Thread Tools
Old May 12, 2000, 18:13   #1
Adm.Naismith
King
 
Adm.Naismith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1,674
Civ III Units Workshop
I'm almost sure we will have some form of "unit workshop" in CIV III cloned from SMAC. That will let us build up unit with special features, not limited by few historically predefined units.

That's idea has been already discussed, but now I'm refreshing the argument on a different perspective, because I don't want to vote or rate pro or against Unit Workshop in Civ III.

I will take for granted (for this post sake, that is) that some Unit Workshop (U.W. for short) will exists.

I only would like to imagine which attribute we will manage for every unit.

If anyone doesn't know how U.W. work in SMAC, I briefly descibe it:
You don't have predefined, "closed" units. Yu have Units as "objects" with few slots where you put properties available at the Discovery Tree level you already know.

You have:
Chassis slot: by foot, by wheels, ship, plane, missile, etc.
It defines turn movement, movement place (ground, sea, air), some limits to other available feature (e.g. only missiles can have nuclear attack weapon).
Attack weapon: in SMAC it can be occupied by something else for non combat units, e.g. by colony pod to make a "settler", by former tools to make an "engineer", by cargo hold for cargo units, etc.
Defense armour: how strong is the shield against enemy attack, but for a silly SMAC formula is in effect the number that define how much damage the defense units affect to attacking unit.
Engine: with lot of collateral effects, ranging from lowering unit producing expense to turn movement to defense multiplyier.
Special equipment or ability: two slot (the second only available later in game) where you can put special as SAM ability, Nerve gas available on attack, free unit support, morale enhancer, deep skull to make submarine units, etc.

You can mix any legal group of combo, then the system will suggest a (composed) name for unit type that the player can modify.

Back to the main point, how would you like to define the list of available feature for every "unit slot" in CIV III?

Just for example:
Chassis list:
by foot (make infantry type unit)
mounted (make knights, elephants, camels type units)
by wheels (make charriot, cannon, mechanized infantry units)
air (make dirigible, plane and helicopters like units)
sea (make trireme, galeons etc.)

We can have the system able to "suggest" predefined, historically accurate units (legions, pikeman, knights, etc.) but usually we can chose to build them by ourselves:
put a pike as attack weapon of an infantry chassis and you have a pikeman, put it on a horse chassis and you will end with a lancer.

More flexible, more interesting.

Main drawback of SMAC U.W. was the limited graphics available (they kept units graphics too much generalized, but that make it difficult to remember and distinguish different units on the field) and messy interface of U.W. (but we can make lot of hints to Firaxis designer about the latter, if they really want ).

Do anyone wants to suggest about the list definition to use to fill the unit slots, keeping an eye on SMAC model and another on history and CIV style?

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
Adm.Naismith is offline  
Old May 12, 2000, 23:46   #2
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
Ehila! Admiral

I always support "unit workshop" idea. However, I personally did not like SMAC style unit workshop and I much prefer MOO style unit workshop.

SMAC's prototype idea is good one I reckon.

I really liked the interface of MOOI/II unit workshop.

You are right Admiral the similar graphics between two very different units things were quite annoying. Just like the city icons in CivII, each chassis should belong to at least five different major cultures.

European
Near eastern
Indian
Oriental
American(sure native)

And clear graphical distinction of weaponry is essential.

Predefined historically accurate units should have more benefits over any experimental units to prevent bizzare mil units wandering around the globe such as a knight mounted on camel or armoured elephants.

But sometimes weapon and chasssis combination alone can not create historically accurate units. Good examples will be Phalanx and legions. Arming any swordmen with some pila and gladius wouldn't create the true legionnaires. That's why we need some sort of training facilities which has been suggested by Stuff2. Thus raw conscripts from the civilian population would not fit to be a chassis material for legion units. Only trained men who know how to form,march,build and fight will be suitable material for a legion unit.

Any more ideas on this Admiral?


[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 13, 2000).]
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 13, 2000, 00:53   #3
Par4
King
 
Par4's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,543
Par4 suggests these different design styles
American(Americans buy things where they can be American)
Native American
Meszo(sp) American(maybe)
European
Classical(maybe)
African
Middle Eastern
Northern Asian(maybe)
Indian(maybe)
Asian

Maybe this is too many??

