diffirent civs, diffirent units

[Stratesford]

I was thinking that why can't diffirent civs have at least have two or three unique units?
Example:

Romans:Legionaire(a), Balista(r)
Americans: Navy Seal(m)
Germans:Panzer(m), Cavalier(r)
Mayans: Quetzal Archer(a), Snake Warrior(r), Guerrillero(m)

you get the big picture, a unique unit for each age. I now the game is about to come out but maybe i could put this in a mod.

[This message has been edited by Stratesford (edited October 17, 2000).]

[Ice Cube]

Great idea, but it's too late, I'm afraid. Maybe in a mod.

[Slax]

I think its an unnecessary complication.

[Lord Silvi]

Okay this idea comes too late, but it is a good one.
Lets have a difference between Roman and Spanish.
In CTP 1 there are only the names! This had no flavour!

[Dauphin]

Even if different units aren't available it would be interesting to see different graphics (unique to civs)and/or specs for the same units. eg shermans, panzers, etc.

Or even more basic - have infantry dressed in the colour of your civ.

They could try this idea out in some of the scenarios, like they did for civ2 in some of the fantastic worlds scenarios.

[Tilemacho]

I am not sure this is a good idea. I played AOE over the internet for some time and everyone used 2 or 3 civs because their unique characteristics (althought minor at first glance) made them much better than the other civs.(for example I could enter tool age 2 min. earlier with Phoenitians because their workes could carry 13 wood instead of 10 for all the other civs!!!) I think it is very difficult to make every civ different and still keep the balance of the game. Maybe this could happen only in a scenario.
[This message has been edited by Tilemacho (edited October 17, 2000).]

[Stratesford]

no not really because the crappy units would be cheaper and the good unit a lot more expensive. some lets say unitx has 12a6d3m and unity has 6a3d2m, uinitx would cost 3000 while unity would cost 1500

[Bartemans]

Hello,

I do not agree!

Why not:

a. It is geeting way more complicating (not the strongest argument, I know)

b. The Yanks have tanks and the British have the SAS, which is comparable (according to some persons, just a little better, but I doubt that) with the SEALS.
Giving all units other names when playing with another civ is not a good idea.

Especially today, all nations have machinegunners and most nations have tanks. (whether it's a Leopard, or an Abrams, that does not matter for a civ game) The same counts for fighters and bombers. A civplayer does not take care whether his figtherplanes are F-15's or F-16's.

I think I have made my arguments clear. All civs have the same units.

Bye,

Bartemans
http://home.hccnet.nl/stolte.1

[Chris Horscroft]

I think civilisation specific units should be restricted to scenarios. Different empires will have their special units at different times - Roman legions will appear in the game much earlier than spanish conquistadors, british redcoats, US marines etc. That means that the Romans will be much stronger earlier in the game, and will unbalance them to start with. It would mean that a decent AI powering the Romans would be expected to utterly cripple any competitors it could as early as possible, preventing those civilisations who get their special units later from having much of a chance to recover, unless their special units are so capable as to pretty much obliterate Rome entirely.

Maybe it could be set up properly to provide each nation advantages that are significant, not crushing, and well balanced, but not so late in the development process!

[Stratesford]

Dudes you don't get the point, very civ has a unit for every time period so there won't be an unbalance that much. And plus the special units aren't going to be like 100a 100d 100m, no there going to have about the same strenght as the other ones in that age.

I got your point, Stratesford.

But, even if the units were NOT basically the same, there is a model in the special units available under different government types (e.g. televangelist, fascists)