At any rate, my original concept is like this: if you place one weapon in a slot and special equipment in another, you get a unit which can fight (somewhat) and has special abilities. An example would be combat engineers (weapon + engineering equipment). Another example would be commandoes (special forces) with weapon and commandoes package.

AIR UNITS

I think you should be able to build an airfield on the ground (or an improvment on the city, which should be required for any landings anything but choppers or harrier-like craft)with some kind of system of supply, one that is built you could move a "bomber unit" to the airbase. There you would have a fixed flying range (depending on the plane and airial refueling) you would then go into a menu and set targets for cities, and what kind of targets your bombers would attack. Depending on how many planes you'd have you could do more or less. Also you could deploy interceptors on cities or airfields that's duty would be to defend city, you could dramaticly increase the odds by building a radar improvement like Britain in WWII. You'd also be able to have air supremesy fighters to patrol for other fighters, break air defences, and enforce treaties. This would make your airforce less stressful to manage, more realistic, and more effective-without making it too realistic. Also without a garrison unit ground units could very easily overrun airfields.

Lets look at the Musketeer. In Civ2, Musketeers are primarily defensive units, because muskets are powerful, but slow to load, etc. When we look at early gunpowder battles, we see that attacking units were decimated by defending units that had even a little cover. A charging musketeer gets off only one shot, then has to reload or use his bayonet. If you reload you are basically standing there for minute or so (you can't reload a musket lying down). So...if muskets are your weapon, you'll be great on defense, not so good on offense.

BUT, if we use the SMAC weapon=attack strength, armor=defense strength model, then unarmored musketeers like civil war infantry become strictly offensive units like catapults, rather than great defenders but poor attackers.

The way around this is to consider that some weapon types influence DEF. Catapults, bazookas, artillery and other Heavy Weapons should reduce DEF. This is what happens in SMAC where Artillery is much easier to kill than regular infantry/rovers.

Other kinds of weapons should increase DEF. Phalanxes and pikemen don't have to be well armored to be great defenders, because the enemy has to get past the spearpoint before he can damage your tender skin with his sword. So, a hoplite spear would have an attack of 1, but add 1 to your defense. A pike would do the same, but also act like ECM vs mounted chassis. Or you could make some sort of close order spear drill a special ability, like ECM in SMAC.

Ranged weapons should also increase DEF, not just ATT, because you get a chance to shoot from prepared positions at the nasty enemy before he gets a chance to cut you. For consistency, let's say that all ranged infantry weapons like bows, slings, muskets, rifles, and machine guns increase DEF by a certain amount...a tiny bit for bows, some for muskets, medium for rifles, and lots for machine guns. After all, machine guns and barbed wire were what made WWI into such a bloody stalemate. In WWI there were NO offensive units that could take a well prepared defender, despite fearsome artillery and the beginnings of air support...until the tank came along.

Defense in the gunpowder era does not consist of getting shot by the other guy and shrugging it off, but in not allowing yourself to get shot in the first place. Your rifle or musket is not used so much to shoot and kill the enemy, but to force him to take cover and spoil his attack.

My main point: Entrenched unarmored riflemen MUST be defensive units, or else the game will have no relation to historical reality.

Civ2 was realistic this way, with musketeers and riflemen being good defenders. SMAC doesn't work this way...you don't notice as much because it's a science fiction game. But let's imagine this scenario. Two squads. One has hand weapons and plasma steel armor suits. The other has no armor, but impact rifles. Now...on a modern battlefield, the unarmored but heavily armed squad will be much better attackers AND defenders than the armored squad.

Often heavier armor does not neccesarily mean better defense, even on the ancient battlefield...in many ways armor makes for OFFENSIVE units. Heavily and expensively armored knights weren't used to crouch behind city walls, but to smash the enemy. A knight's armor allows him to shrug off a defender's feeble attack or the occasional unaimed arrow or rock and ride down and destroy the enemy.

Likewise, heavily armored tanks aren't used to sit back and take the enemy pounding. They are supposed to rush forward and pound the enemy despite getting pounded themselves. The armor allows the heavy tank to shrug off lightly armed attacks and concentrate on it's objective.

