UNITS (ver 1.2) hosted by JT

JT · May 25, 1999, 17:57

Sorry, but I have to leave right away, so I can't post a summary until I get back.

EnochF · May 25, 1999, 19:25

Ah, no problem.

Diodorus: Hey, I actually like your ideas for coming up with a rational unit workshop. I don't dread it as much as I used to...

Mo · May 25, 1999, 20:13

I don't think there should be a unit workshop in Civ III. Instead how about that your units stats improve once you have discovered a certain tech or after you have built a certain number of units.
Tech: Example submarines could be outfited with reactors once nuceuler fission is discovered, this would upgrade their movement.
Also after you have built a certain number of that type of unit. The upgrade would be explained that your people now have more expirence developing that weapon and have better training since it was tested in the field and the results analyzed. Archers could get a 1+ attack because longbows have been developed.

darkgrendel · May 25, 1999, 20:25

But what if you want to build a unit QUICKLY, so you don't WANT the upgrade on it? I think you should be able to select when you build something what upgrades you have on it. And personally (except for how crowded it got, but with if they kept Civ2's Build dialogue, that wouldn't be a problem) SMAC's unit workshop.

Andy B · May 26, 1999, 05:54

I think somebody has said this before but not
here: How can alpine troops travel across deserts, plains and grassland?

NotLikeTea · May 26, 1999, 07:56

Interesting point.

Would giving units terrain bonuses and handicaps be just oo much detail to handle?

Tanks with trouble through mountains, forests. Horses travelling best on plains. Etc.

Diodorus Sicilus · May 26, 1999, 10:27

This probably belongs in another thread, but it pertains to the last couple of posts here:
Terrain Effects and Types have to be better defined, and it dovetails with Unit Capabilities: There are a host of unit types, whether they are game-defined or player -designed, that have special pluses and minuses in movement and combat vis-a-vis terrain.
To use modern examples for a change, Armor (tracked) is notoriously ineffective in "close" terrain" mountains, cities, swamps, forests, etc. This relates to both its movement, which is much slower and much more heavily penalized than that of foot infantry in those terrains, and its combat factors.
I always thought of 'Alpine' as representing all the types of modern Light Infantry - and representing them poorly, at that. Lightly equipped infantry forces, like the Ranger battalions, German Jaeger Divisions, everybody's Mountain units in WWII and modern Light Divisions in the US Army, are designed to be easily moved strategically (by air or sea) and to operate effectively in all types of 'bad' terrain - like the list of armor-unfriendly stuff earlier in this post.
What's left out is that they are also relatively lightly armed, and unless equipped with light motorized vehicles (which the US Army experimented with right down the road from me at Fort Lewis) they are slower than regular troops on roads, plains, grasslands, etc. Their combat factors are pretty good relative to everything else in the bad terrain, but they get ground up in the open: don't have the heavy firepower of armor or mech. infantry. The reason they do well in the bad terrain is that everyone else's combat factors go DOWN dramatically there, because they can't bring their firepower and mobility to bear in swamps, mountains, cities, etc.

None of these terrain effects show up in any of the games, and they skew the unit effects and capabilities as well...

CormacMacArt · May 26, 1999, 15:49

Forgive me if I posted this here already.
Perhaps instead of CtP SLAVER unit, have a SLAVE unit. Use him to build my roads, build my bridges, make my coffie. Build at 2x rate, half support.

Harel · May 26, 1999, 16:02

I will say that one more time: SMAC workshop WILL appeer in civ III.
why?
A. It appeared in SMAC. CIV III will probaly be based losely on SMAC game engine.
B. It does make lots of sense, even if you don't agree with it.
C. Many people do support the workshop, myself included.
D. You dont HAVE to use it. I really dont understand why people care. You don't like the workshop, choose the standard units! Let us the workshopholic get what we want... This way both sides are happy... it's a win win sitution... I don't really understand whats the problem.

NotLikeTea · May 27, 1999, 07:51

That is not true.

A) SMAC also had PSI combat.. will CivIII? That the two are based on the same engine (which is not confirmed) does not guarantee perfect similarities.

B) This is debatable.. do we really need all the possible units? If a unit we can design is succesful, but was NEVER used in real life, then there is something wrong with the game. I find it hard to believe that a player can top thousands of years of history. SMAC made sense, since it was the future.

C) All that matters in the end is if Firaxis supports it.

D) Not a valid point. If I don't use the editor, the AI still will, giving them an advantage. Same as in multiplayer games.

Besides, most of these situations can be resolved by just having more default units.

BTW, I really liked the workshop in SMAC. However, this is not SMAC. Not everything can, or should be transferred.

[This message has been edited by NotLikeTea (edited May 27, 1999).]

CormacMacArt · May 27, 1999, 15:19

That's a good point. It is kind of nice to have an idea of what kind of unit your enemy is bringing to bear.

Ekmek · May 27, 1999, 15:38

As an addition to units, I'd like to see an improved engineer unit. I already had some home made scenarios with airborne sappers that would drop in and make roads to aid mobility, but what about building obstacles, minefields, and some other combat engineer aspects. They're big combat multipliers.

