UNITS (ver1.1): Hosted by JT

[EnochF]

Missiles, Nukes: Are they a chassis or a separate unit? Can you equip them with machine guns? If so, why?

Submarines: If submarines can only be equipped with torpedos, then perhaps they don't require a workshop to construct them at all. Unless you'd like to try subs with bombards.

Cannons, Artillery, Howitzers: The entire chassis is in and of itself a weapon. The chassis is the unit.

Partians, Guerrillas, Rebels, Fanatics, Fascists: What specific weapons exactly are they equipped with? Ideology? Or do you require a new and separate "guerrilla" chassis?

Special units: Clerics, Corporate Branches, Lawyers, Infectors, Slavers. Lawyers with rocket launchers? Better yet, how about jet fighters armed with injunctions?

Satellites, other new units: Units suggested in this forum, such as mobile SAMs, radar jammers, spy satellites and the like will also be a massive hindrance to any implementation of a workshop.

Harel: By mentioning subs with chain mail, I was pointing out your limited scope. Many of the people who support a Civ III workshop do not consider units past the Renaissance. Apparently you've considered it. I still question whether you've honestly considered it enough. I maintain that modern units defy simple "workshopping."


[This message has been edited by EnochF (edited May 25, 1999).]

[Fugi the Great]

I agree with Jason B. In Civ2, and sometimes in SMAC, the unit is outdated before it is even built or even gets to the front lines. Time needs to be slowed down a bit, or the time to build a unit has to come down.

[EnochF]

Incidentally, can I get some agree/disagree comments on Naming Ships? As a totally optional thing, of course. Those of us who go overboard, so to speak, on a navy often find tactical maneuvers a lot easier if our ships are distinguishable by name, and besides, it adds a hell of a lot of atmosphere, I think. Just whenever you build a ship, you get a message. "New Destroyer commissioned at Manchester: What shall we name this new vessel, sir?" or something.

How about Octopus's idea to attach "notes" to units. As in "marching to Thermopylae to meet up with three other phalanxes and catapult to conduct siege"? When I've got more than twenty units moving around, it's hard to remember who's going where sometimes.

[Harel]

Lawyers with rockets? You dont seem to understand the prinicple of what I say: The chassis define the weapons.
A laywer, if indeed we will use this very silly CtP unit, is an infantry with weapon: injuctions
Ofcourse, that wont be available for planes. Probaly.
If you think that modern era units are not custom-made, you are so wrong you cant imagine how. BTW, I am serving in the army... I suggest you go and indulge yourself in weapons specs.
Subs? Subs have torpedos, nukes, mines, probes... Need I go on?
Did you now have a SMAC workshop for missiles? You can heavly re-define a missile: Extra fuel, extra speed, shields, and mainly: warhead type.
By even implaying to "laywer with launcher" you clearly dont understand anything I say. A laywer is a chassis? A lawyer? On it's own?!
Please, think about what you say!
The modern era is fitting to a workshop. More then you can possible realize.
And beside, you mentioned it fits the middle ages. That doesn't count? Why shouldn't we have this option? It's fitting, it been in SMAC, and I am willing to bet a lot that EVERYTHING that made it to SMAC ( and more ) will appear in civ III.
This won't go away because you are having nightmares about layers with quake-like rocket launchers...

[Mo]

I suggest a completely redesigning the espionage process.
Spies, diplomats, and messengers are only a few people so they shouldn't classify as units. You should have a buget for counter espionage and for espionage. The more money you assign to each will increase the chances of stopping an enemy spy or for your spy to suceed. You should be able to ask your inteligence for information about any enemy city. Depending on how much money you are allocating will determine the acurracy of the report. Example: If you want info about Hamburg, but you aren't spending enough money, some stats about the military units there will be missing maybe a few improvments will also be missing.
Your chances of suceeding will be determined how far the target city is from the capital, how much money they are spending on counter espionage, how much money you are putting into espionage and the risks of the mission you are attempting. Of course there will be other modifiers like government and such.
If the city you want to spy on is on another continent or if there is water between your closest city and the target city the information might be delayed a turn or two to arrive. This will of course change once you have discovered flight and radio.

[This message has been edited by Mo (edited May 25, 1999).]

[EnochF]

Harel: Look, if you'll just...

Aw, screw it. Let me just address my comments to someone a little more receptive.

