posted June 17, 1999 04:52         

Land
-Mobile Rocket Launcher
-Troop Transport (would have defense of 2)
More organized transport of troops
-Rangers (Marines. paratroopers, and mech. infranty are only troops in Civ. There needs to be something in the middle that isn't priarily amphibious. )
-Trench troops (Would have to dig trench first, etc. Attack/defense woudl be high then only...kind of like fortifying.)

Air
-Modern non-stealth fighter. (In Civ2, you have the old propeller fighter and then jump to stealth. There needs to be something in the middle, and it would be available alongside Stealth planes-as in it wouldn't expire).
-Modern non-stealth bomber. Same concept.
-Tank-killers. (good against ground units, horrid against air units)
-Air transport units. (C-17)
-Spy planes of various types. (has been mentioned alot in discussion)
-Have 2 or 3 types of helicopters, like the Osprey (actually make it effective) and the Apache, etc. Having just one isn't really reality.
-Air Force One. Complicated, but would be used to transport your leader to another nation's capital and would have a low defense by itself--you could opt for fighter escorts to increase it--and would cause major reputation problems if you attacked it.) 1 Marine unit could board it, along with the President.

Sea
Basicallly, need more "modernization" and choices among each type of unit. For example:
-Submarines
U-Boat (earliest, expires with reg. submarine)
Submarine (newer, never expires)
Seawolf..can change name (newest, never expires, higher attack/defense than reg. subs.)
-Carriers
Old and new, increasing carrying capacity
-Battleships
Old and new concept.

Rockets
-Stragetic Nukes.
-Land to air missiles (battlefield use only, ONLY offensive ONLY planes).
-Patriot missiles (battlefield and carrier use only, must fortify to activate, ONLY defensive against ONLY missiles for 5 x 5 area around it)
-Land to land missiles (kind of like a SCUD) that would be launched via trucks--the graphic would indicate that. You would fire it by hitting a key, with a range of 10, and then it would have to "reload" somehow)

Other
President-With a new concept of a global summit (explained), you would need to send your president/leader. In a city, with increased protection in the capital, the defense is HIGH, on the road, its lower, and on air force one, its little, but would have high reputation consequences if attacked. Could board Air Force One only.

Unit Concepts
Naming/organizing. Kind of like "Carrier group JFK). This would help in tracking troops around the globe. Complicated but doable.

Thats about it...long but hopefully helpful.

posted June 17, 1999 05:18         

- Strategic bombers: destroy or disable city improvements. Slows down or even stops production if used in massive numbers.

- ICBM nukes. These would be very expensive to build but can reach any map location without range limitations. Has a chance to counterattack automatically if enemy attempts nuclear first strike. Target cities can be preset by player.

posted June 17, 1999 14:39            

Sense Range - Sense Range becomes a stat, like weapon, armor, hit points and chassis. This would be how many tiles away does a unit have the ability to see. When the modern techs get reached, you gain the ability to add an enhancer, granting extended range. For instance, with the advent of optics (telescopes), you can now design units that have +1 sighting range. With the advent Radar, you can add a short range radar to a unit design, and gain a +2. Yadda yadda yadda. Certain chassis gain an automatic sense range bonus due to the element they operate in. Surface ships gain +1, as do Air chassis. High Altitude optioned air chassises would gain another +1 sense range, on top of their normal +1 due to being an Air Chassis. (High altitude air units would cost more to build, but only be vulnerable to High Altitude Air Response units (SAM Missiles, High Altitude Interceptors, yadda yadda yadda).

I'd also like to see a combat system used where defense knocked off damage inflicted, and all units used their Weapon rating to inflict damage. This would mean that when your heavy "Arthurian Knight" model tanks of Weapon 12 Armor 8 Move 2 Early Heavy Tracked Chassis go into the 3rd World countries and fight "Phalanx" model Weapon 2 Armor 2 Move 1 Bronze Age Infantry chassis, the tanks couldn't be HARMED. I mean, lets be honest...

I think any unit in Civ or Civ 2 can be fairly well modeled in the SMAC unit design system. I would just like that system extended with certain enhancements to allow an even greater variety of possible historical fiction/fantasy lines.