Also there has to be better chem and biological weapons, ones that create one square of pollution or can shift at random (to simulate wind)

I noticed logistics is going on on other pages but give artillery and bombers some range or munitions, how often can infantry fight back against arty? I've been fighting to find a way for civii to let ground units carry air so I can simulate rounds...

St Leo · May 27, 1999, 19:23

A workshop a la SMAC will really screw up scenario design. Could one make a middle ages scenario in SMAC? Fat chance.:-)

------------------
St. Leo
www.sidgames.com/imperialism/

EnochF · May 27, 1999, 19:52

Oh. Perhaps the argument about a unit workshop wasn't quite as one-sided as it appeared.

I get the feeling that Firaxis is probably still on the fence about a unit workshop right about now. It worked fantastically for Alpha Centauri. But the Civ II system of units worked just as well for Civ II.

Part of the reason the workshop was so helpful for Alpha Centauri is because thinking up fifty completely new futuristic units is simply too daunting a task. Call to Power tried, and even with its handful of fifteen-odd futuristic units, they came off looking silly. Alpha Centauri sidestepped that by simply snapping bits and pieces together and giving it a name.

The six thousand years of human civilization has involved more significant advances than merely snapping bits and pieces together. The evolution of Legions into formations of Pikemen was more than just adding wooden sticks to their arsenal. It was a tactical evolution. Groups of pikemen gathered into square formations, able to point their pikes in all cardinal directions to withstand any enemy charge.

Battleships, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, frigates, transports, ironclads... they have different and distinct names for a reason. They're different, inside and out, through and through, in terms of the hull, the armaments, and the crew. You could strip all the weapons off a battleship and use it as a troop transport, but it wouldn't be as effective as a troop transport. You could mount dozens of huge gatling guns on a cruiser, but it still wouldn't be as effective a combat vessel as a battleship.

And what if the workshop does give you the ability to construct fantastical wonder-ships, say, AEGIS Battle-Carrier Transports? Well, it creates a schism between the real world, in which such units are fanciful and impractical, and the game world, in which such units are highly desirable for naval superiority. Got a problem? Just take three ABCT's, fill them with nuclear weapons and mechanized marines and watch the enemy fall. And while you're at it, construct a few Stealth Heli-Bomber Tanks, and guard your coastal cities with Submersible Infantry, and conduct your city sieges by parachuting AEGIS Howitzer Para-Tanks into the enemy's territory... bleah!

Harel · May 27, 1999, 20:16

I never ment that the workshop could create "super-units", as you know very well. We discussed that allready. The workshop should allow you to build only things that allready exists now.
Then why we need one, you ask? Well, if we will try to put toghter all the different kinds of ships, subs, tanks, planes and infantry we can have, we'll get a very long list.
The cIV III kind of workshop suppose to allow you to re-create any unit you wish with ease, and not choose from a pre-set collections of dozens of dozens... which will confuse everyone.
Do you want to open up the city menu and see a list of 50 combat units?
That's isn't just true for the modern age, it's also true of the middle ages...
Do you want a huge list, combining heavy cavalry, light cavalry, rider archers, small bows, long bows, crossbow, knights, riders, scouts... the list is very long.
And then you need to remember the different use of weapons and armor by various countries..
The workshop should be fitted to allow small changes into existing models: we'll the new sub prefer infra-red probing or better torpedos? That is the questions that will rise from the workshop, not if it could fly or belch quantum bombs. The work-shop should be a "tweaker" place, to allow us to build the various models and espects of the existing military units.

Depp · May 28, 1999, 00:17

Harel:

The workshop in SMAC made all the units look exactely alike, which sucked bigtime. Having chassis types makes that happen, and it´s really boring. You can´t go "NO, he´s attacking me with knigths", but No he is attacking me with..some horse-y kinda unit...

what´s the point of unit graphics if you can't separete them from each other?

[This message has been edited by Depp (edited May 27, 1999).]

Mo · May 28, 1999, 01:05

I think the workshop shouldn't be included. Yes you can make a large variety of units if you do include the workshop, but some of the differences are so small that they wouldn't even affect how the unit performs in combat. Are swords man better than macemen or men with axes? All these changes would be big enough to change a one of the unit stats. Are the differences between migs and f14 or other fighters so great as to change the stats for them?
To make the graphics easily distinguishable will be much harder with the unit workshop. Like how do you know the difference between a normal sub and one with better torpedos or one with infared probing.
The things that I disliked about the SMAC unit workshop are that you couldn't have a transport with attack capability ala frigate in civII, and that it got cluttered with units that are almost identical.

May 28, 1999, 01:23

I'd like a unit workshop after you've moved out of historical time and into the future. After all, my guess is as good as yours as to what future military units there will be.

Trash the ski troops, replace with "guard units" of some kind. Also include special forces/commandos with the WWII period units. increase airlift capacity (have hercules style planes) and increase effect of conventional bommbing.

CormacMacArt · May 28, 1999, 09:32

Now there's a good comprimise! Have the workshop a future "advance". It would still be nice to be able to update my phalanx into a legion when I reach the apropriate technology and tactics.

