Patch idea: obsolute units.

[Palleon]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I still like Imperialism's methodology....at the dawning of the new age, you get prompted to upgrade your units, and told how much it will cost. If you can't afford it, the game will upgrade as many units as you can afford, and you lose the rest.

Simple. Elegant. Adds strategy to climbing the tree.

-=Vel=-

Can't work. What if you're 1 turn away from getting to the last tech in your age, and you're in the middle of a war, and have no money in your treasury? Suddenly, you jump to the next age, your military goes away, and they walk unopposed into your cities. That doesn't make a fun game.

[Velociryx]

What it would do is force people to really THINK about their tech acquisitions, rather than simply rushing along full speed up the tree.

It can work, but if you don't think about what you're doing, then it can be a recepie for disaster, as your example indicates.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Which is actually historically accurate. Oftentimes new technological advances or theories have thrown entire regions into chaos and fear. Witch hunts and burnings were the order of the day when people dared suggest that the earth might not be the center of the universe.

Losing troops here and there would be a good way to simulate that.

Or, if you're feeling more generous, then you could disband all the obsolete units you couldn't pay to upgrade, and get their shield value on a "credit card" that you could use to create new units with.

-=Vel=-

[Blake]

I actually agree with Dexters that a modern Pikeman has been armed with a bazooka to complement his pike and shield. It's a good approximation, even if it does fail when the enemy is genuinely less advanced than you (rather than just keeping around ancient units as mascots for their MA...). I just find it much more enjoyable to blame the losses of my modern units to ancient units on "gross incompetence".

Which is defintely a valid conclusion, considering the intelligence of your military adviser "Lets build Tank!". (At heart he's still a 6000 year old barely evolved caveman....)

[trevor]

Heck I got rid of all of that by doubling the A/D values until 64 (for MA, MI, & RA) and did the same to the ships and planes. I also had Swordsmen upgrade to Cavalry, and a unbroken line from Chariot to MA. I also thought of foils, or opposite units. So for instance Infantry is a defensive unit while Tanks are a offensive unit, so I made Infantry 16/32 while Tank is 32/16. Of course if a Spearman is 2/2 there is very little chance that it will destroy a MA (64/32). Finally I changed Musketmen to 8/8 and Knight to 8/4 because the Musket was the weapon that detroyed the Knight.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Palleon
Here's what I'd like to see happen. I've seen this in a game before, I don't recall which one however. We all know upgrading units can be expensive, which is why you can't always do it. But what if we were able to upgrade in the build queue? Lets say you have a spearman, and you want to upgrade it to infantry. You move it to a city with a barracks, and select it to be upgraded. It would work like you were building infantry, but the shield cost of the spearman would already be done, so it would take less time than it would to build a new unit. This way, your big production cities could upgrade units exceptionally fast, without a crippling gold cost. What are your thoughts on this?

While I must say I kinda like this idea, it is also true that this is pretty much implemented in the current game anyway - just that you first disband the obsolete unit, not getting its full shield cost, but only one half (which is IMHO a fair penalty).

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by muxec
And one more idea:
reduce cost of "uprgade to" units as it was in civ1. mushketman 30 shields, rifleman 30 shields infantry 40, mech infantry 50.

Thta's a nice idea: unfortunately, you can't change upgrade costs relative to build cost

[TheBirdMan]

Imagine practice. Of course, the current army of a small country (like mine) would easily conquer the Ancient Rome, with Tanks vs. Legions. However, 2 Tanks would not conquer such an empire, even an ancient one. Roman Legions would run in hunred at the two tanks.

True - I think.

If not for anything else, then 'couse sooner or later, the tanks would ran out of gasoline and be grounded.

BTW: I think all mecanical units should have "fuel" for only a limited number of turns before it had to turn back to a friendly city/base to get refuled.

[dexters]

The fact that most people here are not in the military does not help the situation.

Technology alone does not mean 100% success rates. Look at Vietnam. Roman Legions may suffer massive casualties, but I'd be hard pressed to say there won't be ambushes and tactical victories that cost modern infantry formations high casualties.

That alone argued for the infrequent, but observed instances of Pikeman winning against tank formations.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Velociryx
What it would do is force people to really THINK about their tech acquisitions, rather than simply rushing along full speed up the tree.

It can work, but if you don't think about what you're doing, then it can be a recepie for disaster, as your example indicates.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Which is actually historically accurate. Oftentimes new technological advances or theories have thrown entire regions into chaos and fear. Witch hunts and burnings were the order of the day when people dared suggest that the earth might not be the center of the universe.

Losing troops here and there would be a good way to simulate that.

Or, if you're feeling more generous, then you could disband all the obsolete units you couldn't pay to upgrade, and get their shield value on a "credit card" that you could use to create new units with.

-=Vel=-

Definately a BAD idea.

Why should spearmen simply vanish if fuedalism is discovered? I'm picturing the situation.... "What, you mean we have someone called a 'Lord' in our town now running things at the behest of the king?" "Yes, I'm afraid our spears won't work anymore and the king doesn't have enough money to outfit us with pikes (which are basically spears that can't be thrown), we'll have to jump down this big hole to oblivion now." "Oh well, it was nice knowing you."

Sarcasm of course. Thinking about techs is good, but crippling effects of a mistake like that are, well, seriuosly un-fun.

How about this: If you can upgrade everything right away, then you get a discount, if you can't, then you must pay full price for your upgrades.

[dunk]

Originally posted by zulu9812


Thta's a nice idea: unfortunately, you can't change upgrade costs relative to build cost

I made all the infantry units cheaper. Musketmen are now 40 shields, riflemen 50, and infantry 60. Marines and paratroopers are 70.

