Unit Abilities

[Seeker]

This thread is for describing unit abilities that would be interesting, and how they would work.

1. A TRUE submerge ability for subs and nuclear subs. If a unit fails it's 'detection chance' it should not be able to find the sub at all or know where it is, it should move onto that space as if it were empty.

2. Different types of Nuke:

Tac nuke, a missile with 98 attack can destroy all units in one stack.

A-Bomb: works like Civ 3 nuke

Hydrogen Strategic bomb: works more like SMAC planet-buster; all non-aligned nations declare permanent war + mega pollution.

3. Terrain based abilities: eg: archers +1 defence in forest, elephant bonus in jungle.

4. Treat X as Roads: instead of treat all terrain as roads, only certain types eg alpine units treats only mountains and glacier as roads, ranger treat jungle and forest as roads, etc.

5. Perma flight: Like Civ 2 helicopter except perpetual, good for satellite units.

6. Transport Helicopter/ Cargo Plane: can carry trade units, 2 paratroops.

7. Just like in Civ 3, the ability to give some units limited engineering abilities, like infantry that can build fortresses. 'Combat Engineer' abilities.

8. Minefield units, sea and land, work like subs.

9. Bad idea: Possibly give units more complex stats like apanzer general: air defence/offence, close att/def, Hard att/defence, etc. nah.

10. Sentry/patrol ability: Set units like these on auto-patrol of an area, if they encounter an enemy they automatically attack. Good for destroyers, can be switched off.

11. Abilties: Spread dissent, increases unhappiness for a while. Infiltrate: gain access to the enemies city menu for one city for one turn...maybe to powerful just make it abile to see enemies city for a turn??

[POTUS]

I assume also terrain-based disadvantages.

[Inverse Icarus]

i agree on subs and will expand.

submarines should have a "submerge" option that puts them at a far lower depth than a sub without it on, which would make them invisible to other ships (except those with detection capabilities). units should be able to move onto the tile in question as if it was empty.

but i think there should also be a way to tell them to fire while they're submerged like that, shouldn't there be? like, hiding under water until you see that transport moving in?

there should also be a disadvantage to being submerged, so that people just don't stay in it. and should there be a limited amount of time to remain submerged continously?

[Kuciwalker]

1. A TRUE submerge ability for subs and nuclear subs. If a unit fails it's 'detection chance' it should not be able to find the sub at all or know where it is, it should move onto that space as if it were empty.

No. WAY too MM, and it's just stupid. Does the President say "oh, and btw, tell the subs to go underwater before attacking the enemy ships". This adds a fundamentally meaningless layer of "strategy" to the game.

2. Different types of Nuke:
Tac nuke, a missile with 98 attack can destroy all units in one stack.
A-Bomb: works like Civ 3 nuke
Hydrogen Strategic bomb: works more like SMAC planet-buster; all non-aligned nations declare permanent war + mega pollution.

First, don't make the nuke flag be the attack value!. Just leave it as a normal unit flag like in C3. Second, no planet-busters and no auto-declaration of war. An H-Bomb is not going to turn nine tiles into ocean.

3. Terrain based abilities: eg: archers +1 defence in forest, elephant bonus in jungle.

As an option in the editor.

4. Treat X as Roads: instead of treat all terrain as roads, only certain types eg alpine units treats only mountains and glacier as roads, ranger treat jungle and forest as roads, etc.

Again, as an option in the editor.

5. Perma flight: Like Civ 2 helicopter except perpetual, good for satellite units.

No satellite units, please. At most abstract them like in SMAC.

6. Transport Helicopter/ Cargo Plane: can carry trade units, 2 paratroops.

Maybe as an NPC freighter like in GalCiv. Otherwise, too MM.

7. Just like in Civ 3, the ability to give some units limited engineering abilities, like infantry that can build fortresses. 'Combat Engineer' abilities.

but make the AI use them!

8. Minefield units, sea and land, work like subs.

Maybe not as units.... but an interesting idea (and one many people have tried to implement, mostly failing) that should at least be in the editor.

9. Bad idea: Possibly give units more complex stats like apanzer general: air defence/offence, close att/def, Hard att/defence, etc. nah.

