posted May 20, 1999 17:35             

General summary of the last thread:

UNITS
Spy Planes-multiple turns of feul, long range, no armor or weapon. Used for scouting.

Patriots-draftees from cities

Sea Engineers-terraform the sea

Supply Trucks-supply one nutrient/mineral/gold(whichever is chosen) from home city to city truck is assigned to.

Assassin-Like spy, except kills prominent researchers or builders to set enemy back.

Anti-sub Helicopter-Maybe with a sonar beacon that extends a square in every direction so you can pick up the subs?

Merchant Fleet-Caravans on the sea. I like this one _a lot_.

Air Transport-Airplane that transports units

AWAC-Like spy plane, but shorter range. Gives support to any attacked air units within 4 squares.

Spy Sattelites-Keep constant watch over a certain area.

Refugee-If city is captured, this unit appears. Can add its population to another city. No offense or defense.

Intelligance(sp?) Unit - Anti-spy protection

Longbowmen-Advanced archers

Cannonades-Between Cannons and Artillery

Arqbues-Between longbowmen and musketeers

Biplane-Drops paratroopers

Guerrila-ignore ZOCs, but have weak attack. Mainly for pillaging and defense.

Mobile Radar Jammer-creates "cloud" of blackness one square in every direction

Crop Plauge Plane-Destroys farm and irrigation

Mobile SAM-doubles defense of units stacked with it against air attacks

Mobile SDI-obvious

V2s-Missle that destroys all units and improvements in square

Nuclear Bombs-Armed on bombers and dropped

Decoys-Fake units with no attack or defense that are used to draw the enemy out of position

Officers-Units that add morale to other units with them in stack. Appear randomly at first, then trained later in game.

National Guard-Appointed like elvises or scientists. At first the weaker version, seasonal army. Then, with appropriate advance, it turns into the more powerful National Guard.

CONCEPTS

Flags-Not just colors, real flags that you could customize if you wanted to using Clarisworks or something

Graphics-Make sure units look like what they're supposed to be, not like in SMAC. Maybe have units from different cultures look different?

Air-Completely automate air units

Transport size-Units are given size ratings. Transport units can hold a certain size rating. Prevents the eternally annoying transports that can hold 8 tanks but not 9 spies.

Range-Different range missles depending on tech.

Cash-Units should cost money instead of minerals to support

Off Alert-Take units off alert. They gather their own resources when off alert, so support canceled. Attack and Defense lowered, though.

Nukes-nuked area cannot be entered by units for x turns. If city is nuked, city cannot build buildings for x turns. Nuked country can launch "retaliation attack" automaticly when nuked. Increase range of nukes. Give nukes effects of PB's from SMAC?

Long-range attacking units-catpults and other long-range units can attack from a few squares away

Raising armies-instead of building armies, you raise them through your cities

Support-Nation supports unit instead of city.

Tech upgrades-Option to upgrade units with whatever you discover once you discover it. Example: You have an archers unit defending a town. You discover Bronze Working.You can now add bronze armor to your archer unit if you wish.

Seperate armies and weapons-The people are drafted from a city while their weapons are built in another.

Training Grounds-Not letting certain units that have to be trained, like an archer or a knight, be built until barracks are built.

Upgrade-Upgrade unit when new tech comes.

Cost-Cost of maintinance should grow or decrease over time.

Morale-Morale levels for units like SMAC.

Veteran-Over time, units gain morale levels.

Missle Silos-terrain improvement. Have a 50% chance of surviving nuke blast. Units inside not damaged if silo survives, destroyed if silo destroyed.

COPIED FROM POSTERS(I hope noone minds)

offense: this value determines the amount of damage done with a successful hit before
modifiers.

defense: this value is how much less damage a unit takes from a successful hit by another unit due to armor, mobility, etc.

hit points: this value is how much damage the unit takes before it pushes up daisies.

morale: this value determines the percentage to successfully land a hit and also modifies the offensive value by a set percentage modifier. it also eventually increases with successive (successful) battles. let's say it ranges from 1 to 5 (as in smac but a less prosaic form).

range: movement points per turn.

now let's wade through an example title bout: in this corner, a rookie legion is attacking
the veteran chariot in black trunks... ding ding!
"legion x" (o:4/d:2/h:10/m:1)
"chariot y" (o:4/d:1/h:10/m:4)
let's also assume that the battle is to the death (as in the coliseum of yore)...

