Unit Strengths by Era

[korn469]

units that could use some more power, lower cost etc

musketeer: overpriced for what they do
rifleman: a price cut wouldn't hurt it
marine: it doesn't have the offensive power it needs
paratrooper it can only paradrop in an unoccupied city, but since air units can't kill this unit needs more offensive firepower and at least 2 movement
air units in general: should have at least 2 movement so they can rebase and attack in the same turn (give them the blitz special ability also)
fighters: needs higher bombard
jet fighters: needs higher bombard and rate of fire
radar artillary needs at least two movement!
naval units: needs higher movement for naval units especially later naval units
nukes: need to be WAY cheaper but have harsher diplomatic penalties
every unit in the game: hit points (and the corresponding rate of fire) needs to be doubled or tripled at least
explorers: explorers need to come earlier in the tech tree
also please remove onsolete units from the build queue, i beg this of you!

[Grim Legacy]

I've missed two issues in this thread so far:

1 - timepoint of golden age
2 - lack of resources

1 - The French musketeer might be less than impressive, it *does* come at a schweeeet point in time. Just at the time that your cities and infrastructure are getting off... just at the time that a small war to enter a GA would be welcome.

All the benefits of a GA couldn't fall into more fertile soil: early in the game a GA is potentially great acting as a kick-start, but much of it will be wasted on small cities and useless buildings (walls, barracks) and spilled under inefficient goverments. In the late game, a GA is just that: too late.

2 - The legionary *does* require Iron... the MW *does* require Horses... or does everybody else restart the game when they can't build their UU?

[Matthevv]

Something that must be fixed is the coastal defence improvement. These (post patch) in practice do nothing. I've just had mine blown up by a mob of ironclads. I've got battleships and artillery, so my coastal defences ought to be able to deal with any number of ironclads (by blowing them out of the water before they get close enough to even fire). The reason why they do nothing is because they only fire if a ship moves from one adjacent square to another, which they never do, so the coastal defences never fire.

On the subject of unit balance, the battleships now seem underpowered, considering their cost and need for resources and technology, relative to ironclads. Their defence needs to be increased and they should have multiple attacks, so that they can take on a fleet of ironclads. Currently it is probably better to keep pumping out mobs of ironclads even when you have the technology for battleships or destroyers, as the battleship can only kill one in a turn, and the ironclads have a fair chance of sinking it. Battleships also ought to have some better protection against bombers. I see that these can often knock as many spots off a battleship as they can an ironclad. Battleships were packed with AA guns, were much bigger and had much thicker armour, so they ought to be much more difficult to bomb successfully.

An alternative to increasing the strength of battleships would be to increase the build cost of ironclads, or preferably their maintenance cost, and to reduce the speed of ironclads to 3. The management of the huge fleet needed to compete against the AI Civs huge numbers of vessels currently detracts from the enjoyment of the game. Also the game would run a lot quicker if there were fewer ships for the AI to move pointlessly around in circles every turn.

The chance of destroying improvements from off-shore bombardment ought to be much smaller. The ships would have no way of targetting effectively, as the land is higher than the sea, they wouldn't know where their shells are landing. Also, in earlier times, the cannons on the ships wouldn't get much past the beach. Anything less than a destroyer ought to have very limited results. This is currently one of the most irritating parts of the game - having the AI with its monstrous fleet of ancient vessels completely wiping out all the improvements along my shoreline before my battleships can get round to killing them (at only one per turn). And it certainly isn't a fun strategy game building my own huge fleet and moving each one individually to bombard the other Civs improvements. Perhaps there could be some kind of coastal fortification I could build with workers? Bombers could actually sink ships? Ships bombardment power could be reduced according to the number of spots they have left? Possibly a coastal defence improvement that *works* and protects the *whole* of the coastline in a city's cultural radius?

[player1]

Originally posted by Matthevv
On the subject of unit balance, the battleships now seem underpowered, considering their cost and need for resources and technology, relative to ironclads. Their defence needs to be increased and they should have multiple attacks, so that they can take on a fleet of ironclads. Currently it is probably better to keep pumping out mobs of ironclads even when you have the technology for battleships or destroyers, as the battleship can only kill one in a turn, and the ironclads have a fair chance of sinking it. Battleships also ought to have some better protection against bombers. I see that these can often knock as many spots off a battleship as they can an ironclad. Battleships were packed with AA guns, were much bigger and had much thicker armour, so they ought to be much more difficult to bomb successfully.

An alternative to increasing the strength of battleships would be to increase the build cost of ironclads, or preferably their maintenance cost, and to reduce the speed of ironclads to 3. The management of the huge fleet needed to compete against the AI Civs huge numbers of vessels currently detracts from the enjoyment of the game. Also the game would run a lot quicker if there were fewer ships for the AI to move pointlessly around in circles every turn.

The chance of destroying improvements from off-shore bombardment ought to be much smaller. The ships would have no way of targetting effectively, as the land is higher than the sea, they wouldn't know where their shells are landing. Also, in earlier times, the cannons on the ships wouldn't get much past the beach. Anything less than a destroyer ought to have very limited results. This is currently one of the most irritating parts of the game - having the AI with its monstrous fleet of ancient vessels completely wiping out all the improvements along my shoreline before my battleships can get round to killing them (at only one per turn). And it certainly isn't a fun strategy game building my own huge fleet and moving each one individually to bombard the other Civs fortifications. Perhaps there could be some kind of coastal fortification I could build with workers? Bombers could actually sink ships? Ships bombardment power could be reduced according to the number of spots they have left? Possibly a coastal defence improvement that *works* and protects the *whole* of the coastline in a city's cultural radius?

