|
Author
|
Topic: UNITS (ver1.1): Hosted by JT
|
don Don
Civer
IP:  |
posted May 24, 1999 14:34
    
I think it's better to stick with the civ2 system of fixed unit types with special properties flagged in the rules.I don't think we need ambulances on a strategic scale battle.  Diodorus: Yes, the English soldiers found punctured armor on the fallen French cuirassiers. However, the heavy cavalry had charged the crack English infantry squares 12 times that day. Witnesses reported that the battle sounded like a hailstorm on a metal roof. The cuirass was 75 pounds, covering the torso front, thighs, and knees, and was generally proof against musket shot. I'd bet every surviving cuirassier had a handful of dents in his armor, and appreciated it mightily. I'd bet a few Civil War cavalrymen would've liked that kind of protection. The cuirass was really expensive, and no army wanted to pay for outfitting a whole regiment with them. They'd rather have two unarmored regiments. |
Harel
Civer
IP: |
posted May 24, 1999 16:29
I would like to discuss something. The SMAC workshop.
People said it was a "nice" idea, could make it easy to build special units.
People, civ is about history! And according to history, we MUST have a SMAC like-workshop.
Along history, every nation made different kind of units. Same technoloy, different aspects.
Warriors used a combantion of hellbirds, swords, short bows, lances, spears...
Archers used cross-bows, longbows, shortbow, sometimes with swords, without swords, with big shield, small shields...
Chest-mail, ring-mail, leather armor...
So many options!
Every country had a different espect.
And every weapon had it's use.
I suggest several things.
A. Add the workshop.
B. Add accuracy and reload attributes to units.
C. Have a specific advantge to every weapon:
Longbows would be more accurate and cause more damage, but will fire slowly.
Short bows would be just the opposite.
This customing ability becomes even more important in the modern era, with infantry and planes designed to a specific purpose. |
EnochF
Civer
IP: |
posted May 24, 1999 16:37
Harel: And would you also like Helicopters and Submarines with Chain Mail? SMAC Customizable Units sounds like a good idea as long as you're stuck in the Middle Ages, but then along comes the Modern Age. Honestly, people, let's think about this! |
Trachmyr
Civer
IP: |
posted May 24, 1999 18:33
A unit workshop can be created with out to much difficulty by simply not allowing absurd combinations... in fact many componets should become obsolete as time passes (not just units). This will add much more micromanagement to those who WANT to use the workshop... if you don't want to use it, then just use the default units (but I'll bet that you'll use the workshop at least a few times per game). As long as the workshop is optional (and can be turned off in by scenario editors) then what are you complaing about? |
Fugi the Great
Civer
IP: |
posted May 24, 1999 20:29
I was throwing around in my head, the idea of an expanded unit designer something like they did in SMAC. This would then satify me about getting to use the units I really wanted to add to Civ2. You would need a lot more types of chassis, capable of more options than SMAC, but you could then get exactly what you want. Example: Start with tracked tank chassis, armor is steel grade 3, add reactive armor, turret gets two main guns both are 135mm standard with automatic loader - good punch twice as fast with less people, add M93 machine gun - for ground troops, add QPW23 missile launcher - for air defence, add AGC123 rocket launcher - long range artillery, add laser range finder - for better accuracy, diesel engine mod 2 - more range and more speed, add AG-63 mine sweeper, and hazard environment module mod 3 - chemical and radiation protection. Total price: 3692 credits each. If you purchase 10 or more, the price is only 3521 credits.Types of chassis:
man, horse, elephant, jeep, tank, chariot, planes, ships, subs, cannon, missiles, helicopter, ... Another thought is, if you would use a toned down version of the unit creater, do you use this above in the game, or outside the game as a unit creater to make the units you will use in the next game/scenario. If you did it out side the game, units could then be designed and play tested by other people, stuffed into scenarios, and placed in a download area here at Apolyton or where ever. The trouble with that is, it ends up being the same thing as Civ2 is now, its just in 3D. Upgrading units:
Should not be totally automatic. Must at least move unit back to city/fort/base/port to receive new weapons/armor..., unless the use of supply is used, in which case, if a unit is surrounded or behind enemy lines it can be not upgraded unless in the modern era you use supply planes to give them what they need to upgrade. Maybe would have a supply wagon/truck sent to military unit to receive upgrades for units in the field. The only thing I see wrong with the constant upgrading of the same unit is that once your phalanx ends up being an Elite unit it will always be an elite unit even when you end up upgrading it to a Storm Marine or Swarm or whatever in the far future assuming it lives that long. Once it upgrades it should take a small/medium morale hit since it may be very good at throwing spears, it does not know how to use a gun or any other new weapon it gets and have to learn new tactics with this new weapon. It would also have to learn how to fight in the newer armor, it might be heavier or bulkier, not see as well, not move as well. Morale would then increase over time because of training, but not reach the highest unless it was tested in combat. Maybe several morale levels for combat veterns. Then do you do anything different with repairing a unit? In the real world, a military unit goes to war, get several people killed, and gets new people added to the unit. Now a certain percentage of the unit has been tested in war, and another part is still untried in combat. Adding green troops to a combat vetern elite III should not keep it there. Some of the experience of the vets will slowly rub off on the greens, but the unit is still not as good as it was before because some of the troops have never experienced the horror/glory of war. Now if you could maybe make one combat unit out of two badly damaged ones, like a vetern and a green, the morale should end up maybe alittle above the average of the two, the vets boosting the morale of the greens because of experience. |
rainer
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 09:14
MESSENGERS / DIPLOMATS / SPIESAs dips and spies are the strongest units in Civ2, they should be more balanced. A third diplomatic unit (messenger) could be added. Messenger: available with Writing; like the old diplo, but cannot bribe cities; chance of failing when attempting to bribe units. Diplomat: availabe with Diplomacy (Renaissance tech); replaces the messenger; can bribe cities but at huge cost and with significant chance of failure; some chance of failure when attempting to bribe units. Spy: available with Espionage; does replace the diplomat; chances of failure for bribing tasks further reduced but still present; viz range 2. Whenever diplomatic units move/act/do not reside in a city, they cost maintenance that turn (the maintenance of good intelligence does not come as a free lunch). This transcends the unit thread a bit, but it is part of the topic I have raised here, so I'll add it anyway: the quantity and quality of information you get from embassies should increase stepwise. For instance, in the messenger era, an embassy does not provide the complete list of the other civ's techs, only a rough estimate of their treasury and imprecise information on the tech they are researching right now (military, applied etc). In the diplo era, you get more and better info, but only when spies are available will embassies provide the full range as in Civ2. |
BigBopper
Junior Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 09:36
First post on ThreadUnit Ideas, 1. MERV Warheads: stronger nukes, tone down the original nukes so they are more like early or tactical warheads (one square affect and a much less diplomatic negatives) and kick up MERV Missles to be true city busters. (perhaps destroys most or all population, units, and buildings in and around a city). 2. Gas Warfare: a missile? damages all units in stack/square, but is most devastating against cities. unless the proper city improvement (bomb shelters?) is built in a city each population has a 25%? chance of being killed. But the gas attack does no damage to improvements. |
CormacMacArt
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 10:19
I like the multiple chassie idea, even for modern units, if its done right. In short, avoiding any unlikely scenereos.
Note for Diodorus Sicilus: During WWII, the Battleship was the FASTEST ship (not counting PT boats) on the water.What about SLAVE units? Give all units (until ENGINEER) the ability to do civil-service jobs (roads, etc). SLAVES would be 3x, half support (money or shields), would increase production when inside of a city, but would be liable to revolt civ-wide after EMANCIPATION. |
Harel
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 11:49
EnochF, are YOU thinking along?
How said you will have the option to combine subs with chain mail?
Did I say that? How said that it has to be JUST LIKE smac workshops?
The chassis you select dictates what options you will have. This IS quite obivous.
And, like Trachmyr said, it IS optional.
Just like you can't select torpedoes with infantry, only available with subs.
Quite elegant.
If you would have think straight, you would have known that in the modern era, custom-made and mission-specific units are more frequent then ever.