round 1 (part a):
x attacks y. x has a 1 in 5 chance of hitting y (due to his cruddy morale). x luckily manages to hit y. (first blood goes to the young punk!). x does 4 damage (+0% due to low morale) and y subtracts only 1 damage due to his defense value and gains no bonuses because he wasn't fortified at the end of the previous turn and is standing on a plains tile (next time seek some cover at the end of the turn).
x finally deals 3 damage total to y.
y has 7 hit points remaining.

round 1 (part deux):
y counterattacks x in his phase of combat (if x had managed to deal 10 hit points after modifiers and minus y's defense in the first hit, y wouldn't be counterattacking, he'd be dead). y has a 4 in 5 chance of hitting x. y hits (hey, you gotta like the odds). y does 4 damage +80% due to high morale (alright, we can rescale this during beta-testing 'cause that might be a bit too high). y actually does 7 damage and x defends 2 hit points due to his fancy roman shield. x is also standing on a forest which gives +50% to his defense rating. x defends an additional 1 hit point of damage. x is down to 6 hit points.

round 2: (part one) x attacks y again...

And so on until one of them (presumably x) is dead. this favors a strongly moraled attacker and bonuses could accrue to the defender based on terrain/fortification/city walls (adding a bonus to the defense rating). The beauty is that more advanced units gain in hit points and defense to the point where even the most veteran phalanx could never have enough of an offensive rating to overcome the natural defense rating of a tank, let alone dent it's hit points enough to kill the tank before the fatal blow is returned. the escalating defense rating of the advanced units would essentially block all the damage of an inferior unit whether or not the unit scored a successful hit and the retribution strike would be so likely to kill with the first successful hit with rising offensive values. even an inexperienced tank unit (which would land a hit only 20% of the time) would eventually kill the phalanx before any hit points could _ever_ be taken off him.

Additionally, stacked combat could be resolved unit vs. unit as in smac in this manner with collateral damage confered on the surviving stack members of the losing defender. This system also works exactly the same with artillery, air to ground combat or ship to ship, except that there is no counterattack phase to each round unless the defender unit y) has a long distance attack (artillery, anti-air or ship based cannon, respectively) as well.

If I missed any, please let me know!

posted May 21, 1999 12:53                

[This message has been edited by Buffalo (edited May 21, 1999).]

posted May 21, 1999 01:51             

Except give me more stuff to work with. I want more special skills, I want more weapon types, I want more hull types, I want I want I want.

There's a great deal of things you can do, and also make more specialized units, and it gives you a power others can't reach yet.

And get some named units once in a while, too. Like USS Enterprise an' whatnot. Ships and units that get bonuses because of better training/larger of the same thing ,etc. Circa. MOO and MOO2, where occasional aliens have named ships. Hmm. Could find them in Huts. Historical figures with their units/tanks/etc. For instance, Paul Revere. The Rough Riders... Etc.

posted May 21, 1999 08:22                

First off: This apparently got missed from the last thread (AGAIN) so I'll post it gain.
When disbanding units in a city, you should not receive any shields if you are building anything other than another unit. I've been playing with the bold too much, I think.

I really dislike the idea of upgrading units. Adding armor, additional abilities, etc. Too much micromanagement for this long term game. I've heard discussions on other forums about the idea that, based on the length of time you have a technology, the power of the unit that you get with the technology increases (too a point, obviously). This would add the element of realism without adding any micromanagement. For example. Lets say take tanks from CtP:16a/16r/10d/6m. With this method (and throwing in hp/fp for realism), for the first few years, they would only be 14/14/8/4(25/3), then for the next 20-30 years (or turns), they would be 16/16/10/6(35/4), and finally the more modern ones would be 18/18/12/8(45/5), maxing out there, as you would move on to the next type of unit.

posted May 21, 1999 10:07                

You can ruin a game by adding every single bell and whistle that anyone can ever think of. I'll pick just one example of a distinction, but no difference: "Cannonades-Between Cannons and Artillery"
The questions that must be asked before adding ANY new unit : What does this add to the game, besides the use of a historically accurate name? What parameters would be different between the proposed units - for exmaple, if cannon=4 and arty=6, is the game significantly better by adding a cannonade=5?

