Elephant animation: elephant weren't charging...

Trifna · September 15, 2001, 12:57

I may be a little wrong but I'm wouldn't be that sure about it...

As I know (well not principally), war elephant weren't meant to charge when attacking, so the present animation is kinda weird. But I think elephant DID charge cities' doors. But citiesgenerally put giant spikes on their dooes to prevent such. It's the archers or else in the basket on the elephant that should attack more. This way of animating war elephants was same in Age of Empires.

Trifna · September 15, 2001, 13:15

Sorry, I misinterpreted something. The movement of the elephant's head isn't an attacking animation but seems more to be a stationary animation. Thus, the attacking animation isn't necessarily a charging elephant.

Apologizing

SerapisIV · September 15, 2001, 13:20

I don't like that Elephants require no resources at all, especially as we have already seen elephants on screenshots as a source of ivory. If you're going to have horse-units require horses, why not war elephants require elephants?

TechWins · September 15, 2001, 13:38

A basic elephant unit should have been included, as well. If the war elephant becomes available when the tech for knights is discovered then it is very unrealistic. If the war elephant doesn't become available when the tech for knights (pre-knight era, ancient) is discovered then the game could be unbalanced. What I'm proposing is that the war elephant should have been toned down a bit in stats and only become available when the tech for elephant is discovered. It just seems strange that only the Indians will receive the elephant. The game is about re-writing history you know.

Dauphin · September 15, 2001, 15:07

IIRC Hannibal drugged up his elephants before battle, to get them in a hyperactive and violent mood. They then charged and trampled anything and everything in their way.

The only job of the rider was to smash a chisel into an elephants skull (hence killing it) if it was about to trample his own men.

Granted that's Hannibals tactic not necessarily the Indians, but the principle holds.

Christantine The Great · September 15, 2001, 20:06

Quote:

What I'm proposing is that the war elephant should have been toned down a bit in stats

That's against the whole point of having special units! The Greeks have the best defensive unit that is only topped by the pikeman, an age away. That's unbalanced since it will take you more of an effort to bring down a Greek's defences.

War elephants were several times more powerful than the next most powerful ancient unit. Therefore they are on par with a Middle Age unit. That's the Indian's best bet to get out of their subcontinent and harass the nearby Persians and Chinese.

See what I'm trying to say?

Mongoloid Cow · September 15, 2001, 22:46

Yeah, but their units will go obsolete in the next age, so their advantage over other civilizations is gone as a new civ can have a chance. And what about the Americans or Germans who will get their special unit in the modern ages? They'll have an advantage then, but wouldn't have had much of one before. Firaxis would have got rid of them if it unbalanced the game play.

m_m_x · September 16, 2001, 07:25

it looks like the elephant has a big eye on his head.... (its the shield).

Edward · September 18, 2001, 14:13

I agree with Trifna. All the UU animations in the Civ of the Week are the "standing around tapping your foot" stationary type animations.

Quote:

posted by TechWins
It just seems strange that only the Indians will receive the elephant. The game is about re-writing history you know.

By this logic (and many would agree with you) all UU's work against the re-writing of history.

Based on Firaxis's comparisons, I assume that both the war elephant and the rider are alternatives for the knight and that both become buildable exactly when the knight would have become available for the respective civs.

I think that (unlike the Golden Ages) the UUs are kind of cool since they add flavor to the different civilizations (like city styles, backgrounds, default city names, etc.). I'd have been happy if every civ had the same ancient units (i.e. same stats), but had different names and graphics for them. A Persian "knight" should look different from an English one.

isaac brock · September 18, 2001, 14:21

I think that the indians shouldn't have to have a resource for the elephants. Otherwise, where's the benefit? Well, actually I suppose a higher attack would be nice too, but i don't mind them not needing resources

RobC · September 18, 2001, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Edward
I agree with Trifna. All the UU animations in the Civ of the Week are the "standing around tapping your foot" stationary type animations.

Actually, if you move your cursor over the animation of the UU, it will change from the 'tapping foot' stationary animation to an attack style animation (true for all the UUs: the hoplite thrusts spear, the elephant gores, etc.)

Cyclotron · September 18, 2001, 15:24

How is it graphically possible to make a unit that takes up only one tile charge? It already gores... what the hell do ya want? Please, be reasonable with your requests the next time you post!

Provost Harrison · September 18, 2001, 15:29

Quote:

Elephant animation: elephant weren't charging...

So you didn't have to pay?

Seriously though, if you have watched some of the videos and the screensaver, you know that a battle is displayed between the two units by them having a bit of a fight, and the elephant banging his head against his enemy whilst the other unit swings his sword looks quite effective.

isaac brock · September 18, 2001, 15:29

Listen, if there was any reason in these peoples' requests, there would be no civ 3 forums. calls for reason are not appreciated

TechWins · September 18, 2001, 16:42

Quote:

See what I'm trying to say?

Yeah, I see what you are saying, but you obviously don't see what I'm saying. I'll restate my previous post here to make it more clear.