Has anybody noticed that with patch is lot harder to destoy improvments & kill pop.

Why?

Because pop & building defense in editor are raised to 8 (from 4)
Good job Firaxis.
But, why is that undocumented?

Destoyers are MUCH better unit againt Ironclads (because of lower cost), not Battleships.

The WAY game IS DESIGNED Battleship main role is to BOMBARD cities, not to kill pesky Ironclads (bercause thery are just to much costly to lose).

At lest IMO.

[Jaffa Tamarin]

Originally posted by DaBear
With outposts being swallowed by the boarders of culture there dosn't seam to be a big requirment to use them over a settler. Never seen an AI build one.

I assume by outposts you mean colonies?

The AI does use colonies. Not very often, but I have seen it. And there is one case where a colony can be the only way to gain access to a resource -- for a resource that appears in the middle of an extensive mountain range, where settling is either impossible, or completely not worthwhile.

--
Jaffa

[Matthevv]

I hope that isn't really a "design" decision. Battleships were for fighting other ships, they were rarely used to attack land. I built them because I like to have as few units as possible (low boredom threshold). I've been building some subs recently to try and clear out the ironclad infestation. I'm not sure how effective this will be, but I thought they would also be useful against the enemy battleships (which have currently gone out to sea to hide where my bombers can't see them - leaving the ironclads to do the bombardment of improvements!) If the game were properly balanced, the battleship ought to be more effective than other ships relative to its build cost, as it requires additional technology and resources. There is otherwise no benefit from developing technology or obtaining scarce resources at all.

I've got a plan - my battleship will be in the port, then it will steam out, have its one attack at one of the ironclads, hopefully killing it, and steam back in, so they can't mob it.

[player1]

As for now.
Destoyers are MOST effective naval unit.
With cost of 120, and 12/8/5 rating, plus decent (but low range) bombard

Still, after them, most effective is Ironclad.

Then goes Battleship, and at the end AEGSIS Cr. (their only good use is LONG VISION & Submarine hunting, but NOT naval combat)

So main force should be Destoyers, and other units like AEGSIS Cr., Battleship & Subms are support units.

At least until Firaxis cheanges the rules (maybe?).

[sophist]

Originally posted by halley
What about:

City walls give +50% to def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

Cities with 7+ pop give +50% to def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

Cities with 12+ pop give +100% def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

I'm not a history expert, but I don't think Cavalry were used to assault cities. Their speed and maneuvrability would be severely limited if they had to fight in narrow city streets. Cavalry should be used for attacking units in the open, where their mobility gives them the advantage.

Also, artillery units need a boost. Right now, they are too weak.

I liked the way SMAC did it, with infantry having an advantage against cities and fast units having an advantage in open ground. That is both 1) realistic and 2) balanced re: gameplay. The problem with implementing that sort of approach is that there is no such balance in civ3 games because there are no good infantry attack units after swordsmen/immortals. After that, every infantry unit has higher defense than attack, so it's clear that Firaxis wants everyone to be attacking with mobile units once knights come around. I think that on large maps, that's just fine. You may have 3-move cavalry and tanks, but when they cannot use the enemy roads/rail system, the rate of expansion can be slowed because there are many cities not within reach of your borders. With smaller maps and the resulting smaller empires, the expansion is not slowed down as much, thereby making it easy to waste the AI.

The true measure of whether mobile units are unbalancing is to see how games between two good human players pan out, or to see how games work with an AI that knows how to use them. Right now it's hard to tell if they're truly unbalanced because none of us has played an opponent who knows how to use them.

Adding to the list of suggestions for quick fixes... mod the game so that mobile units have an n% disadvantage when attacking cities (say 25%) with infantry units having a corresponding advantage in attacking cities. Then for every advance that creates a new mobile unit (horseback riding, chivalry, military tradition, etc), add a new unit with similar stats, but only one move. Actually, scratch that. With ancient era attacks, you should be using swordsmen in conjunction. With medieval era attacks, you should be using longbowmen (which seem to be nearly useless at this point). But once the cavalry come around, there's nothing that corresponds. Perhaps with Metallurgy, there should be some 5/3/1 ADM unit that would fit this. Then a corresponding unit for Tanks as well. Not sure whether Modern Armor would have this requirement, but maybe one for them too. Names for these units don't really come to mind, though. The way I envision it, the standard battlegroup, when playing the "right" way, would have three sets of units: artillery (ancient artillery needs to be beefed up just a tad, btw), attack infantry, and mobile units. Quite possibly there would also be a fourth group of defense units. The artillery would soften the enemy city, the attack infantry would, well, attack it, and the mobile units would protect the flanks, as those units would be vulnerable in the open to enemy mobile units. Clearly there's a lot of tweaking necessary, but I think the basic idea is sound. It worked pretty well in SMAC.

[vmxa1]

Tanks can be airlifted, I have used that feature. Why should they not be? C137 carry many tanks.

[pcasey]

The VC-137 is the military version of the Boeing 707, its not a heavy cargo aircraft. It doesn't carry tanks, but it did carry the President (old versions if Air Force 1 were based on the VC-137). It has entirely been phased out of active service.