A very successful game .. lasted over a hundred years ... has only 6 units, and they're not upgradable: King, Queen, Bishop, Knight, Rook, Pawn.

I'm not suggesting THAT level of simplicity.

But complexity of design does NOT make for increase in playability... IMHO, just the opposite.
--------------
Upgrading units I like the way SMAC does it. If you pay, you can upgrade either all or a specific unit, even in the field.

To that method, I'd like to add: pay less if the unit is in a city with appropriate improvement. pay more if you do a field upgrade.
--------------
Unit workshop It is *really* nice to be able to create a unique design that you think is good. It should be able to be 'turned off' via a start-time option, tho, so you dont have to bother with it if you dont want.

posted May 21, 1999 10:25                

i also agree that units in civ3 should be upgradeable without having a leonardo-esque wonder (something along the lines of the smac upgrade options would be cool, but integrated within the non-unit-workshop paradigm that firaxis will probably embrace).

if possible, (again echoing earlier stated sentiments), the ability to name certain units would be nice (even if they only show up in the message screen along with the unit status when you click on the unit, or as a windows pop-up mouse thingie).

jason beaudoin's suggestion to automate air units seems like it wouldn't hurt, but only if the current civ2 model of fighter/bomber movement is kept. after all, since air units must refuel either at the end of turn or every other, he's right in saying it's only a matter of the computer figuring out whether the target is hittable without risking running out of fuel on the round trip.

did anyone else think choppers were a bit too powerful in smac? will they be the choppers of civ2 or those from the more recent brian reynolds game? the ability to attack more than once in a turn is pretty potent, although naval units also have had similar powers in the civ series. maybe some thought should be given to balance issues down the line on the difference between civ2 helicopters and smac's. but all in all, the helicopter seems to get the short shrift in civ2 considering its manifold uses in today's modern military. this leaves me to think that once the "modern" era of units is introduced in the game, there should be a little more variety to the range of units available.

i like the idea of having experience for units ala some other strategy games, but for civ, the possibility exists of having the same unit (after upgrades) for millenia. this may easily be "explained" as that standing body of armed warriors keeping the same nominal designation while the individuals making up that unit are phased in and out over time. but this all leads one to wonder how a single unit remains "ultra-elite" over such a long time if it's constituent members couldn't still be the same soldiers who served in the conflicts that gave them the experience to be so well trained. how is problem of lost verisimilitude (if it is that big a problem in the first place) to be solved? i'd say institute a "standing-down" variable per unit. which would work like this: if unit x doesn't participate in combat in more than a decade, it starts to lose it's training levels (morale, or whatever this "battle-experience" rating will be called) little by little until it reaches the one that's middling, or competent. following the smac model, this would mean your unit would eventually just be "hardened" rather than staying "elite" despite not fighting in eons. that way, players who change their governments/social settings to make a large veteran standing army and sit on it until the need arises won't benefit from a tactic that doesn't really happen in the world. i mean, we may have a huge military but they don't start off as being the best of the best without every firing a shot in the heat of real battle. look at how well the weary but toughened germans did against the initial waves of green american soldiers in ww2. think of it this way: the rolling stone gathers no moss, eh? in smac this "problem" never really pops up because of the the smaller time frame between possibly battles, no unit will "live" longer than three or four centuries and turns pass at only a year at a time vs. the variable scaled rate in the civ games (so we aren't stuck in antiquity forever).

just another idea.

posted May 21, 1999 11:12                

Spy planes/assassin/AWAC/intelligence officer/spy sats: Have an abstracted intelligence that is on a different screen. Techs give you % bonuses to intelligence missions (Jet Flight-"you now have spy planes available. +10% to ? mission[s]), which would include assassinations, amongst other things. Some techs might lower your bonus (internet= -10% to ? mission[s] due to reduced effect of propanganda on your citizens and allows easier access to your data by enemies). Your % bonus in intelligence is compared to your opponents % bonuses, subtract the higher from the lower for end bonus.

Sea engineers: If a SMAC-style workshop is implemented(which I like) simply allow a "special" to be added to engineers that allow for sea/space "terraforming".

Supply trucks/merchant fleets/caravans: This is something else that needs to be abstracted.