I think in order to build something that city should have to have the buildings to train/build the unit. Barracks, Military academy, tank factory, shipyard, aerospace complex, armory, a few others maybe. I agree historically accurate units should give bonuses maybe like a legionaire could get a morale upgrade because Roman legionaires were very well trained and disciplined and enjoyed high morale or U-boats could get an attack bonus or something. I would add slots for extra upgrades slots for electronic warfare such as GPS and radar and radio jamming equipment.

I am mainly into modern warfare so here's my ideas for special abilities for modern although this might(probably) be too much.

Ships

AEGIS radar
Stealth(yes there are stealth ships prototyped if the United States was at war we would see them built)
Cruise missle bays
Interceptor bays
3 gun turrets
AAA
Double sealed hull
electric drive
fision drive
silent turbines(subs)
Extreme pressure hull(subs)
underwater launch tubes(subs)

Tanks

radar jammers
radio jammers
gps
range finder
night vision
electric drive
laser communication
cannon size upgrades(80mm>120mm)
AAA

Mechanize vehicles

range finder
night vision
gps
radio jammer
radar jammer
infantry transport
AAA
rapid fire turret
laser communication

Infantry

gps
range finder
sniper scope/training
radio jammer
laser communication
night vision
special ops
amphibious ops
anti tank
AAA

Airplanes

stealth
VTOL(counts as 1/2 in carriers, ie 2x planes)
countermeasures
heat seeker missles
attacker upgrade(makes it fighter/bomber)

Some upgrades couldn't work together I'm not sure which. Maybe the EW units could have an EW upgrade instead of radio jammers gps range finders.


------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
Par4 is offline  
Old May 13, 2000, 01:42   #4
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
Par4

Thanks for the hard working and reminding me there is also "modern warfare" in civIII.

May I add some?

ships

Anti-submarine weapons/device.
AA gun should be divided into two:
Noraml AA gun and "Phalanx system".

Tanks

ERA armour fittings.
Fording device.
NBC(nuclear,biological and chemical)protection.
ATGM fittings.
SAM fittings.
Stabiliser.
Gun upgrade for Russian style.
76mm-85mm-100mm-115mm-125mm.
Gun upgrade for US & allies style.
90mm-105mm-120mm.
Smoke dischargers.

APC/IFV/truck/jeep/others

recoiless guns.
ATGM fittings.
SAM fittings.

Infantry

Mortars.
Inf-guns.
Field howitzers.
HMG.
SMG.
LMG.
Rifle.
Assault rifle.
Grenade.
Bayonet.
AT-rifle.
AT-gun.
Portable SAM,ATGM.

wait a minute? I think this kind of things will be handled by the programmer not by us. better spend time on discussion about how the unit workshop has to be implemented in the game I believe.
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 13, 2000, 08:42   #5
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
I don't think the unit workshop is a good idea.
most units are composed of a mix of most of these catergories, for instance a modern infantry unit would have almost all of the different weapons listed, that is what makes it effective as a modern infantry (and training). In a historical game, I like the idea of distinct historical unit types, maybe with some upgrades possable to each type (like phalanx's being upgraded to iron spears (+0.5 to 1.0 land combat). this could be automatic, or cost some. For instance computers might be one of the triggers to modernize several units, such as armor from shermans to m60's, and plastics to get to M1's.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old May 13, 2000, 11:06   #6
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
This is the way I want it.

U have the different kind of units from differen ages. I'll show u what i mean:

Stone age
- Infantry
Iron age
- Infantry
- Cavalry
Mideval
- Infantry
- Cavalry
- Naval
- Artillery
Modern
- Infantry
- Motorized infantry
- Motorized cavalry (maybe called: tank)
- Artillery
- Air attack
- Air defence
- Air espionage (maybe this should be handled from the intelligence window)
- naval
- submarine

Future
- Robotic infantry
- Automated air defence.
etc

This list is not in any way complete but i think u get the picture. There's no need to make it too complicated. U don't have a "laser gunner" instead u have a "computer age infantry". Then when u go deeper in the unit u may find that 3000 of them will have laser guns and 4000 of them will have machineguns. If u replace all the machine gunners in the unit with laser gunners the unit will get stronger.
Stuff2 is offline  
Old May 13, 2000, 14:25   #7
Derek
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Blech. No offense guys. Just expressing my opinion.