And it would be nice to limit being able to build units based on certain chassises to cities that had the prerequisite infrastructure. For instance... to build Horse chassis units (Horse Cavalry, Horse transported Infantry, Knights, Chariots) requires a stables. (Of course, wonders/secret projects could allow for counting as an automatic building type throughout all bases of your nation... i.e. Stygian Stables could act as a stable in all your cities).

posted June 17, 1999 15:16            

I still want the concept of mercenaries. You could lease your troops to another nation for X years, then they would be returned. You could also lease them to barbarians as "Pirates", but you would dictate where they would be placed. Pirate units would take longer to be returned.

Any unit sent as a mercenary receives a veteran upgrade. There also need to be a few more types of experience:

Conscript -- Rush Bought
Green -- Produced normally
Experienced -- Some Combat
Veteran -- Hardened War Vet
Elite -- Crack Division

Customization would be nice, but only if it could be modified easily for scenario purposes. Also if it prevented silly mixes. Like a Knight with a nuke.

posted June 17, 1999 19:09            

You mean, like the helicopter?;-)

What would be the purpose of a modern fighter?? How would it fix a flaw in the game??

posted June 18, 1999 01:56         

On tank killers, helicopters are only part of tank-killing warfare. Attack planes are also good for it. Just an added weapon, thats all. Adding different types of helicopters I think just makes strategy that much more important.

posted June 18, 1999 15:05            

I believe this could be a better way to make an airbase system.

posted June 19, 1999 12:38            

So, why would you want to make them less effective? Do you play deity? Cuz if you do, then you know that the AI gets fighters pretty damn quick. Your window of using bombers without the AI having fighters is real small. And then throw in that it takes forever to move them to the front...sorry, the air system would have to be overhauled pretty seriously before I would begin to consider your idea a good one.

BTW, bombers almost never lose to ground units, it's the fighters that get them. So, your enhancement of the bomber is pretty weak.

posted June 19, 1999 01:51            

Secondly, the air combat system of CtP is greatly improved from Civ 2, bombers dont always have to fear being caught out in the open, but they do have to fear being shot down before they even reach the target, "due to active air defense." In Civ 2 i never produced bombers, b/c they would just get shot down after one attack anyway, and cruise missiles were stronger and cheaper. Bombers have greater importance in CtP's system, and i hope that the Civ 3 system is modeled after it.

posted June 21, 1999 06:31            

Recruiting (similar to Colonization) would be more realistic.

Sorry, I cant look through all the threads now, I dont have much time right now.

posted June 21, 1999 19:16            

------------------
"War does not determine who is right,It determines who is left."
-Crusher-

posted June 21, 1999 21:02            

The size and composition of your army could also be used to determine other things that some people have suggested such as it's supply needs and perhaps its name. For example a unit of 500 footmen and 500 Men-at-arms built in Plymouth could be called by the computer the Duke of Plymouths House Guard (if he had a very large house) whereas a group of 200 heavy cavalry and 300 light horse built in the capital might be known as the Royal Cavaliers.

I like these ideas but they have lots of room for improvement if people start making suggestions.

Hope this isn't lost on the winds of time.
Mikel

posted June 22, 1999 10:10            

1. A battle group would consist of at least one unit of each type--artillery, fast, infantry. So, from catapult, horsemen, and phalanx, to howie, tanks, MIs. If you have all three elements in the same tile, they create a synergy that strengthens them. Less synergy with 2 types. Also, you might be able to choose from a small number of formations (3?), that emphasize counterattack, hold, or a combination, when attacked, or crush (limits retreat-ability of opponent) hold (emphasizes taking the tile), or a combination, when attacking. And, you can't create a battle group until you get a certain tech, perhaps chivalry, or leadership. If you win the battle and clear the square, you would have the option of moving your units in. Further, this battle could be fought on a screen (option), for you to watch. That would be waaaaay cool.

A battle group would function like a fortress in that you'd only lost one unit at a time. And, as each unit is killed off, each side has the option of retreating. Let's say you have one pikeman, one catapult, and one knight. When attacking, you could choose between 3 formations--knights forward (this would increase your chances of eliminating the opposition, since the knights would be in good position to cut off the retreat, but also increase your chances of being eliminated, since the knights would be less able to support the main battle), knights flank (combination) or knights reserve (opposite effects of knights forward.)