Anti-sub heliocopter: Heliocopters in civ2 are already anti-sub!!

Patriots: Well, there should be some kind of militia a city can draw on in desperate times. SMAC basically has it already (1-1-1 police).

Refugee: I agree but it should not be under the control of any player unless they have a military unit stacked with it.

Longbowmen/Cannonades/Arqbues: Easily adopted thru a workshop screen. I wouldn't make them individual units, though.

Biplane-Drops paratroopers: Say what? I don't think so!

Guerrilla: Can also launch "ambush" on regular armed forces that acts like spy sabotage(if successful); this can result in the destruction of a badly damaged unit.

Mobile Radar Jammer: More like a % penalty to certain intelligence missions attempted in that square only.

Crop Plauge Plane: I guess, but is it worth it?

Mobile SAM: 2 ideas- 1)Allow the option to be added in the workshop; 2)The SAM gives all units in that square the SAME defense vs. air that the SAM has.

Mobile SDI: I'd like it, but it should either be almost as expensive as regular SDI or not as effective(or both). Otherwise, why build one in the city if you must pay large construction costs and maintenance?

V2s/Decoys/National Guard: I disagree. They are not needed, & v-2's weren't that tough.

Nuclear Bombs: I propose a nuclear bomber unit, which would basically be a earlier, cheaper nuke unit, that causes somewhat less damage overall.

Officers: I'll say "maybe" only because I proposed the same idea months ago, but now I'm pretty much against it. Anyway, my version was called a "leader" unit and it was always randomly generated. It added to the morale of the stack and reduced the effects of "random combat" results(I'll explain in a different thread).

Concepts
Air: Read don Don's proposals under movement. I have some ideas that I'll give later. Complete automation of air units seems dangerous to me, though.

Unit cost: should cost money, minerals, and/or food, and at varying levels depending on the type of unit(Masters of Magic had a good system for this).

Nukes: Needs LOTS o' work, but please, NOT as powerful as planet busters (at least not until after 2000 a.d.!).

Long-range: Not until missiles are available should this be allowed. Consider the vast distances we're talking about, catapults can't fling rocks that far!

Training grounds: Again, Masters of Magic only allowed certain units to be built once the pre-requisite city structure was built.

All the other ideas I either like or don't have too many qualms with, except I'd like to say that the SMAC-style workshop should not be allowed to upgrade certain units from one to another. What comes to mind is wooden to metal hulls for ships. Maybe 'wooden ships' would be a type of chassis and 'metal' another? Also that the different 'chassis' have maximums that they can reach, or minimums they can be given. So if a 1 attack is considered "stone weapons" your battleships cannot be given attack level 1 weapons, while wooden hulls cannot be given attck 16 "24-inch guns".

Ecce homo,
Never could stand zeps in civ2. Their bombardment capability was limited, their transport not enough to carry anything besides a diplomat. I can only see "scouting" as an available option, but in civ2 they also had unrealistic ZOC powers. Those would have to go too. Finally, their lifespan in the game would be so short why build them at all?

Asmodeous,
The named units...I once proposed allowing you to name your 'elite' units(harder to come by than in SMAC I was thinking) and, of course, the elite unit would have a little extra power(not movement, I was thinking maybe +50% hit points). Then when you see a legion on the horizon, click on it, and you get a "Bane of Lions" instead of "green" or "veteran", you KNOW you're in trouble...

posted May 21, 1999 11:40                

please keep posting the synopses of previous threads in newer versions (maybe people might read the caveat that they are just your summaries of other people's ideas, maybe not).

and i guess this may go to the graphics thread, but my view is that the units don't have to be rotationally animated like they are in smac (because it doesn't make that big a deal). i'd rather they were easily replaceable so that modpacks can make new unit designs (unlike smac's proprietary unit graphics which can't be changed by joe shmoe using photoshop). animated gif's if necessary. whatever. plus since civ3 shouldn't have the units workshop, you won't have the modular weapons/armor must fit on all chassis problem that smac had.

posted May 21, 1999 11:47             

Thx, willko.