The military's current heavy lift aircraft are:

C 130 Hercules Payload 42,000 pounds
C 141 Starlifter Payload 68,725 pounds
C 5 Galaxy Payload 270,000 pounds
C 17 Globemaster Payload 170,900

Weight of an M1A1 Tank : 69.5 Tons or 139,000 pounds.

Its technically airmobile on the C5 of C 17, but it might introduce problems with weight distribution e.g. a tank is a smaller, denser load than either was designed to carry and might buckle the flooring and/or make the plane awkward in flight.

[dconner]

First of all, this is a great thread - quite a relief from the usual "I hate Firaxis" posts in most other threads. I've already gotten several new ideas for future games - particularly the formation of a "Marine Expeditionary Force" to add to my current naval task forces.

This is one of the most fun aspects of CivIII for me - the AI is actually pretty competent at handling naval and air combat now, so you actually do have to use some intelligence in deploying your own naval assets. (My jaw literally dropped the first time I saw the AI launching an honest-to-god well-supported amphibious invasion!) In my last game, I wound up with coastal defense forces and two offensive fleets equivalent to the "Atlantic Fleet" and "Pacific Fleet" with 3 aircraft carriers each and several battleships.

Good stuff - carriers seem far more useful than they've ever been in previous Civ games. And the relatively low carrying capacity makes it worth building them in quantity (aesthetically satisfying.)

Bad stuff - the naval units aren't sufficiently differentiated. There's little to none of the welcome "combined arms" aspect that now is so important to Civ3 land warfare. Basically, aside from cost (which is important, of course), unless I'm missing some nuance, there's never any reason to prefer anything over a Battleship. Certainly true of the Destroyer and previous units, and apparently true of the AEGIS Cruiser too, though I've never had a game last long enough that I could build one before my spaceship was completed (this is in itself a problem.)

In particular, I think smaller ships should be able to do something that Battleships can't - faster movement, the traditional anti-submarine role, or something. Some sort of anti-aircraft specialized sea unit would be nice, too (this might be an AEGIS cruiser, available with an earlier tech.)


Though the increased move would make another change even more welcome - the much-requested "group units" command. The lack is especially annoying with naval units. I'm trying to keep my Battleships and Destroyers stacked with the slower Carriers, and it's more a pain in the ass than it should be. I absentmindedly move the escort ships one space too far, leaving the carriers more vulnerable than I'd like.

[SofaKing]

On Retreat:
It is powerful. However, rather than changing the rules for retreat, why not make changes to the strategice resource of horses. Either make fewer of them, or make them much more volatile in terms or appearance/exhaustion. Aside from making them more dificult to come by, it would also make unit requiring no resources (long bowman) a valid alternative. As for the Aztec Jaguar, it should be as expensive as a chariot, but without requiring the horse. That would parralel it with the knight/India's Elephant.

Units needing a change:
Musketeer - While the extra attack is worthless, it does make sense. I think an easy fix would be to make it cheaper than regular musketeer, perhaps 50 shields.
Explorer - I can't even imagin why someone would use one.
Paratrooper - too expensive for a niche unit. It has the same requirements and cost as a tank. The ability to paradrop is not commensurate. I think this unit should cost 80 shields.
Helicopters - How things have changed from SMAC. This needs to have a much greater range to make it useful.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by korn469
units that could use some more power, lower cost etc

musketeer: overpriced for what they do
rifleman: a price cut wouldn't hurt it
marine: it doesn't have the offensive power it needs
paratrooper it can only paradrop in an unoccupied city, but since air units can't kill this unit needs more offensive firepower and at least 2 movement
air units in general: should have at least 2 movement so they can rebase and attack in the same turn (give them the blitz special ability also)
fighters: needs higher bombard
jet fighters: needs higher bombard and rate of fire
radar artillary needs at least two movement!
naval units: needs higher movement for naval units especially later naval units
nukes: need to be WAY cheaper but have harsher diplomatic penalties
every unit in the game: hit points (and the corresponding rate of fire) needs to be doubled or tripled at least
explorers: explorers need to come earlier in the tech tree
also please remove onsolete units from the build queue, i beg this of you!

The marine is fine, used for insertions by sea or helicopter(in which case you should have air power support so the attack doesn't need to be that high. Paratrooper is a defensive(disruptive) unit, needs no change. Air needs little change if air superiority is now working. Radar artillery needs no change(rails and concept). Naval movement is fine, given ranges of everything else, particularly bombers(from a balance standpoint, not realism).

HP can easily be increased with a mod, but unless you change the animations for battle they will take a long time. Also obsolete units and explorers could be affected in the editor. Although the obsolete units thing definitely should be fixed in the normal game, its aggravating.

[player1]

Originally posted by barefootbadass

HP can easily be increased with a mod, but unless you change the animations for battle they will take a long time. Also obsolete units and explorers could be affected in the editor. Although the obsolete units thing definitely should be fixed in the normal game, its aggravating.

The main problem with obsolete units is that only UPGRADEABLE units become OBSOLETE.
That way, Swordsmen never become obsolete, because it is not upgradeable. Same for Frigates & Ironclads.
Also because units can't be UPGRADED TO Un. Units, there are additional holes. Like Persians can build Warriors forever, American can build Fighters forever. French can build Pikemen after getting Musketeers, etc.