The War Elephant will become available for the Indians most likely when they discover the technology for Knights. That would mean that the War Elephant will be a unit of the Middle Ages instead of the Ancient times. Now to counteract this occurrence, a basic, Elephant unit should have been created. The technology for the basic, Elephant unit would come about in the Ancient times. The basic Elephant unit could be 4/1/2 and would requre the resource of "ivory" for creation. The stats of the basicc Elephant unit can't be too high and requiremental because it is an Ancient unit (same stats as Civ2 Elephant unit, excluding resource requirement). When the Indians gain the capabilities of building the basic, Elephant unit they will instead be receiving the War Elephant as their UU. The War Elephant would be 4/2/2 and require the resource of "ivory". This is far more realistic and in my opinion more interesting.

Now do you see what I mean?

Quote:

By this logic (and many would agree with you) all UU's work against the re-writing of history.

Yes, that is true but that is not what I was intending on my point. My point is that every Civ should have equally oppurtunity to build every unit, except a Civ's CSU (I like the UU idea and always have, actually). Plus, every Civ should have equally oppurtunity to build the basic unit of a Civ's CSU, excpet a Civ should not be able to build the basic unit of their CSU. Having the units work this way is much more fair to all Civs.

Provost Harrison · September 19, 2001, 02:35

The advantage of the War Elephant is that is does not require any resources to construct, otherwise the advantage of this special unit is lost (Knights require horses and iron to build, which have to be located or traded for which makes acquiring knights somewhat trickier). Indians can just circumvent this problem. Ivory would cause just the same problem (still have to source the ivory from somewhere) which would make it a pretty pointless special unit.

Again, this comes down to an issue of game balance, not pinpoint accuracy.

Christantine The Great · September 19, 2001, 06:39

There is a "standard" elephant. It's called a "knight". And I doubt that the elephant will be obsolete in the early Middle Ages. I also think that the Elephant was already found under its usual place under Polytheism.

Why does a UU's uniqueness have to be in a/d/m points?

Trifna · September 19, 2001, 09:14

Elephants were used by many civilisations. Carthagians, Indians... Someone said that Alexander the Great got some elephants from Indians after doing peace with them. Elephants aren't a special discovery from a civilisation. Any civ that get some elephants is able to do it. It's not like pretty special Greek strategies that formed there troops (thus pretty distinctive phalanx and others). It's not either like a technological feat as a specific tank or F16. It's simply an elephant, and wether it is used by a civilisation or annother, it's all the same. Poor me... I'd find fun to exchange for some elephants if ivory would be very rare... Rare ressources can be a very distinctive and realistic feature if combined with units.

Nevermind, I may toggle the special units off because of its "unrealisticness"

But I still say that elephants aren't a unit specific to given civ.

Stromprophet · September 19, 2001, 21:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
Elephants were used by many civilisations. Carthagians, Indians... Someone said that Alexander the Great got some elephants from Indians after doing peace with them. Elephants aren't a special discovery from a civilisation. Any civ that get some elephants is able to do it. It's not like pretty special Greek strategies that formed there troops (thus pretty distinctive phalanx and others). It's not either like a technological feat as a specific tank or F16. It's simply an elephant, and wether it is used by a civilisation or annother, it's all the same. Poor me... I'd find fun to exchange for some elephants if ivory would be very rare... Rare ressources can be a very distinctive and realistic feature if combined with units.

Nevermind, I may toggle the special units off because of its "unrealisticness"

But I still say that elephants aren't a unit specific to given civ.

It depends on which civs used them the best.

Let's be realistic. Elephants were not the main feat of Hannibals army, he used his horses far more effectively in his battles with the romans.

The Phalanx was purified by Alexander.

The Legion was purified by Ceaser.

Porus was the most effective warrior using elephants. And they used them as a standard in their army. They only consisted a small portion of the Carthrage armies. And Alexander never obtained many.

It relies on tactics and use of your weapon. Like the Egyptians had Chariots......so did everyone else. But the egyptian chariots were better.

TechWins · September 19, 2001, 21:38

Quote:

The advantage of the War Elephant is that is does not require any resources to construct, otherwise the advantage of this special unit is lost

Not if you do my way of Elephants being implemented into the game.

Quote:

There is a "standard" elephant. It's called a "knight". And I doubt that the elephant will be obsolete in the early Middle Ages. I also think that the Elephant was already found under its usual place under Polytheism.

Why does a UU's uniqueness have to be in a/d/m points?

Yes, the War Elephant comes from a Knight! Why not have it so the War Elephant comes from a standard Elephant?

PH and CTG please re-read my post again but this time a little more carefully. You must have misinterepreted what I stated. I'm sorry but I can't even reply to your posts anymore because of the lack of corralation your posts had in replying to my previous post. Please reconsider reading my post over again because you obviously had no idea what I was saying.

I'm also sorry for being rude but your posts in reply to my previous make me think that you don't have any reading comprehension skills at all.