PS: People, just a request, would you tell me to either just put the big topics on here or to put all of them? It seems there is a problem either way, but if more people like one way, then I'll do it that way. Thanks in advance.

posted May 21, 1999 12:08                

in smac the tech tree and unit modularization into chassis, weapons, armor, and doodads made the units workshop essential (heck i started turning off the default unit prototypes after my third game when the stupid computer kept upgrading after every single tech gain).
but i think this is also a question of how firaxis is going to implement the graphical look of the units. if they go with the 3d-ish rotating units of smac, then the workshop as a modular replacement of weapons and armor types wouldn't jibe well with modifications attempted by the internet community (just like smac). the technology they used to animate the units in smac was proprietary and hence nonreplaceable in mods. civ3 should be totally modifiable as an end product as far as unit graphics are concerned. other than this sticking point i agree that it would be very useful to be able to upgrade a phalanx i built way back when into an archer or even cavalryman at a later date.

as far as topic glossing: i think you should include a short synopsis of all the ideas as long as that is feasible. if this topic gets too heavy, which is very well possible at the rate we are going, then you should hit the "main" points that most people seem to chime in on and stuff that's different and potentially interesting to brian. if an idea is repeatedly shot down, than maybe it should be put up as a topic of debate before being "eliminated" from the summary list, but i think most ideas put on these forums should find themselves on a summary list going to firaxis. it's only fair.

but thanks for volunteering to do this, i know i wouldn't like to cull all this stuff together on a regular basis. big thumbs up.

posted May 21, 1999 12:10             

I think it might be an idea, if you already haven't done it, to create a Units summary thread where all of the good ideas will be filtered to rather than post it at the beginning of each units thread.

posted May 21, 1999 12:32                

The introduction of several new technologies and units will go to great lenghts of slowing this down.

The Unit Workshop as implemented in SMAC I don't believe will work for Civ III. The scope of time is simply to large to effectively cover ancient to post-modern units.

However, I like the ability to add special abilities to standard units. I.e. Add Nerve Gas to a Machine Gunner. +50% attack

posted May 21, 1999 12:38             

I think I'll give Vader's idea a try, it would make it easier for me and for people who are trying to see what we've talked about so far.

posted May 21, 1999 13:20                

This way, we can design custom units within parameters set by the game (Firaxis doesn't have to go apesh*t building in 16 billion different units), AND we can design new/mod units to our hearts' content.

posted May 21, 1999 15:18             

That's true. I definatly want a workshop. If not that, the ability to combine units. I also want to be able to upgrade units with a new tech, like in SMAC.

And, like Mo said, different chasies(sp?) should have different weapons.

posted May 21, 1999 16:17                

Soldier, Mounted Soldier, Wooden Hull, Iron Hull, Submarine Chassis, Tank Chassis, Prop Plane Chassis, Jet Plane Chassis... and then what about helicopters or mobile SAMs? Would destroyers and battleships have the same chassis? What about triremes and caravels?

posted May 21, 1999 16:50                

How to set it up:
Type (Type of unit. soft unit, hard unit)
Soft Land Attack
Hard Land Attack
Soft Sea Attack
Hard Sea Attack
Soft Air Attack
Hard Air Attack

same for defence. Thing is, I would also like the units to be listed in a programming kind of way, much like the events language.

Simple... A tank would be something like this:

Unit69 {
name="Early Tank";
type="soft";

hard_land_attack="5"
soft_land_attack="7"

hard_land_defence="4"
soft_land_defence="6"

etc etc etc. It would be more programming, but also give the units more characteristics.

posted May 21, 1999 18:18                

Been thinking a lot about Upgradable Units for Civ ever since I started playing Civ II and especially ever since SMAC...
Most historical 'units' are a result of a combination of developments, not all of them technological. If all was related to tech, then the Hittites would have had Legions when they developed iron working (forced draft forging) in 1000 BC - didn't happen, 'cause it took developments in tactics, formations, and even sociology to result in the Legion - an organization, not a weapon type.
In 4000 BC, you have 2 basic weapons/units available: the spear, either thrust or thrown, and the simple or self bow. Thus, in Civ terms you get a bowman (leather brown in hue, carrying bow) or a spearman (leather again, spear underarm, no shield)
Develop Bronze Working:
You can upgrade three ways:
1. (Slashing Swords) can now be forged: turn your spearman into a Swordsman, which is a minor increase in attack value
2. (Shields) can now be hammered out (literally!) - increases defense of any unit BUT bowman can't use them and shoot
3. (Bronze Armor) which is more expensive than shields, but can be hung on anyone - more defensive increase.
NOTE: If we adopt Ranged Weapons (one of the good ideas from CtP) then Shields increase defense against Ranged Fire, not against hand-to-hand - that isn't entirely historical, but usable in Game Terms
Now, if you also have a cultural development: Armed Citizenry (as opposed to a Warrior Class) you can form Phalanxes out of the spearmen. These Require Shields, but not body armor (the late Greek, early Macedonian phalanx did not, in fact, use it). Phalanx gets attack and defense bonuses over simple spearman BUT it can't operate in rough country, gets severely penalized in woods, forests, swamps, etc - anything but open ground like plains or grasslands.