Back wall of my office: Listen to me, wall. If you accept that "the chassis defines the weapons," then already you have provided enough limitations to your own system to make it redundant. If subs are limited to nukes, torpedos and mines, how are they any different from a standard sub in Civ II? Aside from the ability to create unarmed scout versions of every chassis, there's no point to any of this. And unarmed scout submarines are made redundant by a decent spy plane.

Surely, white plaster wall, you must concede my point.

All this fractured English is giving me a headache...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

EnochF
Just whenever you build a ship, you get a message. "New Destroyer commissioned at Manchester: What shall we name this new vessel, sir?" or something.

I don't have a problem with including the option, as long as it isn't a pop-up. Maybe a right-click thing, but a pop-up is too annoying to those of us who build a large navy but couldn't care less what it's called.

If you accept that "the chassis defines the weapons," then already you have provided enough limitations to your own system to make it redundant.

Not really, but subs are a bad example because they really are somewhat limited. Other chassis (like wheeled vehicles and surface ships) are more flexible and could indeed handle a variety of weapons if you choose to put them there. More accurately, they could handle a variety of weapons systems if you put them there, since a popgun and a naval cannon are basically the same thing, just on different scales and with different support systems.

[Harel]

"If subs are limited to nukes, torpedos and mines, how are they any different from a standard sub in Civ II? "
Said the ever-sharp EnochF.
Did you see 3 types of subs in Civ II? I mean, they must have had them... could it be i just missed them?
A torpedo sub to mainly destroy other subs, a scout sub, a mine-layer sub, a nuking sub, a cruise-missile carrying sub...
they all been there, haven't they?
Not just the un-realistic "I-can-do-everything" sub, that both carried missile and could take out other subs with ease.
Spy planes made scout subs obeslte?
Why jumping geepers! The rifle-man made the archer obselte. Should we scarp him aswell? So what if the spy plane is better?! You can STILL BUILD A SCOUT SUB. In war II the sub was a main scouting unit. Or history doesnt matter for you?
Or you also belive that fighter ( the plane units from CIV II ) is the same since the start of the centaury, cause they sure as hell didn't change in CIV II.
BTW, in answer of this your question about howizters, cannons, and the rest ( they are the chassis, they are the weapon ), the answer is simple. All of them are Carried units. Chassis: Siege weapon, Weapon: select at will. Happy now?
( You can even have the ballista, the catapult, and other lovely siege weapons as well )
And, just like I said, you can be sure the workshop will apprear in CIV III. I am willing to bet about it. So start suggesting ideas on how to make it better, not just complain and use very silly arguements.

[Carolus Rex]

First post in this thread.

Mo,

A lot of the fun using diplos and spies is actively guiding them through enemy lines. Moving them around the map, scouting for bribable units etc.

I strongly feel that turning it into the more abstract/invisible process you describe eliminates an interesting feature of the game and reduces the fun of it.

Instead I would like to see more options available to them. That being said I agree with rainer that early on diplos are too powerful and need to be "downgraded" in some way.

Everybody,

It's not the number of new units or how realistic they are that will make Civ3 great. Obviously, it's whether they add new strategic dimensions and depth to the game or not.

Some of the suggestions here do just that, but many are simply "we need an Y type to fill the historical inaccurate gap between versions X and Z". IMHO, this is only counterproductive. No offense intended.

Carolus

[Bird]

Re: spies and diplomats. I like rainer's ideas but I like Mo's even better (some can be combined). Mo, I assume you are not deleting the spy/diplomat units (or are you?), just adding variables that affect their success once they've "attacked" a target. I like the current approach that requires the spy to get to the city before obtaining info or doing whatever. Counterespionage abilities have to be beefed up. I like the idea of allocating funds as a means of setting the spies' abilities, both offensively and defensively, because it's fairly realistic and you only have to put one spy in a city for counterespionage purposes.

If this is impractical, your civ's ability to counter another civ's spy attacks should at least be increased if you have more spies stationed in the target city. I know spies already have some ability to thwart other spies, but I don't think the effects are cumulative in a city if you station more than one spy there (at least it never seems to work that way for me). Absent Mo's approach, they should at least have a cumulative effect.

Personally, I think the issues related to dips/spies are the most important ones out there as far as existing CIV II units go. I can live with or without a workshop, although I don't think it will improve the game if we simply see another 50 units added. That just means there'll be another X number of units no one ever builds (fanatics, copters, etc.). Better, not more, should be the primary goal.

