|
Author
|
|
Topic: your unit choices |  |
|
New Yorker
Chieftain
New York, New York
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted February 03, 2001 21:01
  | 
 |
 |  |
since, i heard that the unit workshop wasn't going into civ3, i been wondering than what units should be included?i would like to see the assyrian marines(don't know the exact name) -----------------------------
If beer & human urine are good for plants, then should the New York subway look like the Botanic Gardens |
technophile
King
of pain
Jul 1999
|
 |
posted February 03, 2001 23:17
   |
|
| |
The way I see it, there should be at least three or four variations on the basic units from Civ II (I don't know how high or deep the tech tree goes in Civ III so I'll assume that the units from Civ II are the basic unit models for Civ III). For example, with tanks you might have your WWI model tank, your WWII model tank, your modern tank, and your advanced AA tank with one or two SAMS loaded on. For knights you might have your Frankish knights (chain mail and swords), your Crusaders (half-plate mail and lances), your Hundred-Years War knights (full plate mail) and your Napoleanic knights (ultra-thick armor intended to stop a musket ball). If the tech tree is significantly deepened then each of the advancements listed above might come with a tech advance; otherwise, the different units would become available at the same time (Feudalism, for example) and would have differences in cost, upkeep, ATT/DEF, hit points, firepower, etc.However, one of the significant problems I see is that if the tech tree is not deepened then nobody is going to want to buy the Crusaders or Hundred-Years War knights; they're either going to buy Frankish knights if they need some decent cannon-fodder or they're going to buy the the Napoleanic knights and whupp up on their opponents. The differences in units should be significant or else I see no point in allowing for variations on a unit. In modern times the variations will become more significant; for example, you might have the option of either buying an AEGIS Cruiser or a BattleCruiser. The AEGIS Cruiser would deal double damage to aircraft, the BattleCruiser would have more firepower (and would therefore be better in damaging shore emplacements or other ships). However, in ancient or medieval times the variation in units was caused by regional differences and not intentionally created for specialization. It would be nice to mix out horse-archers and heavy lancers in an army, but no culture ever had both horse-archers and heavy lancers. This could be simulated by having incomplete tech trees; at the beginning of the game you choose which tech tree you are going to follow, and any tech advances not on your tree must be bought or stolen from enemy empires. This is more of a tech tree issue than a unit choice issue. To sum up:
Specialized variations for modern units; AEGIS Cruiser and BattleCruiser or Infantry and Sappers. Incremental variations for all units; Frankish knights, Crusaders, Hundred-Years War knights, Napoleanic knights. Not feasible without a deepened tech tree. Specialized variations for ancient and medieval units that vary by tech tree and region; Horse-Archers OR Knights, not both. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