The workshop was one of the things I couldn't stand the most in SMAC. For me, it was way too much management, and added to the time to play the game. I thought it to be a complete waste of time. "Just give me a new unit, dammit!"
 
Old May 13, 2000, 15:26   #8
Par4
King
 
Par4's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,543
military screen
overview of your armies
upgrades
special abilites

upgrades on-upgrades to units, ie if you get rocketry your units get AAA bonus at a little cost. To add something to the game maybe you could see some of your units in 3d units with the upgrades, so if you get rocketry you see stinger missles on tanks.

special abilites on-all marines get amphibious landings and ships get anti sub and boarding parties, stuff like that.

These cost a little money for each unit and should always be done(unless you short on cash). I think this might add a little to the games atmosphere, seeing special abilites and upgrades on units not always just the boring old units everyone has. Graphics could be different for civs like western civs have american style tanks eastern has russian style.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
Par4 is offline  
Old May 14, 2000, 01:48   #9
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
Par4's simplified version of unitworkshop will do the job I reckon.

I don't think unit workshop idea itself is bad idea but the implmentation has been done in SMAC wasn't very good.

First of all, there was no clear distinction of arming a unit with good graphical representaion.

Secondly, too many useless prototypes made but no construction on these.

Anyone who played MOO series will like to see unit "workshop idea".

I think there should be "unit workshop" and "army organising".

Assuming that each city produce 1000 infantrymen and they are stock-filed into national arsenal, now current number of infantrymen stockfiled is 100,000 and if 10,000men need to form a division 10 inf. division can be formed.
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 14, 2000, 04:36   #10
raingoon
Prince
 
raingoon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 500
Yeah, no offense, but the unit workshop? -- Please no. MOO, sure. SMAC, why not. But Civ?? No way. One sure way to break the spell of the game is to turn it into a build your own sort of a deal.

Now, as part of a scenario editor, sure... But definitely not an in-game feature.
raingoon is offline  
Old May 14, 2000, 07:45   #11
Atahualpa
Spanish CiversCivilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Latin Lovers
Emperor
 
Atahualpa's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: voice of reason
Posts: 4,092
I also dont like the Unit Workshop! Please no Unit Workshop in CivIII. Or at least make it completely different from SMAC. The SMAC UW was..........well.............bad and it was slow.
I really didnt like it.

Ata
Atahualpa is offline  
Old May 15, 2000, 00:31   #12
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
Hey guys!

I know most of you guys don't like SMAC style unit workshop and I myself don't like it and I made it clear from the beginning.

Aren't you little bit sick and tired having units just after some necessary discoveries? For example, having a Musketeer unit just after "Gunpowder" or Riflemen unit just after "Conscription".

I really like Stuff2's "equipment" idea and if we can produce things like muskets,cannons and rifles as they are, the game will be more exciting and fun I reckon. This also gose with the "mobilisation" idea which posted by someone else thus the manpower mobilised from your population will be primary materials for infantry unit chassis and equipment produced from your city factories will arm your men.

And why not give some degree of freedom to users build somewhat customised battle units to adapt changing situation and environment, hah? I also mentioned Historically accurate units should have more benefit over any experimental units to discourage many bizzare historically-unseen units roaming around the planet.

I persoanlly want the game as historic World simulator with some degree of freedom to go somewhat different ways from the fixed path of human beings which we know very well but with reasonable historic represenation and lessons.

And most of all, we don't have silghtest idea what Firaxis will do about the old unit workshop concept from SMAC and if they intend to introduce this concept into CIVIII it has to be better than SMAC style and as Ata's suggestion completely different.

Why not? why not? why not?
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 15, 2000, 00:45   #13
Atahualpa
Spanish CiversCivilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Latin Lovers
Emperor
 
Atahualpa's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: voice of reason
Posts: 4,092
quote:

Aren't you little bit sick and tired having units just after some necessary discoveries?


Simple answer: no.

What I do like however, would be building weapons and equipping men with it so to say: recruiting. Like in Colonization.