You're right, bad idea

10. Sentry/patrol ability: Set units like these on auto-patrol of an area, if they encounter an enemy they automatically attack. Good for destroyers, can be switched off.

11. Abilties: Spread dissent, increases unhappiness for a while. Infiltrate: gain access to the enemies city menu for one city for one turn...maybe to powerful just make it abile to see enemies city for a turn??

A lot of this should be abstracted like in C3.

[Shogun Gunner]

since one turn = one year, are we saying that subs should be able to remain submerged several years? Perhaps that's too much detail.

However, I do believe detection isn't quite handled right. If a sub is not detected, you should sail right over him, like he's not there.

As it works now, you are navigating your ship through water when you get the call from the bridge:

First Officer: "Captain, we are at full power and cannot go due north. Look all the way to the horizon in the north...nothing there, but we can't move there. We can move east, west and south, but not north. What's going on?"

Captain: "Fire all guns due north"

[Kuciwalker]

Simple to implement - let the sub and the other ship able to be on the same tile. Use the same code as for allowing your units to occupy the same tile as your allies (a very good feature in SMAC).

[Shogun Gunner]

yes, i see no reason why that couldn't be "made so"

[DarkCloud]

6. Transport Helicopter/ Cargo Plane: can carry trade units, 2 paratroops.

This is a must-have in civ III!

I would also suggest on perhaps a 'nuclear submarine' unit, that, when sunk, has a % probablity of triggering an accidental nuclear explosion that might destroy the neighboring ships.

[Seeker]

(bumping) to see if anyone has thought of any new unit ABILITIES. (not units themselves)

[asleepathewheel]

I think minefields might be better if they were put down by workers rather than another unit. Iguess workers could find them as well, but the one move/turn would hurt that effort.

[GhengisFarb™]

I like the options in the editor ideas of skywalker.

[asleepathewheel]

enslavement


At most I think that there should only be a couple of units with special abilities, like in C3C. limited enslave, limited hidden nationality, etc.

KISS

I agree with the thoughts that it should mainly be reserved for the editor and modding efforts.

[DarkCloud]

I really don't like the enslavement option. I just don't think that it's really strategic enough to warrant a unit. It just seems sort of abstract...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I really don't like the enslavement option. I just don't think that it's really strategic enough to warrant a unit. It just seems sort of abstract...

oh but its great fun playing as the Mayans or English. My Men o' War in my last English game captured/enslaved 30 other ships,

[GhengisFarb™]

Actually, I thougth the enslavement option was a cool idea.

I wish there was away to simply have it enslave what it captured with ships. So you could more accurately simulate the Spanish Main with a chance of commandeering Galleons and Frigates and not having them all shrunk into Privateers.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Actually, I thougth the enslavement option was a cool idea.

I wish there was away to simply have it enslave what it captured with ships. So you could more accurately simulate the Spanish Main with a chance of commandeering Galleons and Frigates and not having them all shrunk into Privateers.

yeah, again firaxis has a good idea, but has a sloppy followthrough

(I know its been recommended to them to change this in the next patch, or make it editor-able, who knows if they do that or not.)

[Kuciwalker]

yeah, again firaxis has a good idea, but has a sloppy followthrough

Sloppy? Because the system doesn't do everything one could possibly hope, it's sloppy?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

yeah, again firaxis has a good idea, but has a sloppy followthrough

Sloppy? Because the system doesn't do everything one could possibly hope, it's sloppy?

yes.

its been a pretty big complaint by modders.

pretty farfetched turning galleons into privateers while on the high seas.

i can see units into slave workers.


Its a neat ability, but needs some more modability.

(And I thought I was a huge firaxis fanboy )

[Kuciwalker]

Again, because the system doesn't do everything one could possibly hope for, it's sloppy?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by skywalker
Again, because the system doesn't do everything one could possibly hope for, it's sloppy?

yes

[asleepathewheel]

I'm just giving you crap, sw, sloppy was a bit of hyperbole.

what I should have said was that it was a bit short-sighted in implementation.