So...heavy armor should allow a bonus not simply to defense strength, but to ATTACK strength, perhaps by adding something akin to a morale bonus.

OK...take two squads. Equip one with swords and plate-mail armor. Equip the other with AK-47s and no armor. According to the SMAC model the first group might be 3 ATT, 3 DEF, the AK-47 group might have 7 ATT, 1 DEF...but the exact numbers don't really matter, just that DEF 1 for the soldiers. If you had the riflemen attack the knights according to this model they'd win most of the time, but if you had the knights attack the soldiers they'd win almost all the time.

But of course this is a ridiculous result. The knights should get slaughtered by the soldiers either way. The unarmored riflemen should be vastly superior on the defensive than the armored swordsmen....swordsmen charge the riflemen. Riflemen fire. Swordsmen drop dead. Battle over.

Now, there may be times when a guy with a sword ambushes a guy with a rifle and manages to stick the sword in him by surprise before the rifleman can respond. That's why we still have that random factor, where an inferior unit can still sometimes damage a superior unit. But if you had to bet, I think you'd put your money on the riflemen, right?

And when we deal with modern units vs modern units the model collapses even further. Let's say we imagine that our 7-1-1 riflemen are pitted against each other. With stats like that, victory goes to the first person who can charge the other guy and attack first. But that's not the way *I'D* go about things if I were a general in real life. In real life attacking riflemen need at least a two-to-one advantage over the defenders, more if they are dug in. That's why generals turn to things like tanks, artillery and air support, not mass infantry charges.

------------------
Theben
Co-Moderator of the Civ3 Forums

lemur: head over to Combat and check out the combat system recommendations that have been posted there. Pick one or two that you like, or make your own (and post it over there, but please--if you make your own, make it significantly different, I don't think that Firaxis can take another new combat system). Many of the new combat systems and other posts in Combat allow and sometimes require that there be new units and new unit abilities. Feel free to come on by Units again and make some suggestions (unfortunately we don't know if there will ever be another list sent to Firaxis, but don't let that stop you. Better safe than sorry). I sincerely doubt (and hope) that Civ III does not use the same combat system as Civ I or II, or SMAC. As you said, it seems far too simplistic.

By the way, welcome to Apolyton (unless, of course, you're a lurker, in which case I mean "welcome to the world of posting at Apolyton...)

------------------
"Geez, what did you hit that thing with?"

"Oh, just your standard issue Big Gun."

'Wonder'ful units. (not called that)
These would be units which are also wonders (i.e they serve a special function and can only be built once)

e.g.

It's annoying to build a Carrier, because then you have to convert production in several citys to provide for aircraft ( or take planes away from other theaters)

Also, bombers should have a much longer range, and Nuclear missles, in the likely event that there won't be different kinds, should have greater range depending on the map size.

Here is a list of units I think that should be last in line for the tech tree

Land
The pinnacle of infantry units should be the "Land Warrior" system currently being devopled by the US Army.

Navy
The Pinnacle escort naval Vessal should be the DD-21 land attack destroyer, or the ill-fated Arsenal ship.

Air Force
I think it should be the Joint-Strike Fighter for light-medium attack.
The Bomber should be a hypersonic banshee, long range, aremd to the teeth (see this month's "Popular Science")

Missiles/defense
And, of course, we should have cruise missle galore. For SDI we should have either a Theater Ballistic Missile defense based on DD-21 destroyers or Patriot-style mobile SAMs

stodlum: I like the idea of Wonder Units. It should go well with the variuos leader unit ideas that have come up. It would also add a lot to scenario building (like capturing units or building one to win etc.) And it would add more of an arms race feel than just building the manhattan project.

Speaking of nukes and the various effects I wonder if the programmers can some how link the nuke identifier (attack of 99) with fire power? i.e. an attack # of 99 would make it a nuke but a fp of 1 would only cause a 1 square area of pollution and damage (kill everything in one square and only one square of pollution) so in some scenarios you could simulate Chem or bio wpns (if they don't come up with those weapons anyway) and go from there like a fp of 5 would be a huge nuke of 5x5 area. Just an idea...