Ata
Atahualpa is offline  
Old May 15, 2000, 01:32   #14
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
At least you see my point Ata and Colonization style arming and equiping men also need some modifications and this will eventually end up like some form of unit workshop I guess.
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 15, 2000, 01:56   #15
Yuvo
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 34
I support what Youngsun is saying, I didn't like the SMAC unit workshop, but I think you could have premade units. So you didn't actually need to use it, but if you wanted a different unit, you'd go pick "Unit Design" or whatever from the menu and customize your own. Of course all the premade units would be possible to make and customize with the unit workshop.

I am a bit worried about the graphical representation. To get the units looking as different to each other as the civ2 ones, you'd need a hell of a lot of chassis and armour types. I think there'd need to be some automatic graphic changes, which SMAC had some of, for e.g., when you put legion armour on an elephant, it covers the whole thing, raather than the size of a legion.

There is one problem with the realism though:
If a civ is making legions for e.g., and they suddenly discover gunpowder, then they decide they don't want musketeers because musketeers don't have armour. So they design a legion with a musket, because muskets are better than swords. Is this realistic? This would happen in heaps of civ3 games, and would happen also with other units.

Yuvo is offline  
Old May 15, 2000, 04:27   #16
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
Yuvo How's it going?

quote:

I am a bit worried about the graphical representation


Me too man, so I suggested that 5 major culture blocs would be enough and reasonable. and as time goes by the distinctiveness of unit icons will be reduced and evetually end up like the same by modern era.(perhaps Russian & eastern style ,US & her allies style and Third world army style?)

quote:

when you put legion armour on an elephant, it covers the whole thing, rather than the size of a legion.


If you have played MOO2 you would know each chassis has different capacity to hold any weapons or equipments. Thus armours for men would not fit for Elephants I think. Except infantry units all other units should be manned by crews and in that sense, elephants are part of many other equipments.

Men+(Swords+armours+shields) = swordmen
Men+(Lances+elephants+bows) = war elephants
Men+(Lances+armours+horses+horse armours)= armoured cavalry
Men+(Tank chassises+Guns+engines)=armours
Men+(Fighter chassises+machineguns+aeroengines)=fighters

quote:

then they decide they don't want musketeers because musketeers don't have armour. So they design a legion with a musket, because muskets are better than swords.


Anicient armour equipments should be cumbersome for using weapons like muskets and provide no real protection against attacks from enemy musketeers so it would be better off with not wearing armours for musketters.

Futhermore, Stuff2's training facilities idea is good at tackling this kind problems.

Raw men->Barracks(ancinet)->trained swordmen or archers
Raw men->Barracks(renaissance)->trained musketeers or pikemen

So once designed as legionnaires(trained at ancient barrack)they have to be retrained at rennaissance barrack(also losing veteran status->What do they know about musket warfare?)to be effective musketeers.

Having many trained men as a reserve would be big advantage over other enemy civs which lack the number of trained men during modern era.(we can just mobilise them and send them to the front without extra training)


Youngsun is offline  
Old May 15, 2000, 09:11   #17
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
I REALLY wouldn't like a unit workshop in Civ3. It was undoubtably the thing about SMAC that I liked the least. Not only did it make al units look alike, so you had none of that "feel" for the units that you did in Civ2, it also needed WAY too much management (deleting the designs you never used, adding new ones etc) - I actually think that the worst gaming time I have ever spent was managing that stupid workshop. It was really a waste of time, as it did nothing to the game and wasn't fun at all. On top of this it was filled with mistakes (like the AI always suggesting new designs with long obsolete weapons and the odd fact that some unit types simply couldn't be made obsolete).

Another thing that made the workshop bad was the fact that there was never any reason to use other than the best weapon types.

If Firaxis is to use the workshop in Civ3 I suggest that they copy the design of the workshop in the RTS game Warzone 2100. Now that's a workshop that works! Not only is the pictures of each unit large enough for you to actually SEE what the look like (!!), the workshop also make much much more sence. Here there is actually a REASON for you to use the different designs. For instance, I realized in one mission that I needed to use semitracks for my tanks in stead of tracks, which I had done so far. Although the semitracks gave the tanks a lower defence, it made them faster, which was needed there. It was like this throughout the game: give your tanks thicker armour or bigger weapons and they become slower. In SMAC there was no reason not to use the best armour. There should be.
The Joker is offline  
Old May 15, 2000, 10:40   #18
Adm.Naismith
King
 
Adm.Naismith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1,674
Ehi men, lot of feedbacks! Thanks!