posted May 21, 1999 18:50             

You've made my list of 3(I think) posts to be officially copied and E-Mailed to BR with the MASTER LIST. Congratulations!

PS: Unless, of course, someone can come up with a really good argument against you, but that's unlikely to happen.

posted May 21, 1999 21:10             

Infantry
Horseback
Trireme
Frigate
Ironclad
Cruiser/Battleship/Destroyer/AEGIS(haven't come up with a name)
Vehicle
Fighter
Bomber
Copter

With the appropriate tech, the chasis could be advanced, for example, with Navigation, you would get the Frigate tech, but it would only have the strengths of the Civ2 Caravel. Then, with Magnetism, the movement points are advanced, with Metallurgy, the A/D/F/HP are increased, and so is the transport size(can build bigger ships). Also, the "limit" for A/D/F/HP/M points for sea units could be be set higher. Let's say it advances with Navigation, Magnetism, Metallurgy, Steam Engine, Electricity, Automobile, Steel, and Rocketry. There could also be certain special abilities that take a way a number of points and certain areas. The carrier deck could take away 5 pounts and attack, transport ability could take away 3 points and attack, the 2x air defense could take away 7 points.

posted May 21, 1999 22:04             

Give certain units better abilities against certain others in a "flexible", tabular format: For example assign an "motorized vehicule" flag to units A, B, C and D, then assign a "double attack against motorized vehicule" flag to unit E (Call it an anti-tank weapon)(This idea stems from my experience with a lot of scenario work where the inflexibility of the CivII "rules" becomes noticeable)

Same idea for air defense, air attack, cavalry defense etc...

The same should be the case for the ability to travel on each type of terrain...For example tanks, cavalry, trucks should not be able to go through jungle/swamp terrain (Except if road/railroad). Mountains should be real barriers to most units except units with mountaineering ability. Some units should be able to travel both land and sea. Glacier squares should require special type of units too. Some units should be confined to road/railroad squares (Freight trains, freight, trucks).

In the same way there should be some modular way to turn off attack capability between two units such as the land/sea units no being able to attack air units and submarines
not being able to attack land units... For example air units attacking minefields?

posted May 21, 1999 22:18                

Even ancient units can use this... you choose "Mount" as a chassis then for size you big "Large": poof, you got an Elephant (can't forget elephants).

Also Locomotion should be diffrent than the chassis. Land+small+wheel you get a jeep, Land+large+track you get a tank.

posted May 22, 1999 12:10                

I agree that SMAC units were lacking and were very cheesy, that's why I would like to see that the choices of Chassis, (size) and Locomotion give DIFFERENT base graphics, not simply add parts. When it comes to Armour, power plant, weapons and some special abilities, then you could "add" parts to the basic unit graphics.

Example:

Light Land + Wheel = Cycle (they were used in WWII
Medium Land + Wheel = Jeep
Heavy Land + Wheel = Truck
Medium Land + Track = Medium Tank
Heavy Land + Walker = AT-AT style mecha
Light Sea + Propeller = Speedboat
Heavy Submersabile + Aquajet = Stealth Sub
Heavy Air + Wing = Bomber (power plant decide prop/jet)
Light Air + Rotary = Light Chopper

This way you can have custom units without the blandness of SMAC units

P.S. Ancient Units

posted May 22, 1999 10:35                

Phalanxes + horses= Useless, if you havn´t developed the tactics to use them (and i don´t really think they can be combined either)

Tanks were initially just artellery support until the germans brilliantly shocked the world with the blitzkrieg, a all panzer thrust with supporting infantery.

posted May 22, 1999 14:07                

On radiers: Call 'em radiers instead of guirellas, and the most important thing is that they don't lose a turn when they pillage. Lawrence of Arabia did not sit around after he blew up the Turkish rail tracks, he made tracks into the desert. So stats of 4-1-2 (ignores ZOC, treats all squares as road, loses 1/3 movement point for pillaging instead of turn) would be perfect.