[Chowlett]

Upgrading should be a bit more realistic. I mean, here's my unarmoured swordsmanwalking across the plains. I discover bronze, and suddenly, out of nowhere, I can give him armour? I say, units should not be able to upgrade without either:
1) stopping in a city for a turn
2) having some kind of supply vehicle catch up with them.

As a balance for this, I'm fighting someone who happens to have bronze armour. Now he repels my attacks for a while, but then one of my units defeats him - and can pick up his armour and put it on. What I mean is, if a battle is won over a more technologically advanced foe, I can nick his fancy weaponry. Probably, in the case of weapons, some penalty would have to be introduced to cope with inexperience - a man with a sword would take a while to become proficient with a captured musket.

[Bird]

I don't feel strongly about upgrades one way or the other, but Chowlett makes an excellent point and offers an opportunity to increase the value of a city improvement that advanced players seem to only rarely use -- barracks. Make the unit's ability to upgrade conditioned on either visiting a town with a barracks for a turn or being stationed in such a town. If the consensus is that this makes a barracks too valuable, increase the cost of building and/or maintaining one.

[Carolus Rex]

IMHO, upgrading is OK as it is via:

i) fighting (non-vet to vet for the same unit, more categories can be invented) or

ii) a wonder (units automatically receive vet status if victorious, older units are converted into new ones)

i) and ii) represent factors such as experience and progress in military technology. Why add more micromanagement by letting the players upgrade every single unit?

Carolus

[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited May 25, 1999).]

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Carolus Rex writes:
Why add more micromanagement by letting the players upgrade every single unit?

Because it's fun and realistic. How many governments underequip their troops if they can afford upgrades? And it's a lot easier to upgrade the units you have than to build new ones. A lot of the ideas we're discussing in the various threads are trying to balance fun and realism, and this one has both! Why not use it?

(PS--JT, if you're out there, it might be time to start a new thread . . . )

[Isle]

The chassis defines the weopons. limiting?
hah
Try to look at it this way: The chassis desides what slots are available, or rather the chassis HAS a number of slots available.
Foot: Hand-held weapon, body armor, other carryable equipment.
Moterized: Mounted weapon, light armor, engine, other mounted equipment.
Mechanized: 1 x Gun, 2 x mounted weapons, heavy armor, engine, tank equipment.

Hand-held weapons: Spear, sword, pike, musket, light firearm, heavy firearm, flamethrower and rope to pulled equipment(like a catapult)

Body armor: Hide, leather, chain, plate, kevlar vest(bullet-proof vest)

Mounted Weapons: Lances, machineguns
Light Armor: Reinforced, steelplated

Gun: something mm gun, something other mm gun and something big mm gun(I cant remember the scale, but I believe its in 100's of mm's)
Heavy Armor: so many inches of steel, more inches steel, or 3 feet of steel
Tank equipment: Reactive armor

The catapult is a foot unit, since its pulled, a cannon is stationary, pulled or moterized(put on a truck), a howitzer is(if you even know what it is) selfdriving and therefore mechanized.

I could go on, but it would be pointless, the options at endless, and the combinations even more so. We not only need the workshop like previously stated, we want it!!

[Utrecht]

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!


Not all of us WANT the Unit workshop. I believe that it introduces a level of complexity that Civ games simply do not need.

Honestly,

How many "non-standard" units in SMAC did you use???? After I played with them, I just used the defaults because it was easier and I did not want the micromanagement.

Civ 2, CTP way works fine.

[Mo]

RE: Spies
After further consideration I would keep the spy and diplomat as units. I would eliminate that you have to place a spy in your city for counter espionage, I would rather have it handled like I mentioned above, with the money allowance. If the spy unit stays is there really a need for the offensive espionage money allocation? If it stays would it just improve your odds of suceeding?

[Carolus Rex]

Bell,

I'm not against upgrading, I just think the current system is working fine. It's definitely easy.

I agree 100% with Utrecht's post. What is Civ really about, what is so addictive with it? It can't be designing your own units from scratch, that's for sure.

The SMAC workshop (any workshop?) may be fun the first few times, but then...

Difficulties telling which unit is which, bad graphics to allow customizability of units, no (or very little) gain in gaming experience.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Carolus

[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited May 25, 1999).]