[Destroyer]

Ok, how about this for an idea:

Your Ancient and middleage units are removed from the game when your civ reaches the modern age.

Realisically this gives you a whole age to upgrade, and removes all the cack units from play.

[Palleon]

Originally posted by Destroyer
Ok, how about this for an idea:

Your Ancient and middleage units are removed from the game when your civ reaches the modern age.

Realisically this gives you a whole age to upgrade, and removes all the cack units from play.

So what happens when you lose your resources, and all you can build are middleage units like cavalry? Do you not have the ability to build units until you get new resources? You can't just remove units from the game, it unbalances things far too much. You can make them weaker or useless, but just removing units is a bad idea.

[dunk]

Do you people really see that many of the AIs troops are warriors are swordsmen? I mean, if I look at the AIs troop list in the industrial age, there are maybe 2 warriors and a spearman out of 100 troops, the rest are age-appropriate. SO WHAT?

The AI never throws units away (except workers they capture in your territory, Ugh, I wish they'd stop going for them). Since swordsmen don't upgrade to anything, you're gonna see a few lying around for the entire game.

[muxec]

So the first step is improving AI.

[TheBirdMan]

So the first step is improving AI.

Where have I read this before.

Got it ! Just about every strategic game, I can remember of

[johncmcleod]

I like solver's idea. I just don't understand how a unit with guns could lose to swordsmen. You'd blow their heads off before they could reach the target. I also think the gap between attack and defense in infantry and mech infantry units is too much. So two infantry units are standing in some grasslands. One attacks the other. And he only has a 25% chance of winning. I think infatnry should have 9 attack and 11 defense. Also, marines are TOTALLY underrated. Today, the US marines go through more rigorous training the US army infantry, and generally have better fighting skills.

[Palleon]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I like solver's idea. I just don't understand how a unit with guns could lose to swordsmen. You'd blow their heads off before they could reach the target. I also think the gap between attack and defense in infantry and mech infantry units is too much. So two infantry units are standing in some grasslands. One attacks the other. And he only has a 25% chance of winning. I think infatnry should have 9 attack and 11 defense. Also, marines are TOTALLY underrated. Today, the US marines go through more rigorous training the US army infantry, and generally have better fighting skills.

Then use the editor. That's how I dealt with the idea of "obsolete" units. I gave musketmen, Infantry, Rifleman etc a 2 hp bonus. I gave tanks, modern armor, and mech infantry a 4 hp bonus. If you keep the a/d/m the same, then they have a lot more survivability, and it's a bit more realistic. The older units still have a chance to win, which means that you're not a god, but the more modern units still have a significantly better chance of winning the battle. Plus it makes far more interesting modern battles which everyone has 10-12 hp instead of 5.

[Deathwalker]

I like this idea but it does sound a bit like Fire Power

[Phil_de_geezer]

I just don't understand how a unit with guns could lose to swordsmen

Really? Superior numbers? Ambush? Incompetent/arrogant leaders?

one attacks the other. And he only has a 25% chance of winning

The guys who don't move are going to have a serious advantage, considering they can take cover and aim better.

[dunk]

Originally posted by muxec
So the first step is improving AI.

Why?

The AI doesn't see a guy running around with a sword. It sees a 3-2-1 unit, just as it should. Now, 3-2-1 doesn't stand much of a chance against 24-16-3, but it will still take up a movement point of that modern armor. Think of the modern age swordsman as a human shield. Maybe the AI has more imagination than you do.

[Palleon]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I just don't understand how a unit with guns could lose to swordsmen.

Case and point, The wars between the "Native Americans" and the English, and then American settlers during the Colonial Era. They didn't have any guns at first, and later on they had a few, but the settlers still lost plenty of battles, because the Indians had superior military tactics at the time, knowledge of the land, and overall better guerrilla tactics. They lost at the end though because their technology was inferior. But they won some battles, not the war, and in Civ3, the people with higher technology might lose a few battles, but overall, they'll win more often than not.

[star mouse]

Longbowmen defeating a tank - can't happen? Dumb luck can happen. And of course, you're assuming that the longbowman has only a bow and a quiver of arrows as weapon. Also suppose they sent flaming arrows?

[Palleon]

Who's to say they're not explosive tipped arrows? Or a shaft made out of C4? It never said what kind of arrows they use, I'm sure they are upgraded with the times. Or maybe a lucky arrow hit a weak point in the armor and damaged the engine. You can make up any number of reasons for obsolete units to get in a lucky shot and win.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Palleon
Here's what I'd like to see happen. I've seen this in a game before, I don't recall which one however. We all know upgrading units can be expensive, which is why you can't always do it. But what if we were able to upgrade in the build queue? Lets say you have a spearman, and you want to upgrade it to infantry. You move it to a city with a barracks, and select it to be upgraded. It would work like you were building infantry, but the shield cost of the spearman would already be done, so it would take less time than it would to build a new unit. This way, your big production cities could upgrade units exceptionally fast, without a crippling gold cost. What are your thoughts on this?

That's not a bad approach really. The real problem in the game is that the AI can't upgrade it's units because it's always broke. It's just not terribly bright when it comes to managing it's finances, especially in comparison to the human player. So it never has the funds to do any mass upgrades, unlike the human player.

But if the upgrade was based on shields instead, and happened automatically, then it wouldn't be a problem. It would just take away some shields from it's current production until all the units stationed in the city were upgraded, at which point it would resume building whatever was in it's queue.

And there could be some sort of sub-routine in place so that any unit that enters a city with a Barracks will be forced to remain there until it's finished upgrading. At the most, it would probably only take a turn or two, if the city had a half decent shield production happening.