You re-design subs, planes, helicopters and more, to be good for a certian task:
Stealth helicopters, anti-infantry, anti-tanks, scout, transport... Lot's of options. We DO need the workshop. |
Jason Beaudoin
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 11:59
The only thing that I ask is this: Make sure that there is enough time between time periods to actually do things. Sometimes I feel that there isn't enough time between the periods to really enjoy the era. |
EnochF
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 13:09
Missiles, Nukes: Are they a chassis or a separate unit? Can you equip them with machine guns? If so, why?Submarines: If submarines can only be equipped with torpedos, then perhaps they don't require a workshop to construct them at all. Unless you'd like to try subs with bombards. Cannons, Artillery, Howitzers: The entire chassis is in and of itself a weapon. The chassis is the unit. Partians, Guerrillas, Rebels, Fanatics, Fascists: What specific weapons exactly are they equipped with? Ideology? Or do you require a new and separate "guerrilla" chassis? Special units: Clerics, Corporate Branches, Lawyers, Infectors, Slavers. Lawyers with rocket launchers? Better yet, how about jet fighters armed with injunctions? Satellites, other new units: Units suggested in this forum, such as mobile SAMs, radar jammers, spy satellites and the like will also be a massive hindrance to any implementation of a workshop. Harel: By mentioning subs with chain mail, I was pointing out your limited scope. Many of the people who support a Civ III workshop do not consider units past the Renaissance. Apparently you've considered it. I still question whether you've honestly considered it enough. I maintain that modern units defy simple "workshopping."
[This message has been edited by EnochF (edited May 25, 1999).] |
Fugi the Great
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 13:14
I agree with Jason B. In Civ2, and sometimes in SMAC, the unit is outdated before it is even built or even gets to the front lines. Time needs to be slowed down a bit, or the time to build a unit has to come down. |
EnochF
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 13:22
Incidentally, can I get some agree/disagree comments on Naming Ships? As a totally optional thing, of course. Those of us who go overboard, so to speak, on a navy often find tactical maneuvers a lot easier if our ships are distinguishable by name, and besides, it adds a hell of a lot of atmosphere, I think. Just whenever you build a ship, you get a message. "New Destroyer commissioned at Manchester: What shall we name this new vessel, sir?" or something.How about Octopus's idea to attach "notes" to units. As in "marching to Thermopylae to meet up with three other phalanxes and catapult to conduct siege"? When I've got more than twenty units moving around, it's hard to remember who's going where sometimes. |
Harel
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 13:32
Lawyers with rockets? You dont seem to understand the prinicple of what I say: The chassis define the weapons.
A laywer, if indeed we will use this very silly CtP unit, is an infantry with weapon: injuctions
Ofcourse, that wont be available for planes. Probaly.
If you think that modern era units are not custom-made, you are so wrong you cant imagine how. BTW, I am serving in the army... I suggest you go and indulge yourself in weapons specs.
Subs? Subs have torpedos, nukes, mines, probes... Need I go on?
Did you now have a SMAC workshop for missiles? You can heavly re-define a missile: Extra fuel, extra speed, shields, and mainly: warhead type.
By even implaying to "laywer with launcher" you clearly dont understand anything I say. A laywer is a chassis? A lawyer? On it's own?!
Please, think about what you say!
The modern era is fitting to a workshop. More then you can possible realize.
And beside, you mentioned it fits the middle ages. That doesn't count? Why shouldn't we have this option? It's fitting, it been in SMAC, and I am willing to bet a lot that EVERYTHING that made it to SMAC ( and more ) will appear in civ III.
This won't go away because you are having nightmares about layers with quake-like rocket launchers... |
Mo
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 13:58
I suggest a completely redesigning the espionage process.
Spies, diplomats, and messengers are only a few people so they shouldn't classify as units. You should have a buget for counter espionage and for espionage. The more money you assign to each will increase the chances of stopping an enemy spy or for your spy to suceed. You should be able to ask your inteligence for information about any enemy city. Depending on how much money you are allocating will determine the acurracy of the report. Example: If you want info about Hamburg, but you aren't spending enough money, some stats about the military units there will be missing maybe a few improvments will also be missing.
Your chances of suceeding will be determined how far the target city is from the capital, how much money they are spending on counter espionage, how much money you are putting into espionage and the risks of the mission you are attempting. Of course there will be other modifiers like government and such.
If the city you want to spy on is on another continent or if there is water between your closest city and the target city the information might be delayed a turn or two to arrive. This will of course change once you have discovered flight and radio.[This message has been edited by Mo (edited May 25, 1999).] |
EnochF
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 14:13
Harel: Look, if you'll just...Aw, screw it. Let me just address my comments to someone a little more receptive. Back wall of my office: Listen to me, wall. If you accept that "the chassis defines the weapons," then already you have provided enough limitations to your own system to make it redundant. If subs are limited to nukes, torpedos and mines, how are they any different from a standard sub in Civ II? Aside from the ability to create unarmed scout versions of every chassis, there's no point to any of this. And unarmed scout submarines are made redundant by a decent spy plane. Surely, white plaster wall, you must concede my point. All this fractured English is giving me a headache... |
Harel
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 14:33
"If subs are limited to nukes, torpedos and mines, how are they any different from a standard sub in Civ II? "
Said the ever-sharp EnochF.