Mo · May 28, 1999, 13:41

Should there be actual air transport planes or should it just be handled with airports and airbases?
CivII air transport was a bit lacking. You could only transport 1 unit out of a city with an airport or from an airbase to another city with an airport. You should be able to send and recieve more than one unit per turn. Maybe for play balance you could add a transport cost to it. Also I would like to be able to recieve units at airbases, instead of just being anle to send them.

EnochF · May 28, 1999, 13:47

Mo: Good point. I'm the sort of player that builds airports everywhere and loves inter-continental trade, so I get incredibly frustrated when I want to send my Uranium across the world and can't because I'd already airlifted a handful of tanks somewhere...

(Does that belong in the Units thread or the City Improvements thread?)

Subzero · May 28, 1999, 13:53

Well, why not simply put airlift functions in a "transport plane" unit? give it fantastic range, lousy combat numbers, and the ability to carry a unit or two..

------------------
"May God grant them mercy. I won't."

ember · May 28, 1999, 16:55

The trasport plane would add another layer of micromanagemnt without improving a players flexibility. I think all air and ground units should be 'deployed'.
When a unit is built (i prefer regions and units built by a region) it is placed in a list of units to be deployed. Other units can be added if they have not moved yet. At the end of your turn, you deploy these units. The AI suggests a location for each unit, and you can change it or keep it as is.
Deployed units are not combat effeective until your NEXT turn, preventing instant defenses. They are destroyed if attacked. Deployment can only be made to cities, bases, and some naval vessels. cities under siege, bases and ships have a limit to the number of units that can be deployed per turn. You can deploy to allied cities and bases as well.

For a historical civ game i think the unit editor is cumbersome. it is too dificult to trim unwanted units, too many variations are available, and they don't have much impact on the game, especially if all it is doing is giving your armour +1 attack (pazers), for an extra row of resources.

Units should aoutomatically upgrade. any obsolete unit has a 5% (random number) chance of upgrading each turn.

To simulate the economic burden of waging war, units should be supported by gold. Repairs also cost gold. The support cost is unaffected by unit status (1 gold / 20 shileds?) Repairs cost 1 gold per shield worth of repairs. Units repaired in the filed pay full price. At a city they pay 2/3 price and if the city has a barracks/airport/port it costs 1/3 price.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

Mo · May 28, 1999, 19:39

You shouldn't be able to deploy units to a city under siege. Or to naval vessels except if they are in port. I think upgrades should be handled similar to SMAC where you can upgrade units individually or all at once but have to pay a price for it. You shouldn't be able to upgrade units in the field either.

jof · May 29, 1999, 10:07

I would like to suggest to start 6000BC with one NOMAD(0/1/1) unit: Like a walking city it gathers food&shield&trade from the field it moves to (nothing if fortified in emergency) while trying to explore the neighbourhood.
It needs no support and splits into two nomads when the foodbox reaches 20(?).
It can only build warriors & (after discovering riding) horsemen (it can't build other units, roads, irrigation, mines, city improvements or wonders).
Through the collection of trade points it can gain the early advances fire making, horseback riding, farming, crafting...
Once the farming advance is aquired, nomads may build villages or cities.

TAVIN · May 29, 1999, 16:21

some ideas for more realistic ...
Cleric in stacked combat +20% (only Theokracy)
Despotism, Monarchy units can change the sides (in combat, if there a big unhapenes).

Mo · May 29, 1999, 18:58

I like the idea of the nomads. I think they should be able to build other units too. This will allow a completely nomadic civilization. There has to be a limit to what they can build I would set it at knights.

Depp · May 29, 1999, 19:00

jof: cool idea!

Shining1 · May 30, 1999, 21:47

There obviously needs to be a couple of options here - the default civII designs, in 2D 'cartoon' form, and the unit workshop to allow great looking 3D units from the weapon component system.

Hence you get the best of both worlds - scenario editors can introduce new units at will (maybe even allow a 2D weapon component system?), and the best graphics don't suffer for it.

But any 3D units should be polygons, not voxhals. Voxhals suck. Majorly.

Shining1

May 31, 1999, 02:13

Ideas on bombs

We all agree that making some pollution, destroying a few units, and cutting city size in half wan't enough for a nuke. Here's my idea.

A-Bomb: Can be carried by a bomber. The bomber has to first attack the city. If it wins, the A-Bomb is dropped (This means that, with enough air defense, it can't get in to drop its payload) When it is dropped, the following things happen.
-All units in the city take a random blow to their health. For about half, it's enough to kill them. For the rest, it's enough to make them pretty much useless until they recover.
-Two-thirds of the city's improvements are destroyed.
-Half of all the people in the city die.
-A random number of squares are polluted.

H-Bomb
Again, must be carried by a bomber, which must successfully attack. The city is wiped off the map, and every square in the city radius gets polluted.

ICBM
Not even really a unit. When you build one, you "set" it to an enemy city. by using a separate screen, you can choose to fire one (This is a major action, requires your confirmation and that of the Senate, and may cause very large diplomatic problems)
The cities it is aimed for are destryoed, but only AFTER getting the chance to fire any ICBMs they have aimed at you. SDI can stop it, but it has a small chance of getting through anyway.