2. Give the option of regular phalanx, or heavy phalanx (twice the cost, twice the power.) Ok, that idea isn't too great, since you could just as easily build two. But along those lines. Perhaps heavy phalanx costs 30 shields, and has 1a/3d. You'd build this in your outpost cities. And, later in the game, you'd have the option of light, regular, or heavy musketeers. 20, 30, and 40 shields, with proportional a/d. Thinking more about this, the heavy, regular and light should be something only available with gunpowder.

Sometimes, you just want the square, like when it's a city. So, you'd choose knights reserve. Sometimes, the key is killing the enemy soldiers, so you'd choose knights forward. But then, you'd have to take terrain into account, and whether or not you have another battle group nearby, and can afford to take a chance.

One advantage of the battle group concept is that it opens up a strategic option. Now, offensive war is blitzkrieg--build lots of vet. elephants/knights/cavalry, accept losses. With the battle group, you would move more slowly, but more surely, winning more often. It would be ideal for taking that one pesky city, or for basic disruption of an enemy civ, or to take a city and force peace when you're not ready to fight.

Putting these two together, the stronger your infantry unit, the more likely that you'll choose knights forward, since the infantry can probably take it. This would make fighting battles less simple. Fighting battles would be more subtle, but the war part of Civ3 wouldn't be more important, relative to the other aspects of Civ.

posted June 22, 1999 19:47         

. Started the game for you (but still have settlers)

. had a defense factor higher than zero (reflects bodyguard)

. Could establish cities (like but not replacing settlers - reflecting the court/nobles and retinue)

. Carried the "crown jewels" (which could be built up over time and captured by other nations - replaces the palace/throne room interface).

. Acted as the capital (like Louis XIV, where the leader is, that is the capital - "palaces" become regional government centres unless the leader is there).

. can directly control some units (i.e. when accompanying them or within capital city radius - so even if your last city is destroyed, all is not lost!)

. Give a combat modifier to controlled units, i.e. when travelling with them or within the city radius of the capital (improve factors).

. had to be killed/captured to destroy a civilisation (but can be reborn/built after a period of civil war/anarchy if killed while your empire still has cities).

. If travelling, can buy cities of other civs like diplomats.

. Has other diplomat/spy qualities (incentive to sometimes put the emperor in the frontline, leading his/her troops).

. Moves at a rate of three across all terrain (easier to flee enemy units).

Why do I want this? Because I think would be fun to flee on the last ship from your last city as it was being destroyed and set up shop elsewhere. Equally make it much easier to establish elsewhere if the computer put you on a poor part of the map at the start of the game. Also would like to hunt down the leaders of other civs and capture their treasures. Assasination of a moving leader also becomes a real possibility. Emporer flees and use treasures to buy some cities from another civ is another. Civil war would generate two leaders and one would have to kill the other to win etc. etc.

Also would like to have generals which modify combat/command armies/navies (but they should be expensive and limited). With regionalisation, every province could have a governor and a general for example.

posted June 24, 1999 12:21            

1) Combat in CIV/SMAC/CtP is on a strategic scale; although tactics are a part of the combat, you don't make those decisions (thankfully). Combat consists of charges, feints, counterattacks, etc., so the idea of attacker & defender on this grand scale is lessened unless the defender is in a fortification of some sort (which can be taken into account).

2)This is regarding SMAC unit construction mostly, but it appears it will be used in civ3. In SMAC combat is resolved by comparing the weapon strength(attacker) vs. the defender's armor. This is ridiculous; the defender's weaponry and the attacker's defenses aren't taken into account but I think anyone would agree that they should.

3)It would work very well with a modified workshop. The player could buy each attack level for each category when the appropriate technology is gained. FE,
Fighter(WWII era): land=low, air=high, sea=low, space=none
Dive bomber: land=medium, air=low/medium, sea=medium/high, space=none
Torpedo bomber: land=low, air=very low, sea=high, space=none
phalanx: land=low/medium, all others=none
musketeers: land=low/medium, all others=none
marines(20th cent): land=medium/high, air=low, sea=none, space=none
Each category would also be divided by their hit points, and the strengths of each would overlap. FE, Ancient units (1 hp) can have a a strength from 1-5 land(approximately). Gunpowder units (hp 2)would have STR's from about 4-7, modern(hp 3) 7-12, etc. The weapons, etc. for the graphics would change when the hp level is selected in the workshop (where the reactor is now).

posted June 24, 1999 11:08            

Really, what is the difference between a phalanx, a legion, a musketeer and mechanized infantry? Basically just equipment and training. The actual soldiers are the same. Same deal with the mounted units. Even with ships, all you are really doing is replacing the ship, not the crew.