Did you see 3 types of subs in Civ II? I mean, they must have had them... could it be i just missed them?
A torpedo sub to mainly destroy other subs, a scout sub, a mine-layer sub, a nuking sub, a cruise-missile carrying sub...
they all been there, haven't they?
Not just the un-realistic "I-can-do-everything" sub, that both carried missile and could take out other subs with ease.
Spy planes made scout subs obeslte?
Why jumping geepers! The rifle-man made the archer obselte. Should we scarp him aswell? So what if the spy plane is better?! You can STILL BUILD A SCOUT SUB. In war II the sub was a main scouting unit. Or history doesnt matter for you?
Or you also belive that fighter ( the plane units from CIV II ) is the same since the start of the centaury, cause they sure as hell didn't change in CIV II.
BTW, in answer of this your question about howizters, cannons, and the rest ( they are the chassis, they are the weapon ), the answer is simple. All of them are Carried units. Chassis: Siege weapon, Weapon: select at will. Happy now?
( You can even have the ballista, the catapult, and other lovely siege weapons as well )
And, just like I said, you can be sure the workshop will apprear in CIV III. I am willing to bet about it. So start suggesting ideas on how to make it better, not just complain and use very silly arguements.
|
Bell
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 14:33
EnochF
Just whenever you build a ship, you get a message. "New Destroyer commissioned at Manchester: What shall we name this new vessel, sir?" or something.I don't have a problem with including the option, as long as it isn't a pop-up. Maybe a right-click thing, but a pop-up is too annoying to those of us who build a large navy but couldn't care less what it's called. If you accept that "the chassis defines the weapons," then already you have provided enough limitations to your own system to make it redundant. Not really, but subs are a bad example because they really are somewhat limited. Other chassis (like wheeled vehicles and surface ships) are more flexible and could indeed handle a variety of weapons if you choose to put them there. More accurately, they could handle a variety of weapons systems if you put them there, since a popgun and a naval cannon are basically the same thing, just on different scales and with different support systems. |
Carolus Rex
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 14:37
First post in this thread. Mo, A lot of the fun using diplos and spies is actively guiding them through enemy lines. Moving them around the map, scouting for bribable units etc. I strongly feel that turning it into the more abstract/invisible process you describe eliminates an interesting feature of the game and reduces the fun of it. Instead I would like to see more options available to them. That being said I agree with rainer that early on diplos are too powerful and need to be "downgraded" in some way. Everybody, It's not the number of new units or how realistic they are that will make Civ3 great. Obviously, it's whether they add new strategic dimensions and depth to the game or not. Some of the suggestions here do just that, but many are simply "we need an Y type to fill the historical inaccurate gap between versions X and Z". IMHO, this is only counterproductive. No offense intended. Carolus |
Bird
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 14:43
Re: spies and diplomats. I like rainer's ideas but I like Mo's even better (some can be combined). Mo, I assume you are not deleting the spy/diplomat units (or are you?), just adding variables that affect their success once they've "attacked" a target. I like the current approach that requires the spy to get to the city before obtaining info or doing whatever. Counterespionage abilities have to be beefed up. I like the idea of allocating funds as a means of setting the spies' abilities, both offensively and defensively, because it's fairly realistic and you only have to put one spy in a city for counterespionage purposes.If this is impractical, your civ's ability to counter another civ's spy attacks should at least be increased if you have more spies stationed in the target city. I know spies already have some ability to thwart other spies, but I don't think the effects are cumulative in a city if you station more than one spy there (at least it never seems to work that way for me). Absent Mo's approach, they should at least have a cumulative effect. Personally, I think the issues related to dips/spies are the most important ones out there as far as existing CIV II units go. I can live with or without a workshop, although I don't think it will improve the game if we simply see another 50 units added. That just means there'll be another X number of units no one ever builds (fanatics, copters, etc.). Better, not more, should be the primary goal. |
Chowlett
Junior Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 15:04
Upgrading should be a bit more realistic. I mean, here's my unarmoured swordsmanwalking across the plains. I discover bronze, and suddenly, out of nowhere, I can give him armour? I say, units should not be able to upgrade without either:
1) stopping in a city for a turn
2) having some kind of supply vehicle catch up with them.As a balance for this, I'm fighting someone who happens to have bronze armour. Now he repels my attacks for a while, but then one of my units defeats him - and can pick up his armour and put it on. What I mean is, if a battle is won over a more technologically advanced foe, I can nick his fancy weaponry. Probably, in the case of weapons, some penalty would have to be introduced to cope with inexperience - a man with a sword would take a while to become proficient with a captured musket. |