So quick solution (for MOD-makers):
Make all units upgadeable to UU. Make Swordsmen obsolete with Riflemen,
and Frigates & Ironclads with Destoryers.



But REAL SOLUTION would be:

Units UPGRADEBILITY should depend from units the civ is CAPABLE TO BUILD.
Like:
-I can build Destoyers, so Frigates & Ironclads are obsolete
-I can build F-15, so Fighters are obsolete, etc.

Anyway every unit should have obsolence flags:
Like:
-Warrior will have Swordsmen flag
-Knight will gave Cavalry flag
-Ironclad will have Destoyer flag
-Tank will Modern Tank flag
-Cavalry will have Modern Tank flag (not ordinary Tank, since Cavalry is FASTER)

They could also have several such flags per unit, just in case.

This system would be interesting since you could for examle have
non-upgadeable unit, wich would still become obsolete after some time.

Excellent for Firgates & Ironclads, since it is unrealistic to be able to upgade those.
Similar for Cavlary (non-upgadeable but obsolete with Modern Tank)

It will also solve UU holes. You still won't be able to upgade to UU, but after getting UU, old units will become obsolete.



P.S.

Something off this topic, regarding my retreat idea (no retreat on City Walls and big cities).

If Firaxis indends to use it, it should be aware of several things.
They need to make AI build City Walls more often, since they'll be stonger against 2 mov units. And also, they need to force AI to use Artillery offensively, since Cavalry rush won't be so good option anymore.

[Nic]

Originally posted by korn469

musketeer: overpriced for what they do
[

I couldn't agree more. Overpriced for their historical role and overpriced for game balance.

I would go for a cost of 40 for musket troops, although I might be persuaded that 50 is reasonable. Having musketeers cost the same as cavalry seems almost perverse.

--
Nic

[Be Quicker]

I am sorry if somebody already posted this, but would the Impi's not make the ultimate defense in MP games? i.e. preventing everybody from retreating?

[quiller]

Thinking about the supposed domination of horse units, I was thinking about what the historical counter was to them. And basically it was pikes and then massed fire. So my thought is that you go back to wargaming routes and you give spears and pikes a chance to do double damage against horse units. Meaning when the spear/pike defender would normally take a point off of a cavalry unit (meaning any horse unit) a certain percent of times they will take two off. This makes it hard for cavalry to harrass pikes (historically true). Thjs by itself will also make it hard to attack cities, since spearman/pikes are the normal defenders in them anyways, but you might want to increase city wall bonuses and such as well.

The other thing I would do is give this same possibility to gunpowder units, for either attack or defense. This would make the musketeer less lame, and reflect the ease with which decent gunpowder units can take out old units and still make the retreat ability less powerful against properly protected units.

End result: there is an effective counter to cavalry type units by a traditional cavalry breaker, and the transition to gunpowder becomes more drastic without necessarily being overwhelming.

What do you guys think? Obviously a lot depends on what percentage you make the double hits happen, but this leaves room for balancing.

[pcasey]

Civ II had defensive units with a double strength vs fast units flag like pikemen. In practise it didn't end up amounting to much because by the time they hit the game they were sort of obsolete with or without the double defense bonus. It was a good idea though.

Civ II also had a component called firepower that basically allowed gunpowerder units to always do twice as much damage and have twice the hp of non gunpowerder units. It tended to reduce the frequency of, for example, knights overrunning your musketeers. Firepower tended to do exactly what it was supposed to do, and make obsolete units, well, obsolete.

So neither of those ideas is entirely new to the Civ genre. They were specifically removed from Civ III though which means that somebody at Frixaris doesn't like them. I suppose its possible that somebody at Frixaris couldn't get them done in time for release, but neither of these are likely to be big coding efforts which tells me their absence is a delibrate design decision.

[korn469]

barefootbadass

The marine is fine, used for insertions by sea or helicopter(in which case you should have air power support so the attack doesn't need to be that high.

marine 8/6/1 100 rubber
infantry 6/10/1 90 rubber

if you use the Civilization III Combat Calculator you'll find that the best odds you can get when attacking fortified infantry in a city is 83.5 to 16.6 (or one out of 6 times the infantry will win) and that is assuming an elite marine attacking a one hp infantry unit, in a most cases even with heavy naval and air bombardment it would probably be vet marines facing either 1hp infantry (76.3-23.8) or 2hp infantry (47.5-52.5)...so marines are only mildly effective in their main role, of directly attacking cities from ships, and they don't excel in any other role, marines attacking cities amphibiously with even close odds will get slaughtered (vet marine vs. reg fortified infantry 26-74)

plus i don't see what the big advantage of marines and helicopters is...helicopters with marines have to be in city and only have an airdrop range of 6, i would rather have two cavalry units (cost 160) on my border than one marine and a helicopter (cost 200), because an invasion a close by landmass would be prohibitive since you would need a helicopter to airdrop each marine, whereas a single transport could carry an invasion force

Paratrooper is a defensive(disruptive) unit, needs no change.

