Strategic Unit Choices

[Marcus Agrippa]

I know these points have already been brought up in other threads, but I think they deserve a lot of attention... therefore, I'm going to start a specific thread for discussion of bonuses for units... against other units and on certain terrian. This was already employed to a minor degree in Civ II... but I must admit, I was disappointed. Pikes vs Cav and AEGIS vs air were the only benifits I saw. Also, I always laughed when my alphine troops (men with skis) were able to move as swiftly through jungles as over mountains.

I know Civ III isn't meant to be a tactical wargame... but adding some strategy into the unit selection would add depth to the game without going into battlefield tactics. Units should have bonuses and weaknesses that are determined by the oposing unit and the type of terrian... and this should play a major role. It would also help keep each civ tucked into it's own region at the beginning, at least... the chariot might dominate the deserts, but wouldn't fare well trying to fight in the forests.

More comments?

[Inverse Icarus]

there were others.

::whips out civ2 book::

Fighter City Scrambles
Catch ships in Port

[Marcus Agrippa]

lol Those almost never happened, but you are correct.

Alas, most of modern warfare consisted of Hwzers to attack cities and Mech Inf to defend them. There should be far more strategic units choices in Civ III.

>Partisan... 1.5 times attack and defense in jungle
>Armor... 1.5 times attack vs Mech Infantry (finally, a reason to build tanks!)
>Light Infantry... 1.5 times attack and defense against Tanks and Mech. Infantry in forests, jungles, and mountains. Partisan gets no bonus against LI.
>Destroyer and AEGIS Cruiser... double defense against subs
>Heavy Cavalry... 1/2 attack in forest, on mountains, or in jungle, 1.5 times attack against (insert light-infantry type units here) on all flat terrain.
>Musketeers... 1.5 times attack on grassland and other terrain squares that only cost one movement (The early muskets were especially effective when the troops could be lined up en mass and be able to fire full volleys at their enemies.)

[Urban Ranger]

I don't see why armor should get attack bonuses against mech inf. Maybe something like 2x attack against unfortified units on open ground (plains/grassland). Capable of overrun (if it destroys a unit on its first move it can move into the empty square without any movement points).

Light infantry is just mech inf minus the heavy equipment. Perhaps with some additional training.

Partisans should be good in bad terrains, that's anything other than plains and grassland. 1.5x in forests and hills, 2x in mountains, swamps, and jungles, in additional to defensive bonuses, if applicable.

Aegis cruisers should have no bonuses against subs since they aren't designed for ASW.

Mounted units (plus chariots) have "charging attacks."

[Grim Legacy]

I like the idea of generally useful units. A few special abilities are ok, but too many are not.

Special units in Civ2 were often mostly useless too. I always enjoyed building up strength by having many strong units of the same type -like armors and bombers. Having to build specially equipped units just for this or that would be more of a hassle.

I'd hate to have to build a special anti-tank unit to get x1.5 against mechanized units and then having to build a flamethrower too to withstand infantry assaults and then a patriot launcher to thwart missiles etc etc.

But as I said, a few special units are ok to spice up a restricted set of military action (like air defense, rough terrain factors).

[Sandman]

I'd like to be able to decide on my units special ability.

For a modest fee I can outfit my infantry units with bazookas (prerequisite rocketry) which provides a bonus against vehicle type units.

Or how about tortoise formation training for legions which increases defence against archers?

The list goes on:

Desert/jungle/mountain/arctic/urban training for units.
Chemical weapons for most units.
Anti-chemical defenses for most units.
Kamekaze training for fighters.
Incendiary bombs: destroy improvements and populations.
Demolition experts: Faster pillaging.
Army engineers: Military units can build (basic) improvements.
etc

Any thoughts?

[Marcus Agrippa]

Good ideas, Sandman.

I know some people don't like complex strategic construction choices and prefer units that are all-powerful for most situations... but for me that's b-o-r-i-n-g. Just my preference. Once again, I don't see any need for the regular setup units to be loaded down with bonuses, but I hope the editor allows us to introduce our own bonuses... e.g. a special bonus popup in the unit editor that says (Bonus of x times attack and y times defend vs: list all units) or special bonuses on terrian.

[BlackStone]

La la

[barefootbadass]

I agree with Grim that too many of units with special bonuses vs specific units would really bog the game down. Maybe a little more than civ2 but I don't think it will add much if you have to think about building several specific 'anti' units in your cities just to have a decent defense.

Somewhat reminds me of SMAC where you could design your own units by putting together various pieces for attack defense and mobility(and things like bombard or making a spy unit, etc.) however you wanted to to get a unit that fit your needs. I thought it was more hassle that it was worth, although I never really took advantage of saving my unit designs for future games in my short time playing that game.

[Sandman]

Hmmm...

The special abilities in SMAC were pretty pesky to implement.
What's needed is a simpler system.
But I'd like to be able to explore the option of using chemical weapons, desert commandos and kamekaze fighters.

Am I asking the impossible?

And anyway, it's too late to change civ3 anyway.