Sorry for my late comeback, I was off-line during last week-end.

Ok, first things first, if you hate the whole concept of CIV III Unit Workshop, I wish you the best, I'm not here to tell you you are wrong!

If you don't like the SMAC implementation of the concept, you are welcome! Me too spent few posts on old official SMAC forum, suggesting improvement on that messy interface.

I don't know about MOO/MOO2 workshop (never played), so I can't agree or disagree about that. Anyone ready to post a dedicated thread with suggestion about it?

About use of slots, someone is going a bit to far IMHO, putting at work real wargame concept and achronims I suppose lot of player never read (nor bothered).

I'm more on the same line of the last post by Youngsun -ehila Youngsun! -
quote:


Men+(Swords + armours + shields) = swordmen
Men+(Lances + elephants + bows) = war elephants
Men+(Lances + armours + horses + horse armours)= armoured cavalry
Men+(Tank chassises + Guns + engines)=armours
Men+(Fighter chassis + machineguns + aeroengines)=fighters



If the discovery tree will implement minor innovations we can have more intermediate passage (e.g. different kind of improved guns, normal bow -> longbow, etc.).

Someone is worried about too much prototype: Firaxis should simply limits the number of default proposed units to some "historical accurate schetch", that you can keep as-is or modify to your taste.

About unit upgrades, I suggest to modify the SMAC concept (you can now upgrade units everywhere on the field) with some more realistic limits: you can upgrade only inside cities, fortress, airbases or ports, taking at least one turn and (if an experience level like in SAMC is implemented) losing an experience point or two every main unit upgrade.

You can avoid/limit this penalty if you upgrade the unit inside cities with appropriate training facilities (barrack, airfield or shipyard).

Back on Unit workshop, I have some doubt about different graphics for different Civ/Area/whatsoever, because one main SMAC problem is Unit Reconnaince: I must be able to understand which kind of unit I have to fight, simply at a glance.

Minor enhancement (special slots) can be difficult to discover until in real battle, so I can live without detailed (graphichs) info, but I MUST be able to distinguish light infantry from heavy infantry just by graphics (and without the need for a Civilopedia search every time ).

Now the last bomb: historically accurate units don't exist in CIV!

Ok, my last word before to be hang up from angry apolytoner: every unit in history change more or less during time: well know WWII fighters Like Me 109 or Spitfire changed A LOT in performance and use during only five years of war. Former chivalry change tactics, training methods, weapons.

No way all battleship or submarine in history can be considered equals (if not *very* roughly). So CIV reproduces "medium" model of real units ability and power, mixing all characteristics to gain a balanced level.

Real units simply must be taken in account by designer to test game units power: every air force would like to have only stealth fighter if not because:
a) they will cost way to much to be sustainable in large number
b) they can't be the best for every battle (a concept like the old game "scissors win paper win rock win scissors"), because often you must trade off something (speed or range, or payload etc.) for every advanced feature you put in.

Well, I've written way too much, I'll shut up for some days now Really, it's a promise!

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
Adm.Naismith is offline  
Old May 15, 2000, 15:55   #19
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
I like this idea of loosing ability in one area when gaining something in another. Very good indeed.

Now I will further explain how i think it should be.

Firts. Recruit men. I won't go in to this beacouse i don't have any real good ideas of how to do it. In order to equipp these men u have to posess that eqipments already. So bying or produce wareqippment is a must.

FE u decide to let them be "Motorized Infantry". There are a number of weapons and a number of shieldings and so on, that belongs to this kind of 'unit'. My idea is that even though there is a number of weapons that can be used the men will automatically be trained for all weapons that can be used with 'motorized Infantry'. These men will then after training be a part of your arsenal. U can eqipp them with any kind of 'motorized infantry'-equippment and then u have created a new "unit".

In order to give a unit special abilities xx % of the men must be 'specials'. Specials are men that only are trained on special things. For keeping this not too complex i suggest we have only one type of specials that deals with all of the special abilities.

As u can see the unit will have special abilities (as long as the special men are there and the eqippment is working) but the specials are usually not good at fighting so in that manor the unit will be a bit weaker.