paratrooper 6/8/1 100 oil, rubber
infantry 6/10/1 90 rubber (defense)
tank 16/8/2 100 oil, rubber (offense/defense)
cavalry 6/3/3 80 horses, saltpeter (offense)

needs no change? well paratroopers aren't very useful on attack, they aren't very useful on defense, and their big advantage is they can paradrop out to 6 space but that uses 1 movement point, so after they paradrop they are setting ducks...i don't see how they are very disruptive at all, on offense if they paradrop then they are immobile, and don't provide a player with the defense that they need to fight off an attack, i'd rather invest in another tank instead of a paratrooper
on defense, infantry, cavalry, and tanks moving along railroads are much more disruptive than paratroopers doing paradrops, and by the time that paratroopers are available railroads should cover all if not most of your territory

if airdrops didn't use all of their movement they would be much more efficient, but as it is now i think other units are more effective in any role a paratrooper hopes to fill

Air needs little change if air superiority is now working.

fighters and jet fighters are completely useless for bombarding, you would need an entire airforce of fighters just to damage a single rifleman

so bombers, stealth fighters, and stealth bombers are the only way you can project airpower...bombers, which are only midly effective anyways, have a fairly high chance of losing to any defending fighters, stealth fighters are expensive and not very effective anyway, and stealth bombers are very expensive and only mildly effective

airpower in civ3 cannot cripple an even halfway intelligent player

Radar artillery needs no change(rails and concept)

radar artillary which comes late in the tech tree (robtoics) and is fairly expensive (120) only has a movement of 1! so it has zero usefulness in any type of offense, the modern armor will leave it far behind, and unless it has an escort the enemy can capture it and use it against you, so this is another reason not to use radar artillary, so i certainly think it needs a change...saying that artillary should only be defensive defeats the whole purpose for having artillary in the first place, ie to break a seige

Naval movement is fine, given ranges of everything else, particularly bombers(from a balance standpoint, not realism).

well to me it the slow speed of naval operations makes waging war on a bigger mostly ocean maps, a slow process for no good reason

HP can easily be increased with a mod, but unless you change the animations for battle they will take a long time

firaxis could speed up the animations so that it would take the same amount of time to fight it out, plus there is already an option to completely cut off animations anyway, increasing hitpoints also gives much better combat results and virtually eliminates the problem of a tank losing to a hoplite

Also obsolete units and explorers could be affected in the editor. Although the obsolete units thing definitely should be fixed in the normal game, its aggravating.

all of these things can be fixed in the editor but that is not the point, Jeff asked for unit feedback to help make civ3 better, and i gave him my opinion on it

but when cities with over 100 production default to producing warriors in the very late stages of the game something is wrong, especially when this is easy to fix

player1

So quick solution (for MOD-makers):
Make all units upgadeable to UU. Make Swordsmen obsolete with Riflemen,
and Frigates & Ironclads with Destoryers.



But REAL SOLUTION would be:

Units UPGRADEBILITY should depend from units the civ is CAPABLE TO BUILD.
Like:
-I can build Destoyers, so Frigates & Ironclads are obsolete
-I can build F-15, so Fighters are obsolete, etc.

Anyway every unit should have obsolence flags:
Like:
-Warrior will have Swordsmen flag
-Knight will gave Cavalry flag
-Ironclad will have Destoyer flag
-Tank will Modern Tank flag
-Cavalry will have Modern Tank flag (not ordinary Tank, since Cavalry is FASTER)

They could also have several such flags per unit, just in case.

This system would be interesting since you could for examle have
non-upgadeable unit, wich would still become obsolete after some time.

Excellent for Firgates & Ironclads, since it is unrealistic to be able to upgade those.
Similar for Cavlary (non-upgadeable but obsolete with Modern Tank)

It will also solve UU holes. You still won't be able to upgade to UU, but after getting UU, old units will become obsolete.

by simply using the upgrade flags without the upgrade check box and a system of upgrades devised by E_T you can totally purge obsolete units from the build queue

One of the thing s that several people have had a problem with is the fact that you can not upgrade to a Civ Specific Unit. I have figured out a way and have play tested it with the Roman/Legionary; Persian/Immortal and with a non-Spec Civ for Swordsman. This method will also work for the other Specific Units.

1) Backup the Civ3mod.Bic File. You can rename it or whatever. This file is the Rules file the the Game uses during regular gameplay.

2) Start the Civ Editor Program and open the Civ3mod.bic file.

3) Under the tools tab, uncheck 'Use Default Rules' option. You also want to check the 'No Map' option under the same tab. This will allow you to edit the rules and you will be saving a Rules Only File when finished.

4) Under the Rules Tab, click 'Edit Rules'. This will open the Main Rules Screen. Click on the Units Tab.

5) These are what you will be changing:
Unit=========Upgrade to======Special Actions;Upgrade Unit
Warrior-------------Legionary-----------------------Checked
Legionary-----------Immortal------------------------Checked
Immortal------------Swordsman---------------------Checked

Horseman---------War Elephant-------------------Checked
War Elephant------Samurai-------------------------Checked
Samurai------------Rider-----------------------------Checked
Rider---------------Knight---------------------------Checked

Knight--------------Cossack-------------------------Checked
Cossack------------Cavalry--------------------------Checked

Pikeman------------Musketeer-----------------------Checked
Musketeer---------Musketman----------------------Checked

Save the Mods and your good to go.

What this does is:
Persian example: If your able to upgrade (i.e. have Iron Working & Iron) then the game goes to the first item after Warrior (which
would be Legionary) and checks to see if you, the Persian can use this. Because you aren't Roman, it say no, but you can upgrade to Immortal, so it next goes to Immortal and checks to see if you can use this. Yes, you are Persian and you can upgrade your Warrior to this! If there where other options available (before this) then It would go though them first.