[lajzar]

Here's one that should be brought back, and its corrolary:

Exerts zoc - as per civ2. Air units don't have a zoc if implemented civ3 style. Sea units with guided missiles (modern navies basically) have a zoc. Land units with missiles (archers upwards) have a zoc. This is of course a flag to be set, not hard coded.

Ignores all zoc - what it says. Should probably apply to submarines, guerillas, and diplomat/spy units.

oh, here's another flag:

AA gun [n] - will automatically launch a bombard attack of strength N on any aircraft unit that passes through an adjacent tile. Pass through here includes a) the straight line drawn between two cities when the airports are used for transport, and b) the straight line drawn between the base site and the target of a bombard mission.

Paradrop [n] - the unit can, as its entire move, jump up to N tiles from the city or airfield it is in. This move may be intercepted by units with the AA gun flag.

[Switch]

Originally posted by lajzar
Here's one that should be brought back, and its corrolary:

Exerts zoc - as per civ2. Air units don't have a zoc if implemented civ3 style. Sea units with guided missiles (modern navies basically) have a zoc. Land units with missiles (archers upwards) have a zoc. This is of course a flag to be set, not hard coded.

Ignores all zoc - what it says. Should probably apply to submarines, guerillas, and diplomat/spy units.

I would have to disagree whole heartedly on this. Civ3's ZOC is much better than civ2's, IMO, and is actually more realistic. Say you're playing a giga earth map, 256x256 or whatever...I'm not sure how wide the tiles are, but each tile works out to be several hundred km...sometimes even the civ3 style is a bit much, but i think it works fine.

oh, here's another flag:

AA gun [n] - will automatically launch a bombard attack of strength N on any aircraft unit that passes through an adjacent tile. Pass through here includes a) the straight line drawn between two cities when the airports are used for transport, and b) the straight line drawn between the base site and the target of a bombard mission.

Paradrop [n] - the unit can, as its entire move, jump up to N tiles from the city or airfield it is in. This move may be intercepted by units with the AA gun flag.

Agree with you here. The way it works now, it's as if planes teleported . And paradropping was nice too, in SMAC. Maybe make it so that paratroopers can paradrop, ie a limited range from the city, and modern paratroopers can do strategic insertions, ie no range limit (like SMAC's orbital insertions).

[wrylachlan]

1) Air superiority on enemy cities to protect bombers

2) Abstract Ship to Sub combat similar to air missions. Some sort of "Depth Charge" mission.

3) Capture - different than enslave, it takes the unit not as a worker, but as whatever type of unit it is. The caveat is you can't use them except to move and to TRADE them back in a peace deal.

4) Civil engineering - have multiple sources of each resource, but only one automatically pops up on the map. You have to find the others.

5) Hidden numbers - if you use stack movement in certain terrain, it looks graphically like only one unit moves. So what looked like 1 Iroquis warrior, actually turns out to be 5 when they come out of the woods.

6)Specific bonuses and penalties versus certain other units i.e.pikemen get a percentage bonus versus mounted, but a percentage penalty versus foot.

7) Pillage-heal. Just what it sounds like.

8)Scout tracking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And don't listen to skywalker, the idea of tying unit abilities to terrain types is

Archers getting better defense in forests/jungles = great
Certain units getting to treat certain terrain as roads = great
And I'll add -
Mounted units get an x% charging bonus on plains or grasslands.
Ranged units get an even better defense bonus than regular units when defending across a river or behind walls or fortresses.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
*SNIP*
And don't listen to skywalker, the idea of tying unit abilities to terrain types is

Archers getting better defense in forests/jungles = great
Certain units getting to treat certain terrain as roads = great
And I'll add -
Mounted units get an x% charging bonus on plains or grasslands.
Ranged units get an even better defense bonus than regular units when defending across a river or behind walls or fortresses.

Do you have any clue as to how complex that would be for the AI to figure out? The defensive boni of terrain is enough... adding a bonus to specific units on specific terrain virtually guarantees that only a human would use it effectively.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by MrBaggins Do you have any clue as to how complex that would be for the AI to figure out? The defensive boni of terrain is enough... adding a bonus to specific units on specific terrain virtually guarantees that only a human would use it effectively.