All equippment that is carried will slow down the unit. There should be some levels of how much eqippment that are carried by a unit. If a unit is well equipped it will manage to do without supply lines for a long time. If it is not well eqipped it will depend on supply lines in order to survive. Supply lines is also an important to you army (Especially in modern times).

As u can see. The only use my idea has for a unit workshop is to see what equippment belongs to what chassis. But i think this is too complex. I would rather have just "mechanized infantry weapon level xx" instead of all these types of guns.
FE a "mech inf weapon level 7" (the level depends on technology). Then workshop is not needed at all and u don't have to be disappointed by the lousy graphics as u can imagine it in your head instead. I think that even though it is complicated warfare should be abstract in this game. To many weapons will just be confusing and boring, especially for peaceloving players. Only the most signifacant improvements in weaponry should be named. FE Iron sword, Musket, Rifle, Machine gun, Laser gun, missile etc. It will still be a significant number of weapons to use (in your fantasy). But exactly what weapons that are used is just to much micromanagement. And still the most important thing is that my mech infantrys are stronger than the enemys.
Stuff2 is offline  
Old May 16, 2000, 07:34   #20
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
quote:

limits the number of default proposed units


Good point and MOO series actually did that.

quote:

historically accurate units don't exist in CIV!


I think there are some misunderstandings on this. historically accurate units mean historically seen or known units so historically inaccurate units are historically unseen or untires units. Nothing to do with their performance since even same type of weapons would vary in their performance.

quote:

idea of loosing ability in one area when gaining something in another.


This must be represented!

Stuff2 don't you think there should be "national arsenal" to stockfile produced weapons and equipments to store?

Roman imperial arsenal
Legionnaire gear:80
Iron sword:120
Horse:25
Chariot:9
Trireme:40
etc.

US national arsenal
Rifle:500
Modern infantry gear:600
Artillery:200
Horse:450
Truck:250
AA gun:120
Ammunition points:80,000(after "Gunpowder" we can produce ammunition points and the bigger the calibre(bigger firepower)the more ammunition needed)
etc.

Detroit (Truck):25 per turn
New york (Rifle):40 per turn
Washington(ammunition Pts):500 per turn
etc.

Rifle consume 1 ammunition point per turn(this will be simulated decresed amount of ammunition point from the national arsenal)
Artillery consume 4 ammunition point per turn.
Just like settler units consume one or two food from their parent cities,similar mechanism will do the job smoothely and the only different thing will be those firepower-based units will eat up ammunition from single national arsenal not from their parent cities.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 16, 2000).]
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 16, 2000, 13:32   #21
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
I prefer the idea of keeping traditional civ II style units, but give them soem auto upgrades with technology.

For example armour when first gained is WWII style, with computers it becomes cold war level, and maybe plastics, 2000 level. A modern armour would get some significant bonuses over a neghbours WWII style, but without going throught the hassle of a unit workshop and manually upgrading troops.
If you had to uprgrade them by hand, you wouln't generally be done before the next upgrade was available.



------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old May 16, 2000, 14:48   #22
raingoon
Prince
 
raingoon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 500
A very good reason NOT to have workshop/upgrade abilities...

The frustration of researching conscription when you've already got yourself invested in musketeers is actually an important part of the game!

There is a sense of strategic investment as you play along -- waiting for the right unit to be discovered to really invest in that unit as your primary defenders, say. And not being able to undo a mistake if you heavily invest in a muskateer defense only to capture conscription tech for riflemen, is part of the strategy of the game.

A bonus of this effect is often times it is YOU who hold out for the right technology, then invest heavily in, say, armor, when it is your opponent who is swamped with legions, or something and can do nothing about it.

That's part of the strategic element of the game, and if you make it possible to change units the way you want, at any time, then you're taking some of the spine out of the game structure. Final lesson: Often what seems like a restriction really forces you to think MORE creatively.
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited May 16, 2000).]
raingoon is offline  
Old May 17, 2000, 00:14   #23
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 05-16-2000 07:34 AM
This must be represented!

Stuff2 don't you think there should be "national arsenal" to stockfile produced weapons and equipments to store?

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 16, 2000).]