Bird
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 15:16
I don't feel strongly about upgrades one way or the other, but Chowlett makes an excellent point and offers an opportunity to increase the value of a city improvement that advanced players seem to only rarely use -- barracks. Make the unit's ability to upgrade conditioned on either visiting a town with a barracks for a turn or being stationed in such a town. If the consensus is that this makes a barracks too valuable, increase the cost of building and/or maintaining one. |
Carolus Rex
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 15:51
IMHO, upgrading is OK as it is via: i) fighting (non-vet to vet for the same unit, more categories can be invented) or ii) a wonder (units automatically receive vet status if victorious, older units are converted into new ones) i) and ii) represent factors such as experience and progress in military technology. Why add more micromanagement by letting the players upgrade every single unit? Carolus [This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited May 25, 1999).] |
Bell
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 15:59
Carolus Rex writes:
Why add more micromanagement by letting the players upgrade every single unit?Because it's fun and realistic. How many governments underequip their troops if they can afford upgrades? And it's a lot easier to upgrade the units you have than to build new ones. A lot of the ideas we're discussing in the various threads are trying to balance fun and realism, and this one has both! Why not use it? (PS--JT, if you're out there, it might be time to start a new thread . . . ) |
Isle
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 16:17
The chassis defines the weopons. limiting?
hah
Try to look at it this way: The chassis desides what slots are available, or rather the chassis HAS a number of slots available.
Foot: Hand-held weapon, body armor, other carryable equipment.
Moterized: Mounted weapon, light armor, engine, other mounted equipment.
Mechanized: 1 x Gun, 2 x mounted weapons, heavy armor, engine, tank equipment.Hand-held weapons: Spear, sword, pike, musket, light firearm, heavy firearm, flamethrower and rope to pulled equipment(like a catapult) Body armor: Hide, leather, chain, plate, kevlar vest(bullet-proof vest) Mounted Weapons: Lances, machineguns
Light Armor: Reinforced, steelplated Gun: something mm gun, something other mm gun and something big mm gun(I cant remember the scale, but I believe its in 100's of mm's)
Heavy Armor: so many inches of steel, more inches steel, or 3 feet of steel
Tank equipment: Reactive armor The catapult is a foot unit, since its pulled, a cannon is stationary, pulled or moterized(put on a truck), a howitzer is(if you even know what it is) selfdriving and therefore mechanized. I could go on, but it would be pointless, the options at endless, and the combinations even more so. We not only need the workshop like previously stated, we want it!! |
Utrecht
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 16:54
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Not all of us WANT the Unit workshop. I believe that it introduces a level of complexity that Civ games simply do not need.
Honestly, How many "non-standard" units in SMAC did you use???? After I played with them, I just used the defaults because it was easier and I did not want the micromanagement. Civ 2, CTP way works fine. |
Mo
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 17:00
RE: Spies
After further consideration I would keep the spy and diplomat as units. I would eliminate that you have to place a spy in your city for counter espionage, I would rather have it handled like I mentioned above, with the money allowance. If the spy unit stays is there really a need for the offensive espionage money allocation? If it stays would it just improve your odds of suceeding? |
Carolus Rex
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 17:28
Bell,I'm not against upgrading, I just think the current system is working fine. It's definitely easy. I agree 100% with Utrecht's post. What is Civ really about, what is so addictive with it? It can't be designing your own units from scratch, that's for sure. The SMAC workshop (any workshop?) may be fun the first few times, but then... Difficulties telling which unit is which, bad graphics to allow customizability of units, no (or very little) gain in gaming experience. Anyway, that's just my opinion. Carolus [This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited May 25, 1999).] |
Bell
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 17:44
Utrecht writes:
How many "non-standard" units in SMAC did you use????When I first started playing I used them quite a bit, and now I use them exclusively, because I turned off the autodesign. I always end up with more varied and more useful units if I design them myself than if I let the game do it for me. |
JT
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 17:56
THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED |
JT
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 17:56
THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED |
Diodorus Sicilus
Civer
IP: |
posted May 25, 1999 18:03
Let's agree to disagree: it's obvious that we are not going to be unanimous on the requirements of, or necessity for, a workshop. Yes, you can make a workshop totally unworkable by attempting to define and include every conceivable unit and component. You can also make a workshop unnecessary by so narrowly defining the possible combinations that they are indistinquishable from a small number of set units.