Also, if you wish to make a Unit Obsolete, you would Have it upgrade to whatever and Uncheck the Upgrade to Box. I personally like to have the following Obsolete at:
Unit========================When to Obsolete=====Special Actions;Upgrade Unit
Swordsman (and other like units)---------Rifleman------------------Unchecked
Cavalry/Cossack-------------------------Modern Armor------------Unchecked
Frigate/Man-O-War/Ironclad--------------Destroyer----------------Unchecked

Privateer (this one might be useful in the later game, when you still want to be anonymous) keep the same if you want to keep it, or do the same as Frigate/etc.

i had already purged all of the obsolete units from the build queue in my mod but the system that i used to incorporate civ specific units with upgrades was clunkier, it required giving all civs the base unit

[pcasey]

Lets face it, the core problem is you can do fine in the game building a very limited subset of the available units. Many of them have no functional role or purpose.

Examples of useless units:

Archers ... if you want to rush, use horsesmen. Too slow and too vulnerable.
Chariots ... why not wait a few turns and get horsemen if you have horses?
Longbowmen ... I have to escort them with a pikemen anyway, so why not just make a knight that'll move twice as fast, cost the same as the two unit stack and have retreat options?


Musketmen ... 2 pikemen are better than one musketman and costs the same

Destroyer ... why not wait a few turns and build battleships?
Aegis Cruiser ... why not just build a battleship?
Submarine ... why not just build a battlehip?
Nuclear Sub ... why not just build a battleship?

Cannon ... Give me a cavalry over a cannon any day.
Artillary ... Give me a tank or a modern armor over an artillary any day.

Cruise missile ... exactly what role is a range one disposable bombard unit that can't destroy anything supposed to play?

Mech Infantry ... why not just build modern armor? Almost the same cost, moves faster, defends 16/18s as well and can attack with twice the power and 2x on any given turn.

An Air Force ... I'm a heretic on this one, but I think the air units are useless in Civ III. For the cost of building up the 10 bombers I'd need to soften up an enemy city, I can build 10 modern armor. With 10 modern armor attacking, I won't *need* to soften it up. Plus I'll have units to garrison it with after I'm done.

[gus_smedstad]

Originally posted by pcasey
Archers ... if you want to rush, use horsesmen. Too slow and too vulnerable.

You may not have horses. I'm in that situation in the 3rd Tournament here. Of course, you'll only build archers if you're forced to - no horses and no iron (for swordsmen).

Chariots ... why not wait a few turns and get horsemen if you have horses?

Very, very true. Only the Egyptian War Chariot is worth building, and then only if you're being a good boy and not pop-rushing units, so the low cost of the War Chariots makes them attractive.

Longbowmen ... I have to escort them with a pikemen anyway, so why not just make a knight that'll move twice as fast, cost the same as the two unit stack and have retreat options?

Again, if you don't have horses and iron, you'll be forced to build these. I've yet to see any iron the aforementioned 3rd tournament, and I'm seriously considering a longbow / hoplite force if I'm forced to fight knights. If I don't fight knights, Horsemen are a better choice.

Cannon ... Give me a cavalry over a cannon any day.

Very true. Cannon don't require horses, but they're still fairly awful.

Artillery ... Give me a tank or a modern armor over an artillery any day.

Actually, that's often not the choice. I recently finished a Deity game where there was a long delay after getting Artillery before I had tanks. I think it's the only decent bombard unit in the game. Until Tanks show up, (12) bombard is very attractive compared to 6 attack for Cavalry, particularly if you enemy has Infantry. Cavarly die quite a lot when attacking infantry, even with the "fast retreat" bonus.

Once Tanks show up, artillery loses most of its value. Unfortunately Radar Artillery isn't much better, and shows up well after Modern Armor.

Artillery is also a great cure for Ironclad bombardments, since the Ironclads frequently stay close enough to shore to get pounded. Won't kill them unless you've got a ship of your own handy, but they'll stay away for several turns while they get repaired.

Cruise missile ... exactly what role is a range one disposable bombard unit that can't destroy anything supposed to play?

Cruise missiles were kind of marginal even in Civ 2, when they could destroy things. Now they're just a bad joke.

Mech Infantry ... why not just build modern armor? Almost the same cost, moves faster, defends 16/18s as well and can attack with twice the power and 2x on any given turn.

Mech Infantry is a little cheaper. Not enough cheaper to justify building any for anything other than garrison units.

An Air Force ... I'm a heretic on this one, but I think the air units are useless in Civ III. For the cost of building up the 10 bombers I'd need to soften up an enemy city, I can build 10 modern armor. With 10 modern armor attacking, I won't *need* to soften it up. Plus I'll have units to garrison it with after I'm done.

I've had the AI make good use of bombers in destroying my access to luxuries and strategic resources. They're very questionable for much else, though, even when you're comparing them to Tanks, not Modern Armor - and they come after Tanks.

- Gus

[vmxa1]

I agree with you pcasey down till cannon and art. I would not build cannon, art is useful once you have RR on your empire. They can move to where you need them and fire with no retailiation, same with bombers. I like to keep a few of each to augment defenses. Tanks will take damage in most fights and that can be a problem in some cases. Mech Inf I would not build from scratch and would wait for modern armour or make tanks to upgrade. I have them in most cities as that is the ultimate upgrade for pike/musket/rifle/infantry. Once I get tanks, that is all I would make and upgrade when I can. Tanks (old or modern) are the main vehicle to press attacks, once they are available. I do not use much combined arms then as it will slow down the armour. There are times when I must take artillary to use for the first few towns and then leave the art as defender aids. Never saw any value in cruise missle in civ2 or civ3, never made any in civ3. Never make marines or paratroop or helos in civ3 (helos in civ2 were useful as they could take a town).