However, I'll throw in a suggestion here on this assumption: Stacking Multiple Units into Armies does NOT yield synergies - i.e., the resulting stack is not more powerful than each individual unit fighting separatly.

What I'd LOVE to see in a game, is a system that does exactly that. Each civ should have a Command Rating assigned to it. Through winning combats (and building certain buildings and wonders), your civ gains Command Rating Points. Through improving technologies, your civ LOSES CRP's (putting new techs into your units decreases their actual experience with new weapons).

With more and more CRP's you should be able to increase the number of units stacked in an army, thus increasing your overall military strength by experience and improvements in organization skills.

quote: Originally posted by emren on 09-15-2000 05:06 AM Hello there, I'm a completely new poster to these forums. Also, I've spent probably thousands of hours playing CIV 1&2.

Welcome to the forums! I hope you enjoy your stay.

quote: However, I'll throw in a suggestion here on this assumption: Stacking Multiple Units into Armies does NOT yield synergies - i.e., the resulting stack is not more powerful than each individual unit fighting separatly. What I'd LOVE to see in a game, is a system that does exactly that. Each civ should have a Command Rating assigned to it. Through winning combats (and building certain buildings and wonders), your civ gains Command Rating Points. Through improving technologies, your civ LOSES CRP's (putting new techs into your units decreases their actual experience with new weapons). With more and more CRP's you should be able to increase the number of units stacked in an army, thus increasing your overall military strength by experience and improvements in organization skills.

There have been suggestions dealing with combined stacks, from allowing small stacks where individual units fight individually, large stacks where units wth "special" abilties add to others combat ratings or nullify their weaknesses (i.e. helicopters &/or infantry in a mechanized armor division), to having the all individual units combine into one: the unit IS the stack. Command & Control has also been suggested. However,

quote: Result: A low CR allows only a limited number of different units to combine into armies, and yielding no special bonuses. A high CR allows for more complex combinations (more units) of units, creating more powerful armies. As new technology is researched, organizational skills are lost or need to be re-discovered as new weapons and new doctrines of war are invented.

My reasons for have 'normal' commanders immortal is that if they are going to be used simply for holding stacks together it makes it easier to upgrade your troops, because the commanders in my model have to be expensive and if you had to build afresh every advance. . . Of course special commanders as it has already been speculated could have shorter life spans.

How will these be implimented? I would'nt want them controlled as units, rather selectable from a menu and then having a number of units assigned to them who quickly converge and form the stack, this would make it easier to introduce 'historical' commanders, it would also be good for allowing assination attempts. . .

Of course some people said just limit stack size.

I don't think that I'd like "control turns", but a gradual loss of morale outside home territory, or when at war, might be useful. That would definitely help smaller nations, who tend not to invade their larger neighbors.

Anyway i'd like to say that i've been thinking of the Roman army. Interestingly the Roman army built most roads itself, as it did with forts, surely this sould be added in the game. If military units could build certain improvements (perhaps they could be limited against building farms/mines etc) such as roads and forts the military units could be put to greater use. This would have many advantages; it would allow for a public works style system since you're military units could build the remote enhanchments, it would allow for forts and roads to be built in order to help attack (if you'd tried this in SMAC or civ2 you're former/settler would have been killed, and you don't normally send them into war zones anyway) and it would give you're military units something to do when they're not at war.

2.Flamethrower infantry

I'd also like to add that if spy units remain (i'm sure i've seen several calls for them to be replaced with a menu. . .) that someone suggested in the 'Diplomacy' thread internet espianage be possible - perhaps it could be an option for a spy when in a friendly city to conduct this kind of activity after a certain advance - when it is conducted several 'typical' spy facilities are available such as steal tech., but obviously some would not be possible (such as destroy a facility). A new action might be to plant a computer virus imposing a trade limitation in a specificed city (take away any trade bonuses which have been given by wonders facilities etc, for a number of turns?).

