Upgrade Cavalry? - Page 2

Grud · January 18, 2002, 13:51

One way to avoid the 'unfair advantage' of the instant upgrade while still modelling a historical transition from horse to mechanisation would be to give a "shield bonus" if a cavalry unit is disbanded in a city that is currently producing a tank unit. The bonus shields would represent the hurry-up effect of absorbing skilled cavalrymen into an armored formation. If that's still too much of an advantage, maybe limit the bonus to only 'elite' cavalry.

Manstein3 · January 18, 2002, 16:25

@Trifna
What are the most expensive costs for a fighter airplane? The pilot's education and training. The pilot is harder to replace as the plane. Not only is his education expensive but also takes a long time. And time is money, especially in war.
the same with cavalry or tank unit: It is the tactical knowledge and the let us call it 'attacking spirit' of the cavalry unit which is really hard to acchieve and takes a long time. You know, a staff officers eduaction takes ten years. The staff of a cavalry division has the appropriate tactical knowledge, at least many parts of it, of a tank unit. So upgrading seems fair - at least with veteran or elite units.
Would be nice if we could limit upgrading to veteran and elite units.

In Germany also most tank divisions were upgraded out of cavalry units. some of them as late as 1941.
And the whole bunch of German Panzer Raider Generals, the Hoepner, Guderian, Manstein, Rommel were old cavalrists. (But Rommel in first WW had been tremendously successful infantry commander at the Isonzo-front)

Arrian · January 18, 2002, 17:10

Cav upgrading to Tanks is fine, conceptually, but I don't know if it's a good idea in Civ III. If so, the upgrade cost should be very high (100gold each, maybe more). You're replacing horses with Tanks, which aren't cheap.

Upgrading is too cheap right now for some of the units. The prime offender: Knights -> Cavalry for 20gold each, and a huge leap in the power of the unit (+50% attack, +33% move). Are you KIDDING ME? That's 10g each with Leo's, like it matters.

Tanks to M.A. should cost a bunch, too, as the M.A. themselves are sophisticated, expensive machines. Same with Infantry -> Mech Inf.

-Arrian

Zachriel · January 18, 2002, 18:17

"An impatient 1st Cavalry Division was dismounted in 1943 and processed for overseas movement to the Southwest Pacific as foot soldiers."
http://www.hood.army.mil/1stcavdiv/history/earlycav.htm

The 1st Armor Division is 50 years old, and is composed of remnants of other organizations, but was essentially recreated at that time.
http://www.1ad.army.mil/History.htm

What would make it an "upgrade" would be the continuous institutional memory of the unit and its personnel.

The 1st Cavalry did not evolve directly into armor, but actually fought WW2 on foot. The 1st Armor was composed of reorganized remnants of other units including cavalry, but were recreated with a new command structure; hence the short institutional memory.

(Also, it would unbalance the game.)

FNBrown · January 18, 2002, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Grud
One way to avoid the 'unfair advantage' of the instant upgrade while still modelling a historical transition from horse to mechanisation would be to give a "shield bonus" if a cavalry unit is disbanded in a city that is currently producing a tank unit. The bonus shields would represent the hurry-up effect of absorbing skilled cavalrymen into an armored formation. If that's still too much of an advantage, maybe limit the bonus to only 'elite' cavalry.

This is probably the most logical suggestion I've seen - allows for some historical accuracy, without unbalancing the game too much.

Willem · January 18, 2002, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown

This is probably the most logical suggestion I've seen - allows for some historical accuracy, without unbalancing the game too much.

Cavalry alone unbalances the game. Given the opportutunity of upgrading to Tanks right away, the human player would be able to run away with the game. Upgrade yes, but not to an offensive unit IMHO.

Thrawn05 · January 18, 2002, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
That's sort of my point. Although the U.S. Army phased out the Cavalry because of the arrival of tanks, they didn't necessarily "upgrade" their cavalry soldiers to drive them.

I think Cavalry would actually upgrade to Mech. Infantry better than standard Infantry...

It is my belief that if God forbid there be a great war that last long enough that gasoline would be scarce, that we (world in general) would resort back to the calvery as a viable combat unit.

PS: I find it funny, that a unit with the name Mech Infantry is better at defending then being a real infantry.

FNBrown · January 18, 2002, 22:26

I don't know if we could ever see Cavalry as a viable military unit again, at least not on a large scale.

Third world countries may still find mounted troops effective for smaller skirmishes, but, unlike CivIII, John Dunbar and his buddy, Cisco, wouldn't last too long against an F-22.

FNBrown · January 19, 2002, 06:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Cavalry alone unbalances the game. Given the opportutunity of upgrading to Tanks right away, the human player would be able to run away with the game. Upgrade yes, but not to an offensive unit IMHO.

What would you suggest it be upgraded to? Tanks or Mech. Infantry seem like the only logical unit...

Willem · January 19, 2002, 09:26

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown

What would you suggest it be upgraded to? Tanks or Mech. Infantry seem like the only logical unit...

Like I said before, Rifleman or Infantry. I've set my game to Rifleman so I can get it out of my build list when it's no longer useful. Being mainly a defensive unit, it won't upset the game to much or give me a huge advantage when the time comes.

FNBrown · January 19, 2002, 15:39

That's a good idea.

I suppose I'm gonna have to start playing around with the editor... I've been resisiting it, because I spend enough time on the game and on this forum as it is.

Willem · January 19, 2002, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
That's a good idea.

I suppose I'm gonna have to start playing around with the editor... I've been resisiting it, because I spend enough time on the game and on this forum as it is.

I'm just the opposite, spending more time on the editor. I've been playing the game for weeks now and I still haven't made it past the Middle Ages. I keep thinking of new things to add to my game, so far mainly improvements. I have scads of them now.

FNBrown · January 19, 2002, 18:53

I've only made it to the Modern era twice... the late-game tedium is just overwhelming...

I tried the editor once when I first got the game, and it sucked... although I've read that it was improved with the patch...

Willem · January 19, 2002, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
I've only made it to the Modern era twice... the late-game tedium is just overwhelming...

I tried the editor once when I first got the game, and it sucked... although I've read that it was improved with the patch...

The default Editor has some functions disabled. However, over in the Files area is a hacked Editor that allows you Add/Delete various things. There's also a utility called Civ3CopyTool that let's you copy units/wonders etc, which you can edit later in CivEdit. You need that if you want to add more units, the hacked editor doesn't work for that. And Wonders as well. The hacked editor does work, but there's a glitch when the splash screen graphics comes up that will cause the game to crash. As far as I know Wonders created with Civ3CopyTool don't have that problem. I haven't had a chance to try it out yet, I only got it to work just recently. The eralier versions didn't work on my system for some reason.

P.S. I've tried the Small Wonders I've created in CopyTool, and the game still tries to crash when the popup graphics come up. _sigh_