[Badtz Maru]

I changed a number of units in my mod to address some of the issues above. I made archers 3.1.1. This is one of my more drastic changes, but it's worked out OK so far. Unless you defend them they are really vulnerable on the way to the siege (and the AI WILL send fast units behind your lines to take them out) and they can be expensive for attack as they don't have the survivability of the horsemen.

I saw no reason for the horsemen to be slower than Mounted Warriors, as they are basically a light attack force without iron armor, and this makes them more worthwhile in relation to the archers. I did increase their cost by 33% to compensate for the fact that you can reuse them, unlike most useful ancient units.

I think Pikemen are too important in the early game to have a resource requirement, and it doens't really make sense to me as the pike and it's use in highly disciplined blocks of infantry was not a technological advance so much as an innovation in strategy. I've also increased the attack of some later units and I didn't want somebody to be stuck with 2-defense units, so I removed the Iron requirement.

I made the Longbowman 5.2.1 and a UU for England - I felt they were gypped by a potentially useless UU and it's history makes it a fitting English UU.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Swordsman- Very powerful, but requires iron. Iron is somewhat rare on a small map. Resources should be concentrated on a smaller map so you don't have to wait for Longbowmen for a real offence

Maybe that's why on a small map you get a Civ with an early age UU that either doesn't need iron or doesn't need resources??

ALL defencive units- useless. The computer will simply pillage you instead! Putting a musketman in your base encourages the comp to wreck your land. You would have to make 3 dozen of them to cover your border! The horse units are WAY too powerful

Gee, making 5-10 horse units just to kill the people pillaging your lands would seem to be an EASY solution to this. Of course, if you sit back in your cities with muskets expecting the enemy to hopelessly attack you there (ala PAST Civ games) then you deserve to have your improvements pillaged.

As the military advisor in the game says : The best defense is a good offense!

Take that lesson to heart!

Retreating from combat should be 50/50 since they have decent armor anyway. If they keep their high armor (knight and cavalry have 3) they shouldn't need to retreat like that. Its really an abuse of power to be able to retreat AND have tough armor as combined arms becomes pointless

I agree they should have a better chance but not be able to run from every battle.

The comp shouldn't be so crazy about pillaging if you make so many musketmen just not to be attacked. Horse units are too powerful for too long.

Well that's why you don't just turtle and sit around on your butt while the AI pillages your stuff. You CAN make limited offensive units just for "national defense" even if you ARE playing a peaceful game you know. I don't know of one country in the world that doesn't have some sort of army just for defense if nothing else, and I don't mean to sit in a city and defend, I mean troops to take the fight to the enemy when they invade. This is NO different.

*snip out game suggestions*

But these are some things i find too easy/hard in combat.

Most of the things you complain about are easily rectified if you change your strategy a little. For example, if you have a good navy then transport carrying capacity will be a moot issue if they never make it to unload on you. Already discussed how to keep people off your land pillaging, everything else would simply unbalance the game towards the HUMAN player.

[Ozymandous]

Hi Sirian, glad to see you made it over from the Lurker Lounge.

Originally posted by Sirian
The Wheel flag prevents units from traversing mountain/jungle without a road. Don't tell me tanks need roads.

Actually, IMHO, there should be two flags, one fo jungle and one for mountians, just so more units could have specific flags set.

For what it's worth, I think tanks SHOULD need roads to pass over mountains, indeed any non infantry units should have to use a road to go over mountains just because they are not molehills.

By the way, tanks don't fare to well in jungles due to mud, dense vegetation and other factors (spent time in the jungles of Panama, all granite and vegetation, you could barely *walk* through it, so it wouldn't bother me if tanks needed to use roads to go over jungle as well.

If tanks can be airlifted, that's a serious bug. I never even tried it, because both logic and the game docs say it won't happen. Heh.

Sorry, but this can and does happen. How do you think the first few tanks were delivered to the Persian Gulf back in 1991? Of course tanks shouldn't be able to be airlifted and then attack on the same turn (which they can't) but there *are* air cargo planes that can and do move pretty much everything around you can think of up to a limit, and we're talking things much, much larger than a tank, like parts for the space shuttle (I believe anyway, been awhile since I checked).

Oh yeah, and allow armies to unload or AT LEAST to upgrade units. That is just not realistic, nor does it make sense to me in the game balance. No nation would purposely prevent its best armed forces with the richest traditions from access to the best available tech, training, and equipment. Quite the opposite! This could help the AI's, too. They get lots of armies. Oh wait, they never upgrade anything anyway, so what use?

Completely agree, if real life were like the game then the 82nd airborne would still be using M-1 rifles and other assorted equipment from WW2 at the best.

Armies should be able to be upgraded, maybe for an additional cost, but still possible.

[MisterMuppet]

Originally posted by pcasey
Cruise missile ... exactly what role is a range one disposable bombard unit that can't destroy anything supposed to play?

I couldn't agree more. They should just be removed from the game.