With this in mind i'd like to nominate a new unit - 'the hacker'. To justify its existance normal spies would have to have a low success rate when using this kind of espianage, and hackers, while they cannot conduct 'normal' spying activites should have a higher success rate - recognising thier abilities. There must be some kind of way of stoping this becoming too powerful (you could steal all the technology very easily without risk if no limitations were added). This must be a method which is only %50 - possibly less, likely to succede when compared to 'normal' espianage conducted in the normal way. there must be a chance (%25?) that the civilisation you are 'attacking' finds out you're trying to hack thier files - there's not much they could do but it could create diplomatic amnimosity between the two nations. Alturnativly if a regulatory force is set up and a hacker identified they should be able to 'destroy' the hacker unit - representing their imprisionment.

I think the battle model of civ has to be improved. A similar model like in 'Panzergeneral' but less complex would be great. Every unit has an air, naval and ground attack value, modified by ground attributes and exp. Every unit fires at his enemy with this value no matter while attacking or defnding. Firepower is not needed anymore (but possible) the hitpoints have to be extended and balanced (hitpoints=defense). Every unit needs a battlerange defined. If a phalanx is battling against riflemen the riflemen will win because they can shoot the phalanx at distance. A battle between riflemen an a bomber will cause the same result for the bomber. The influence of ground attributes on infantry or armored vehicles like in 'alpha centauri' is a good idea too. This all has to be balanced - it's an idea only. What do you think about it?

1. unit stack

Stacked units powers are equal to the sum of powers of the stacked units. Only stacked units of the same power (same number/quality or better tec) can defeat other stacked units. I don't think that they will become too strong. It will allow strategies like ignore slow stacked units (with artillery) and attack the home city with fast units (bombers, paratroopers) instead. The stacked unit will split into pieces if no supply reaches them.

2. number of units per civ

...depends on the number of people. In wartimes 10% of the pop. is the maximum number of soldiers (with conscription only) otherwise it's 1%. The number of units depends on the number of soldiers. Maybe uses one unit more soldiers (infantry) than other units (armored divisions).

i think the civ2 unti scheme is okay...just give us some units and let us deal with what we got...

one more thing that could be incorporated:

Satellites: Spy and communication
well, comm-satellites give your troops some attack and defense advantages (+20-30%)
spy sattelites are just for up to date recon

they have to have something like limited range but in a totally different way than aircraft. This is because sattelites can be brought into an orbit, so they circle around the earth without consuming fuel. BUT they do consume fuel if you change their orders, eg have a spy sattelite hove over a target or have a comm sat moving somewhere else.
so there have to be fuel restrictions of about 8 - 12 turns.the initial deployment of sats can take place over whatever part of the orbit, just like the icbm's.
after having run out of fuel satellites still are able to work, just can't move around any more...

2.: ASAT- antisatellite
currently there are two possiblities in reality to 'kill' a sat:
1. use a killer satellite: ths is a cheap satellite with a high fuel count and some ability to 'attack' a sattelite. since this is happening in space there is a lag natrally, so initally the kill-chance should be around 25%, later on, with better comm-abilities (resarch) the percentage should rise to up to 50%, later to 75%. if a sat misses he can still maneuver and try to hit again
a killer sat should cost around the same as a normal spy sat, maybe a little more r a little less (depends on how important sats are in game) and there should be starting costs added.

2. use an ASAT missile: this launches a missile at the satellite with a 50% hit rate but selfdestructs no matter if it hits or not. The missile is cheaper than the killer sat.

more on sats:
how to get them into orbit:
one possibility is to include a launching cos in the sat's price.
the other is to make carrier craft available, that can carry one, later on more sats at once, into space...this is to be considered

what is needed to use sats:
1. launch ramp (maybe carrier craft)
2. control facility: to obtain data from your sats..

to obtain data from a spy sat on the other side of the world you need a com sat to fill the gap...ever phoned THROUGH planet earth??

In the Ancient and Renaisance ages, an assasin.
In the Modern age, a hitman-profesional, hired killer.
This would give an excuse for making the special attack cost a certain amount of gold. Hitmen are usually pricy.