Btw, biplanes won't be dropping any paratroopers, they're too weak. Best just to keep the actual dropping planes of the paratroopers invisible, IMHO.

And oh yes, especially heroic units who've reached the "elite" skill level should get special names, like the Railroad Tycoon I speed record trains (I'm taking a ride on the SnowFire Bullet). Not all of them, but say every fourth unit that reachs elite.

posted May 23, 1999 07:01                

No defence/attack capability, speedy move-rate. Destroying an enemy R.C-unit gives atrocity-penalties in your relation to all other Civ´s.

Special ability: Can restore the health-bar in one wounded unit from red to full green (and by doing so; give that one unit a new second move/attack-ability WITHIN the old turn) before returning to nearest city for “refuelling”.

posted May 23, 1999 14:54                

I more or less agree with the discussion RE: aincient and modern units, but we must keep in mind that gunpowder as a unit weapon was *not* adopted for it's ability to pierce armor.

A soft lead ball fired from a musket often did not pierce the flesh, much less armor.
Furthermore, bows and crossbows were/could be much more accurate than the first gunpowder weapons: Firearms did not supercede arrow weapons in accuracy until the development of rifling.

It was the crosssbow and, I believe, the compound bow, coupled with steel tipped arrows, that did in Mideval style armor.

(cannons, did, of course, limit the effectiveness of _city_ armor, but that's another topic)

The foremost reason for the adoption of gunpowder was that the training required to use firearms was much less than that of arrows. It could take years to get someone to the point where they could use arrows effectively, consistently, and quickly- 3 months of training, and you've got your rookie stuffing, locking, pointing and shooting.

Therefore you could field much larger armies faster as long as you could produce firearms fast enough.

posted May 24, 1999 09:14                

Train-artillery: Awailable well before tanks, since prereq is only steamengine, and can carry much larger weapons. Was widely used in WW1, before tanks became effecient enough.

Jeeps and trucks: Modern infantry is moterized to keep up with the tanks, its really stupid having to wait for to your infantry to catch up in SMAC/CIV2/CTP.

If a unit design screen should be implemented, it should definitly not look anything like the one in SMAC. One: because the units of history vary much more than those in SMAC, and two: because it wasnt even good to design SMAC-units with.
A better solution would be, first to have a screen were you choose the base-unit/chassis, and then a screen were you only have to deal with details relevent to that base-unit/chassis.(e.g. no 2 feet steel armor for infantry, no leather armor for tanks and NO swords for jet-fighters.)
You would neither have to worry so much with having to many diffent base-unit/chassis, since you would have an entire screen to order them nicely and intuitively in.

posted May 24, 1999 10:54                

Refugees If a city is caputed by the enemy i think that if a Refugee unit is to be used in the game, it wouldn't be under player control.

The refugee would move a couple of tiles and then set up a refugee camp. This camp would work as a city in the sence that it would take up space and use the tile that it's situated on thus stopping any civ to use that tile for production (if two refugees in the same tile then they would use two) and just be generally irritating.

After a couple of turns the refugees would give up its chances to move back to their home city (these refugees wouldn't be allowed by the new ruler for some reason) and would then start to move towards friendly teritorry. If the home city is liberated then the refugees would return.

When attacking a refugee you would be able to chose to kill 'em (bad for your rep.) or force them to move.

Partisan

I would like to see any partisan unit (if used) to have some special abilities.

* Some spy abilities, that is, terrorattacks or to start uprisings.

* Double terrainbonus when defending

* The ablity to, when attacked, to chose to move away and thus avoiding combat

posted May 24, 1999 11:15                

So far all of your discussions have been great for an out of the box game, but run into some difficulty when I attempt to create a scenario.

IMO that is one advantage that the standard units have of the chassis/weopon model.