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Utrecht writes:
How many "non-standard" units in SMAC did you use????

When I first started playing I used them quite a bit, and now I use them exclusively, because I turned off the autodesign. I always end up with more varied and more useful units if I design them myself than if I let the game do it for me.

[JT]

THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED

[JT]

THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Let's agree to disagree: it's obvious that we are not going to be unanimous on the requirements of, or necessity for, a workshop.

Yes, you can make a workshop totally unworkable by attempting to define and include every conceivable unit and component. You can also make a workshop unnecessary by so narrowly defining the possible combinations that they are indistinquishable from a small number of set units.
But to say that either case makes a workshop system unnecessary or unworkable for the game is wrong: you are simply indicating that you can't properly define a workshop system that would work in the game.
To take some of the specific straw man arguments advanced:
1. Cannon, Catapults, et al are weapons that have a built-in Chassis: they cannot be mounted on another ground unit chassis because there is no technology contemporary with them that provides one. The only way to move them strategic distances (game map distances) is to tow them behind animals. Period. They can be mounted on Ships, and they could be mounted on a Railroad chassis (if your Tech development is so skewed that you have nothing better than catapults to mount on a railroad chassis, that's another problem entirely). When you get Motorized (wheeled self-propelled vehicles) or Mechanized (tracked self-propelled vehicles) Tech, then you can mount any of the Bombardment (Artillery, Cannon, Howitzer or Battlefield Missile or whatever we end up calling it) Units on those chassis, and get either obsolete or modern mobile artillery units.
The Submarine chassis is limited, in that it is slower and has a lower overall capacity than any surface ship chassis. That is the case with WWI or WWII submarines, which apparently is the model for CivII subs. BUT what if I Upgrade the submarine chassis with Underwater Hull - the modern sub hulls optimized for underwater speed - which is only possible after you've got Nuclear Propulsion. Now you can increase the capacity of the sub chassis, mount extra things on it, or use the capacity to create a Cargo Sub or Amphibious Assault sub: all modern options you don't have in any of the games now.
You could provide Civ-specific special units. Problem is, the variations in capability among modern combat units and equipment come about because of specific requirements, usually related to geographical situations. For example, for modern/WWII era, you could give German Civ better tanks and short-range bombers (historical) and the Americans Long Range Bombers. But the USA developed long range bombers because they were isolated by oceans from all potential foes: what does a player with Germans do if his Random Map puts him on an island half a map away from his enemy?
He should have the option of taking his Airframe-Cargo chassis, making it more expensive by adding 4 or 6 engines instead of 2, optimizing for range (instead of Attack or Defense Factors) and building the type of bomber he needs in That Particular Game.
And, by the way, have the option of naming/designating it.
Stealth, Reconnaissance or Spying Ability, Nuke carrying capability: these are examples of Special Characteristics which each type of chassis will have a varying shot at - and yes, it is not difficult to define that a Chariot or Horseback chassis cannot carry a Nuke!
Or is that a bad example. After all, there were BackPack nuke weapons developed, shouldn't we give the player ALL the options?
Answer: No. The backpack Nuke is already covered in Special Characteristics for Spies.
Non-Military Units, if included (and I personally think they are a Good Thing if done right) cannot fall into precisely the same categories as military units, by definition: if included, the Corporate Branch, Abolitionist, Lawyer, etc, each represent a wildly varying number of people, equipment, and capability.
Mind you, another look should be taken at the interaction between 'military' and 'non military' units. What is the real difference in effect, in game terms, between Production being stopped by a lawyer's injunction or a guerrilla's military action?
Simple answer to the Unconventional Warfare units is that most of their "weapons" would not be available to the military Chassis. Being Unconventional, they might not be subject to the kind of purposeful design that went into military units and weapons in any case: how do you design an Abolitionist?

- or is that another loaded question?

Bottom Line. I can live with a Properly Designed set of Given Units if that's the way the game goes, but I personally think the variations of design in both modern and premodern units by country and conditions are better shown with a Design Workshop/Armory of some kind.
I also think that, like SMAC, any game with a Design Workshop should be designed so that those gamers not interested in that aspect of the game can play happily with 'standard' units. Geez, I want this sucker to SELL large numbers of games so they keep designing more and better ones, and making a game playable only by certain types of players is not the way to go: flexibility always!