Perhaps a little modification?

Eddin · August 10, 2001, 19:00

Hell I know it's late, the game is in the final stages of production, and what I'm about to propose is a little radical, but it's worth a shot

Is there any option for increasing unit strength by technology/resources? On the site I saw that Swordsmen would require iron, but there were swordsmen before that, but their swords were made of bronze. Now my idea would be that iron would give the swordsmen some kind of +1 attack or defense (or both) bonus, which could be modified in rules.txt (as a flag for the tech and unit). Same for nuclear subs. Hell of a lot faster than original ones...

Heh... I wonder if there is a thread on this already

Eddin · August 10, 2001, 19:16

Guess I stand alone in this...

TechWins · August 10, 2001, 19:23

Your whole idea lessens the importance of resources, which in turn could mess up all the systems considering all the major systems (e.g. culture, war, diplomacy) are so closely tied together that if one got even a slight modification it might distort the game in a bad way. It's not a bad idea, though, it just won't work that's all.

Eddin · August 10, 2001, 19:43

Why and how would it mess up resources?
You just pay the other resource instead of the former one.

TechWins · August 10, 2001, 19:48

Quote:

Why and how would it mess up resources?

Resources would be considered more important if you couldn't even build a unit without a specific resource instead of not getting a +1 bonus on your unit somewhere. Having the importance of resources decreased it will be less important to have a great culture, to make diplomatic trading, and the strategy of war. With culture it will no longer be neccesary to get your borders expanded as soon and as far as possible. You're not going to want to kiss the Russians butt all the time just so you can get some uranium so your nuclear bomb becomes 100 att instead of 99 att. The strategy in war will be decreased because you will have an endless supply of oil enabling you to build as many tanks as possible. Does that clear things up for you? I sure hope so.

Eddin · August 10, 2001, 19:59

Quote:

Resources would be considered more important if you couldn't even build a unit without a specific resource instead of not getting a +1 bonus on your unit somewhere

In a sense, you have to pay for a new unit. The +1 was just an example (which is radical, an increase of about 50% probably) of the idea. Later bonusses on submarines or something will obviously be higher. But instead of creating a new unit, you just increase his powers. Obsolescence would still occur as usual, as would requirements. You NEED oil for combustion, but you only need a sort of metal for swords, some being stronger than others.

Actually this wouldn't be too great a change. It's simply that I've wanted to do it in my scenarios without making new units and stuff...

It's late and I'm tired

*waits for Techwins to call him a retarded moron*

TechWins · August 10, 2001, 20:26

Listen hear you retarded moron!

I don't really like you idea that much for the real game but maybe for scenarios it might be good.

Inverse Icarus · August 10, 2001, 21:50

yes.

having legions when you get bronze working is stupid. you need iron.

case close.

retarded moron.

DarkCloud · August 10, 2001, 22:05

Not necessarilly...

Legions do not need iron. A legion is merely a unit formation, much like a Phalanx.

bronze for phalanxes is mandatory because we think of them as a bronze-age unit

and iron for legions because it is thought of as an iron-age unit...

technically, if the Napoleanic formations were not invented we could still be using Phalanx tactics.

tniem · August 11, 2001, 02:29

Sounds like your advocating a Unit Workshop.

Albeit with a new implementation for infantry - formations.

You choose the formation or strategy: Phalanx, Legion, Napoleon, Guerilla

Then choose the weapons, armor, and the rest and build your unit. Sounds good, too bad Firaxis has already killed UW long ago.