[Arrian]

I'm with pcasey on nearly all of the units mentioned. I say nearly all, because I have found artillery useful, I do use musketmen instead of pikemen (just preparing to make them riflemen), and I do see value in having an airforce. I couldn't agree more about the mech inf v. modern armor question (it's not even a question, build the MA) and the naval vessels. I have built exactly 1 cruise missle. I killed a warrior with it, I think. It's largely useless, but just as in Civ II, the AI seems to like it.

I have never built a longbowman, although I've upgraded some bowmen to longbowmen before. I suppose they could have some use if you are without horses. The same can be said for the archer. The archer's other value is that some civs can make them from the start, and they will be hitting warriors. But it's lifespan is pretty short.

Chariots suck. End of story.

I have never built a helicopter or paratrooper. I would rather build a modern armor. The one submarine I built was sunk by a frigate. That put an end to the silent service.

The end game, for me, tends to involve building LARGE numbers of modern armor, battleships and bombers (and with the patch, I will include jet fighters). Destroyers do have some use, as they attack as well as a battleship defends, but I mainly use them just to "see" more of the ocean... as sentry units, basically.

-Arrian

[player1]

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the cruisse missle ONLY BOMBARD unit wich can kill wonded unit?

Possibile tactic: Bombard to 1hp & then send one Cr. Missile

Nuc. Subs should be able to carry them.


Mod. Tanks should have defense of 14, to force players using Mech. Inf. more.

Radar Artillery needs movment of 2.

I actully use all sort of naval units.
Subs are very cost-effective agains battleships (8 vs 12, cost 100 vs 200)

AEGSIS sees & destoys subs. Also higher vision, naval battle use is nonexistant (destoyer are better for that). Good support unit.

Cheap destoyer is sometimes better option then battleship.
If dest. needs 3 turns & Batt. 5, then dest. is better option.

Carriers are usefull.

Subs are invisibe. You'll need them at lest to detect enemy subs.
Their attack of 8 is enough for taking out every unit (cost effectivily, they still lose often)

Still, attack of 10 would be a better option.
Also Subs should be upgradeable to Nuc. Subs.

Carriers should have same movement as battleships (both 4 or 5).

Privateers should be obsolete wich destroyers.
State sponsored piracy is no more today, anyway.

Also that privateer bug needs to be fixed (privateer guarded by battleship).

[sophist]

Originally posted by pcasey

Examples of useless units:

Archers ... if you want to rush, use horsesmen. Too slow and too vulnerable.

They're cheaper and available earlier for some civs. If you start with warrior code, use these as your explorers. Plus, if you're using a combined arms strategy, you're going to have catapults (yes, I use them) moving at 1/turn anyway.

Originally posted by pcasey

Chariots ... why not wait a few turns and get horsemen if you have horses?

Agreed. I've never used them. On the other hand, I could see where in certain circumstances you'd want them as explorers because they're cheaper and available sooner. Not going to need many, though.

Originally posted by pcasey
Longbowmen ... I have to escort them with a pikemen anyway, so why not just make a knight that'll move twice as fast, cost the same as the two unit stack and have retreat options?

Why are you sending just one longbowman out? Send out 10 guarded by 3 pikemen. That should be plenty, and it's way cheaper than 10 knights. Sure, it's slower, but one turn won't make that much of a difference against the AI. Plus it makes a decent, cheap, counter-offensive unit when the AI tries to attack you. Then you don't have to worry about protecting it.

Originally posted by pcasey
Cannon ... Give me a cavalry over a cannon any day.
Artillary ... Give me a tank or a modern armor over an artillary any day.

I want to keep the attack units I build. No sense in losing them because I didn't soften up the city enough. Suppose there's a city you want to capture rather than destroy. How are you going to get rid of 10 enemy population points?

Originally posted by pcasey

Cruise missile ... exactly what role is a range one disposable bombard unit that can't destroy anything supposed to play?

They sink ships.

Originally posted by pcasey
Mech Infantry ... why not just build modern armor? Almost the same cost, moves faster, defends 16/18s as well and can attack with twice the power and 2x on any given turn.

You can get Mech Inf. long before you get Modern Armor. And 18 vs. 16 can make a difference.

Originally posted by pcasey

An Air Force ... I'm a heretic on this one, but I think the air units are useless in Civ III. For the cost of building up the 10 bombers I'd need to soften up an enemy city, I can build 10 modern armor. With 10 modern armor attacking, I won't *need* to soften it up. Plus I'll have units to garrison it with after I'm done.

But you're going to lose half of them.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru

I made the Longbowman 5.2.1 and a UU for England - I felt they were gypped by a potentially useless UU and it's history makes it a fitting English UU.

The only problem that creates is timing of the Golden Age. The Golden Age of England was in the 18th and 19th centuries, not the 14th century longbow period. I believe the 5.2.1 is too powerful; perhaps 5.1.1 to make them more vulnerable (because for the time period, that's a pretty kickass attack) and to fit more with the UU being a bump of just one stat.

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Sorry, but this can and does happen. How do you think the first few tanks were delivered to the Persian Gulf back in 1991?

Er, by sea transport. Besides, it took like 6 months (September to February) to get enough in place. Now, game turns are longer, but the game should reflect the difficulty.

[Satis5d]

Maybe it's just me, but I think that caravels come along too late. By the time you get a ship that can really explore the world is already filled.

There should be a unit that can explore the seas earlier.