What should happen is that when my unit becomes obsolete, I should have to bring the unit back to a city (maybe with a barracks or the appropriate improvement) and refit it. The refit costs LESS than the full cost of the new unit since I don't have to recruit anyone. The unit either keeps its veteran status or is slightly reduced (the troops may be a bit clumsy the first time with their new weapons but they remain well trained soldiers when it comes to keeping their cool).

posted June 25, 1999 18:05            

CIV3 should have C2 elements because it is to unrealistic and it kind of makes games unbalanced or not practical when you can send Legions around the world and you still can control them (not to mention the supply issue). Leader units should be used for: a morale/leadership bonus/ command and control/ and for stacking (maybe a battle AI). But there needs to by C2 element like how you send your orders which may seem tedious but anyone familiar with military history knows that the means of commo determined a lot of battles and campaigns. This would make it prctical because the same reason the US today can have a global presence and the romans couldn't had to do with C2 (not to mention how the mongols built a world empire but it crumbled because over overstretch, it was to big to C2).

Some units would be towers (Persians and Romans commo'd by fire signals, but it took days to send messages), horse carriers, then later to telegraph, phone, radio, satellites.

posted June 29, 1999 22:09            

Equipment for the Host is provided by the troops in Systems 1 and 3, must be provided by the State in System 2, and must be provided and stored for the reserves in System 4.

Navies always require more training than armies, but the common system from ancient times to the present day is to have some or even most of the warships ‘laid up’ in peacetime (ancient Athens had Ship Sheds for the triremes in storage). This usually requires a training time when the crews are called up again, which will vary depending on what % can be provided from the Active Navy and what % of the population makes their living on the sea: England had a big advantage for most of the 17th and 18th centuries because she could support a large navy from a large seafaring population: recruiting experienced sailors wasn’t always easy, but it was possible and it’s much easier to train landlubber as naval gunners than to train them as sail handlers.
Therefore, almost all navies will fall into the same patterns as the armies: usually nos 2 or 3.
With the same requirements for specialized training, air forces can be treated like navies: the state provides all the equipment, but the men can be called up or full time: patterns 2 or 3.

posted July 02, 1999 15:08            

Something's always bothered me about the Civilization unit concept. Military units should not be built in factories. Military units are people!

When you wish to build an army for your civilization, you should require people, and you should require weapons and other gear. The people should come from your population (perhaps not a whole "population point" -- that's another strange concept as it stands). The weapons and other materials should be manufactured the way units are currently done. Then in order to actually build an army (what we call a "unit" in the current gaming system), you would have to put the people and the equipment together in a city which has a military training base (similar to a Barracks in Civ1/Civ2 but not identical). The training would require some time -- and the more time you invest in the training, the stronger your army would become.

This is VERY vaguely similar to a concept from Colonization in which your "people" are actually individualized, with different educations (including soldiers), and require guns and/or horses to become fully equipped military units. However, I thought it rather silly that when your mounted units lose a fight, they simply lose their horses and can either fight as a ground unit or go get new horses. *That* idea is right out -- but the
education/training thing is something I liked.

When you take people away from their farms and businesses and put them in the armed forces, you make a trade-off which affects your civilization's prosperity beyond just raw production. I think this is an important consideration which is missing from current Civ games.

posted July 02, 1999 16:24            

This sounds exactly like Lords of the Realm II. Basically, you chose what weapons to produce, depepnding on what resources you have, and then you can build an army using those weapons and people from the populous.
It was good for that game because it did not require too much micromanagement in the strategy portion of the game. You could afford to micromanage your military. I do not like the idea of incorporating this into Civ3 however. Civ is a strategy game, not a military simulation. Micromanaging my cities is fine. Micromanaging my Civ is fine. Please, please don't make me micromanage my military down to the unit and equipment. As the ruler of my empire, I simply say "Make me some tanks" and it get's done. I don't say "Make some tank bodies, 2 treads, a bunch of wheels, a turret, a 105mm gun, a small arms gun, find some men, train them, etc, etc."

"Shields" are supposed to incorporate all the resources. Timber, steel, coal, etc. If Civ3 comes out and we have to divide shield production into different resources, then refine that resource into a semi-finished good, then ship it to a factory where it combines with other goods just to make a gun that is then shipped to yet another factory to finally build the tank, I'll go nuts. If I wanted that, I'd play Industry Giant, or something like that.

