I know that units that produce Leaders can be named, but this ability should be availiable to ALL units. Since Elite is the max. status that can be achieved, there is no real difference between a named Elite and a regular Elite. The asterisk that is placed on "Elite" is a good enough reminder.

I hope Firaxis reads this and consideres it in their next patch. So far, I believe they have done a great job of supporting Civ3, I really thought it mediocre when it came out (at least compared to Civ2), but the 1.29f patch makes it the truly great game is was meant to be from the start.

BTW, now that we are on the subject,

1) it would be much more realistic if air units could have a longer range, say 16 or even 24, after all that's what "strategic" bombing is all about. To compensate, air units could only relocate to a suitable base within that same range since it is not realistic to be able to move your entire air force to the other side of the world in one turn. Call me a masochist, but I miss having the crap bombed out of me like in Civ2 by massive fleets of enemy bombers (gives me a moral excuse to do it myself). Besides this minor complaint, I think air warfare is better off in Civ3.

2) Stacking units should carry a penalty like in AC. Say, one HP lost on ALL units in the stack whenever one is destroyed.

nuff said, I'll be happy if I can just name my units!!!

	05-01-2003 12:26									#2
	Support Apolyton

Buy PTW and ye shall have all

	05-01-2003 12:31									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Considering all the hype about multiplayer in PTW (and the rather negative reviews), I though that there was not much new besides the couple of new units and wonders. I guess I will get PTW then...

One more suggestion, perhaps it has been addressed in PTW too: Spies should be able to get demographic data on your enemies, not just military info. I would love to know the production capabilities of my foes.

	05-01-2003 14:18									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

you can steal world maps with civ3, there is the F8 and F11 screen, but thats it.

And if you only want PTW for SP , it's more then just little few things.
MP will get better too

quote: 2) Stacking units should carry a penalty like in AC. Say, one HP lost on ALL units in the stack whenever one is destroyed.

This isn't in PTW btw !! I was too fast in reading your post, I thought you were asking for stacked movement period.
(which is improved too in PTW)

	06-01-2003 03:09									#5
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by raguil_79 Considering all the hype about multiplayer in PTW (and the rather negative reviews), I though that there was not much new besides the couple of new units and wonders. I guess I will get PTW then...

There's plenty of new things in PTW. My faves are true stack movement and rally points.

	06-01-2003 03:38									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"Stacking units should carry a penalty like in AC. Say, one HP lost on ALL units in the stack whenever one is destroyed."

that's a lot if you've got a hundred units in a stack...

	06-01-2003 06:56									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

100 units in a stack would not be realistic at all. Collateral damage would be precisely the incentive for NOT stacking so many units. After all, it's been over 100 years since real armies moved in huge stacks, nowadays they are spread out in a front.

I believe the perfect game would be a Civilization game with Panzer General-type warfare. Come to think of it, it would not be too hard to implement.

	06-01-2003 15:06									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The reason for why modern armies does not move in large stacks are nuclear weapons. Even with nukes some amount of stacking are preferred. The density of men in an army in RL largely depends on the current state of weapons technology. In civ3 it's more like an on/off switch depending of the availabilty of nukes.

	06-01-2003 19:18									#9
	Suffering from ads?

Actually I start laying out my troops in more of a line when I get artillery and infantry. By this stage I've got huge numbers of troops and just 2 inf + 1 arti can survive significant assault. The line protects your improvements (that all important supply line) and workers in way that large stacks cannot.

in fact in the current game I already successfully used a line tactic to protect my borders using sword and pike.

	08-01-2003 07:27									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Armies stared to move in fronts many decades before nukes were invented, just remember WW1. Rather than technology, it was the manpower available to armies by the 1900s that enabled fronts to exist at all. Before that, most armies were not large enough to cover so much space.

Anyway, in conclusion I think the stacking problem is Civ3's greatest combat flaw, even though in general the system is OK (after all, warfare is NOT supposed to be the raison d'etre of the Civ series). It was not real in Civ1 and 2 when all units were destroyed, and it is not real now to make such huge stacks of troops possible.

	08-01-2003 21:44									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

can you name all your units in PTW?

	08-01-2003 21:48									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Alexnm can you name all your units in PTW?

I believe so. I haven't really tried it, but I don't see why not.

	09-01-2003 00:21									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by bongo The reason for why modern armies does not move in large stacks are nuclear weapons. Even with nukes some amount of stacking are preferred. The density of men in an army in RL largely depends on the current state of weapons technology. In civ3 it's more like an on/off switch depending of the availabilty of nukes.

Actually its becuase of the changing nature of the arms. The number of troops required to hold 1sq Km of "front" has dropped steadily as technology improves intelligence, mobility, and weaponry.

	09-01-2003 03:09									#14
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by raguil_79 Collateral damage would be precisely the incentive for NOT stacking so many units.

This is just me being anal, but this is additional damage as opposed to collateral damage.

Collateral damage occurs when attacks targeted at military objectives cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects.

	09-01-2003 03:45									#15
	Put an end to popups!

quote: quote: Originally posted by Alexnm can you name all your units in PTW? I believe so. I haven't really tried it, but I don't see why not.

Yes you can, just right click and choose rename

	09-01-2003 17:56									#16
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by alva Yes you can, just right click and choose rename

I did not know that! Coool.

	09-01-2003 18:33									#17
	Tired of ads?

even think it works on colonys too...

Havn't tried that one for some unexplicable reason

	10-01-2003 00:07									#18
	slight error Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Alexnm can you name all your units in PTW?

Sorry, my bad, right clicking doesn't work. I was sure it did, but apparantly it doesn't.

Use the ABC button instead or SHIFT-N. This Will work.

again, sorry

	10-01-2003 05:44									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

in response to the "stacking units" conversation...

centuries ago, if you spread units out to defend, like pikeman, a large "stack" of units would march right through and into your empire/territory/whatever. technology allows "now" to have less troops guard a certain area, as was stated. it would have taken days/weeks to position troops across the front centuries ago (maybe i should say "century"). so both arguments seem correct to me.