But to say that either case makes a workshop system unnecessary or unworkable for the game is wrong: you are simply indicating that you can't properly define a workshop system that would work in the game.
To take some of the specific straw man arguments advanced:
1. Cannon, Catapults, et al are weapons that have a built-in Chassis: they cannot be mounted on another ground unit chassis because there is no technology contemporary with them that provides one. The only way to move them strategic distances (game map distances) is to tow them behind animals. Period. They can be mounted on Ships, and they could be mounted on a Railroad chassis (if your Tech development is so skewed that you have nothing better than catapults to mount on a railroad chassis, that's another problem entirely). When you get Motorized (wheeled self-propelled vehicles) or Mechanized (tracked self-propelled vehicles) Tech, then you can mount any of the Bombardment (Artillery, Cannon, Howitzer or Battlefield Missile or whatever we end up calling it) Units on those chassis, and get either obsolete or modern mobile artillery units.
The Submarine chassis is limited, in that it is slower and has a lower overall capacity than any surface ship chassis. That is the case with WWI or WWII submarines, which apparently is the model for CivII subs. BUT what if I Upgrade the submarine chassis with Underwater Hull - the modern sub hulls optimized for underwater speed - which is only possible after you've got Nuclear Propulsion. Now you can increase the capacity of the sub chassis, mount extra things on it, or use the capacity to create a Cargo Sub or Amphibious Assault sub: all modern options you don't have in any of the games now.
You could provide Civ-specific special units. Problem is, the variations in capability among modern combat units and equipment come about because of specific requirements, usually related to geographical situations. For example, for modern/WWII era, you could give German Civ better tanks and short-range bombers (historical) and the Americans Long Range Bombers. But the USA developed long range bombers because they were isolated by oceans from all potential foes: what does a player with Germans do if his Random Map puts him on an island half a map away from his enemy?
He should have the option of taking his Airframe-Cargo chassis, making it more expensive by adding 4 or 6 engines instead of 2, optimizing for range (instead of Attack or Defense Factors) and building the type of bomber he needs in That Particular Game.
And, by the way, have the option of naming/designating it.
Stealth, Reconnaissance or Spying Ability, Nuke carrying capability: these are examples of Special Characteristics which each type of chassis will have a varying shot at - and yes, it is not difficult to define that a Chariot or Horseback chassis cannot carry a Nuke!
Or is that a bad example. After all, there were BackPack nuke weapons developed, shouldn't we give the player ALL the options?
Answer: No. The backpack Nuke is already covered in Special Characteristics for Spies.
Non-Military Units, if included (and I personally think they are a Good Thing if done right) cannot fall into precisely the same categories as military units, by definition: if included, the Corporate Branch, Abolitionist, Lawyer, etc, each represent a wildly varying number of people, equipment, and capability.
Mind you, another look should be taken at the interaction between 'military' and 'non military' units. What is the real difference in effect, in game terms, between Production being stopped by a lawyer's injunction or a guerrilla's military action?
Simple answer to the Unconventional Warfare units is that most of their "weapons" would not be available to the military Chassis. Being Unconventional, they might not be subject to the kind of purposeful design that went into military units and weapons in any case: how do you design an Abolitionist? - or is that another loaded question? Bottom Line. I can live with a Properly Designed set of Given Units if that's the way the game goes, but I personally think the variations of design in both modern and premodern units by country and conditions are better shown with a Design Workshop/Armory of some kind.
I also think that, like SMAC, any game with a Design Workshop should be designed so that those gamers not interested in that aspect of the game can play happily with 'standard' units. Geez, I want this sucker to SELL large numbers of games so they keep designing more and better ones, and making a game playable only by certain types of players is not the way to go: flexibility always! | |
Thread Closed 
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