Civ is a strategy game, not a manufacturing simulation. Like I said before, when I want a tank, I simply say "Make me a tank". Period. It is assumed that that order goes down the pipeline to the appropriate underlings who do what it takes to make it happen. I am god. What I say goes. I do not want to be an underling. I'm already one of those in real life.

Your other idea is workable and realistic in my opinion. But to do it we have to define how many people are represented in a Population and how many troops are represented by a unit. I believe a Pop is 10,000 people. If a unit represents 10,000 soldiers (or pieces of equipment with soldiers), then it stands to reason that a Pop would be subtracted for every unit you create. This would cause many problems. Pop would decrease way too fast in times of war. So if we adjust a military unit down to 1,000 people, then we run into fractional Pops. Do you want this? I don't think I do, but that is what these threads are for, right?

------------------
"BEEFCAKE, BEEFCAKE!!!

posted July 03, 1999 13:06            

Upgrading units is fine, so long as it's kept sensible. For example, IMHO it's ridiculous to be able to upgrade a unit to better armour, on the discovery of Iron working for example, while it's out in the field. Where did it get the iron armour from? I say that a unit needs to be in a city (or as someone else suggested, a city with a barracks) for at least 1 turn.

posted July 05, 1999 09:49            

There is a single chassis type for air.

"Special options" are used for variation.

Air units with a range of 1 are bombers (in this case, range is a function of the domain
of the unit). Any air unit with a range higher than 1 has fighter capability.

"Biplanes", "Advanced Planes", "Jets" are all special options. Older options cannot attack
newer ones, but may be attacked by them.

"brigade" is an option (that I'd like) for all chassis, which greatly lowers the cost & hit
points of a unit. Should all air units be required to have this?

Regular bombers, fighters are the default. "Heavy Bomber" is a special option, which has
certain bonuses, penalties, and missions:

1)Bombard-Air unit selects a single unit to bombard. Heavy bombers damage all units in
square, regardless of country or city/fort(city/fort units take less damage). May reduce
city pop.(% chance) w/ or w/o walls. Concealed units may not be attacked. "Biplanes"
have only this mission and support-intercept.

2)Scorched earth: In city, attempts to damage buildings &/or severely reduce
population. May attempt to target specific structures at a greater risk of failure. In
country, pillages terrain. Heavy bombers do considerably more damage (regular bombers
would do minimal damage). Laser-targeting, possibly other adv. tech (satellite
mapping?) will increase chances of success.

3)Interdict-Heavy bombers only. Affects a single square; any unit(friend or foe) in or
attempting to pass through square is attacked by the bomber & costs triple move to
enter & leave.

4)Air support-Intercept: All air units have a radius of operation=1/2 total move of unit
in civ2/SMAC (for example). Players can send air units to support stacked ground
combat in this radius; the air unit acts as artillery in the combat (ships could also do
this if within bombardment range, btw). The air attacks with bombard, and may attack
any enemy unit on the battlefield (certain other units may intercept you, either in air or
on ground). Fighters/bombers attack a unit. Heavy bombers attack all enemy units in
combat or all units in reserve (enemy units in square but not in combat). Concealed
units may not be attacked.
Intercept is a command given to an air unit. It performs the same as above outside
that civs turn, like a sentry command. It would be necessary to allow the human player
to choose whether or not they wished to intercept, FE if they expected it would be
better to use it later. Fighters generally intercept bombers in this fashion, but may lend
"support" vs. an "intercepting" bomber.

5)Tactical nuke; bio/chem warfare: Missions for jets only, that cause diplomatic
atrocities. Their effects I'll leave to others.

Air units return to a base on same turn as completing mission. Because of this, bombard
missions may only be intercepted in your turn but since interdiction is an ongoing
mission, it may be attacked (by sending a fighter to the interdicted square) in other
players' turns.

posted July 05, 1999 18:27            

Leaders could still be used, like there is a 1% chance every turn that a unique (very good) leader emerges, and he stays like 20-40 years /whatever that means in turns for the moment. He will double the effectivness of the HQ or grant other benefits.

Maybe one should limit the amount of leaders a civ could gain in a game to like 10 in total, so you don´t have to find that much names and stuff