Looking at your post in the other thread about ZOC I'm noticing a pattern here. Anything that is difficult for the AI to implement that you happen to like is OK. But if you don't like the idea, you shoot it down with "Do you know how difficult that is for the AI?". Well too bad. Its a good idea. I like it. And given enough processing power, and intelligent design, it could be implemented. After all, what's the good of having an AI that's great a checkers??? It's still checkers.

[MrBaggins]

I've been working on (producing mathematical models and algorithms for Civ AI) long enough to know whats expensive and difficult, and whats easy and cheap.

ZOC's are a bit more expensive than no ZOC's. You need a (2-state) blocking map, which simply alters the cost for your A* pathfinding. Its a bit more expensive, but not THAT much... simple to calculate and to use. This cost is even, in some circumstances, outweighed by the reduced number of entities (and hence AI cost,) and that forgets the game benefit to the player of reduced MM.

Terrain-based boni necessitate not only a costly db lookup for each of the units per terrain, or if you cache the information in the army record, a slightly less costly lookup.

This variable state modifier has to be calculated for opposing troop types on each of the 8 surrounding squares of a square, when a unit isn't directly attacking, and its within range of enemy units, to verify that its not moving to a more vulnerable position.

All in all... this is a very costly. I'm not saying we should be playing checkers... just that some ideas require unrealistic amounts of AI time. This idea is one of them.

Computers won't be that fast when Civ4 is released. The fastest computers now aren't exactly greased lightning now, with Civ3's AI.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Do you have any clue as to how complex that would be for the AI to figure out?

The AI can't figure out the concept of upgrading units and attacks Modern Armor with Archers.

If the only good reason to exclude an idea is because the AI can't grasp it, then I wouldn't be too worried about it.

[MrBaggins]

The simplication of air combat made that viable for the AI to use. (Of course even thats missing some vital functionality, like air superiority... but still.) The map is typically a pain in the ass. You need to avoid unecessary complications.

If the AI doesn't upgrade then its either a) not resourced correctly or b) just bad strategy (although it might be attacking a point that wasn't well defended when it made the plan.) Threat matching is pretty fundemental. Although you want to have some concept of ablative attacks, its a definite short coming, if you don't concentrate the attacks.

Upgrading is typically a tremendous benefit to the AI. Witness Updater2 in CTP2

As for including advantages that you can use, but the AI can't... that lessens the challenge of SP... it makes the AI easier to beat.. and just plain makes it look bad.

Witness the AI's weakness competing vs the crawler tactic in SMAC.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by MrBaggins Terrain-based boni necessitate not only a costly db lookup for each of the units per terrain, or if you cache the information in the army record, a slightly less costly lookup.

This variable state modifier has to be calculated for opposing troop types on each of the 8 surrounding squares of a square, when a unit isn't directly attacking, and its within range of enemy units, to verify that its not moving to a more vulnerable position.

I would humbly suggest that if people thought it was a good enough idea for game-play reasons, AI coders would come up with a clever way to implement it.

The movement bonuses are already essentially in the code since wheeled units have different movement penalties than foot soldiers. There's no reason that expanding that concept to allow other special cases wouldn't be a no brainer.

And as for the combat bonuses, there should already be some sort of code that takes into account "other powers". Otherwise an enslaving unit would be treated exactly like another unit of the same power, which is tactically incorrect since a loss to an enslaving unit is a "greater loss".

And the bigger issue, for me, is that Firaxis is capable of assessing the difficulty of programming the AI. By all accounts the Civ3 AI is significantly better than Civ2, and has gotten progressively better with each patch while adding increasingly complex game mechanics, such as zero-range bombardment.

By definition, this forum is for brainstorming what we would like the game mechanics to be if Firaxis thought it practical. If we come up with what we think is a great idea, but Firaxis can't implement it, so be it. As such your constant harping on the difficulty of the AI implementation doesn't really serve to encourage the spirit of brainstorming that we're working on.

It's better to come up with as creative ideas as possible, and leave the decision on the practical aspects of implementing it to Firaxis.