Yes. I think it is of uttermost importance to be able to stockpile weaponry and military equippments. Also, ammunition consumption should increase when a unit is fighting.
Stuff2 is offline  
Old May 17, 2000, 02:03   #24
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
Stuff2, What about reduced firepower to 0 if there is no supply of ammunition for firepower-based units?

Att/Def/Fp/Hp
Riflemen 5/4/5/3 (fully supplied)
Riflemen 5/4/1/3 (no supply coming)
Artillery 10/1/8/1 (fully supplied)
Artillery 10/1/0/1 (no supply coming)
Legion 6/4/1/2 (no ammunition effect)

The reason that why riflemen has at least 1 firepower remained is they can still fight as combatants and in this case, ancient unit like Legion has more chance to win because Riflemen have no ammunition left . Artillery units are killers if fully suppllied but with no ammunition they are useless.(rememer how the battle is caculated for CivII? no firepower means no harm to enemy.)

ember, just like "Leonard's Workshop wonder"?

Raingoon, well you actually reinforced why we need "unit-workshop" idea. Thanks!!!

You said this
quote:

The frustration of researching conscription when you've already got yourself invested in musketeers is actually an important part of the game!


and imagine that if you have produced and stockfiled heaps of muskets in your arsenal and you just discovered the "conscription",the frustration would be even bigger.

quote:

A bonus of this effect is often times it is YOU who hold out for the right technology, then invest heavily in, say, armor, when it is your opponent who is swamped with legions, or something and can do nothing about it.


Yea, you are damn right! haha balancing your military power until the discovery of very right tech will be better simulated with "separated weapons/equipments and men" idea. Furthermore, we may be able to trade our arms as they are with other civs through trade or diplomacy.

quote:

Often what seems like a restriction really forces you to think MORE creatively.


Good point and the restiction of having weapons and men instead of having whole unit as a set will give us more creativity. It seems that you are worried about many bizzare units might appear during the game but as long as the game restrict the relationship with tech advances and applications(as simple as CIVII)for weapon production, everything will be alright. Thus we can just produce rifles and muskets but night-visions and laser-range-finders.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 17, 2000).]
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 17, 2000, 08:20   #25
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
I would like Civ3 to have some kind of conscription system in which hiring the men is seperated by constructing the weapons. It should require a real pop in your cities in stead of heads.

I also agree with raingoon on having units that can not just be upgraded whenever you wanted to. I always thought that Leonardos Workshop was too powerful as it removed all this from a huge part of the game (I always builded it).
The Joker is offline  
Old May 18, 2000, 04:02   #26
Yuvo
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 34
I'm not too sure about graphics: How are you going to tell the difference between a rifleman-type unit with a musket, and one with a rifle?

I want to be able to see how strong the opposing units are without having to click on them.

Btw, recruitment i am for....
Recruit your population, trade for weapons, armour, resources etc. and but all this should be automatic if you already have enough resources. Jeez, how annoying would it get if you had to construct your own unit every time....
Yuvo is offline  
Old May 18, 2000, 09:47   #27
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
I mean more on the lines of still having armour units, but with some key tecks your units get better. If you have plastics, then your armour is significantly better than the germans, who just stole the tech. You never actually change teh base unit, so a musketter will never become a rifleman without paying for an upgrade (a different thing), but tehy will become better as you get tech. A fully improved musketter should be just a little worse than a brand new rifleman type.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old May 18, 2000, 18:43   #28
OrangeSfwr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
quote:

Originally posted by The Joker on 05-17-2000 08:20 AM
I would like Civ3 to have some kind of conscription system in which hiring the men is seperated by constructing the weapons. It should require a real pop in your cities in stead of heads.

I also agree with raingoon on having units that can not just be upgraded whenever you wanted to. I always thought that Leonardos Workshop was too powerful as it removed all this from a huge part of the game (I always builded it).


One question - would you give defense by the unit built, or the weapon he carries? Or some combo of both?

On a seperate note. I am also guilty of Leo's Workshop construction every game It's definitely way to powerful.



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
 
Old May 19, 2000, 03:31   #29
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
quote:

I would like Civ3 to have some kind of conscription system in which hiring the men is seperated by constructing the weapons. It should require a real pop in your cities in stead of heads.


Joker I always support things like these!!

quote:

I want to be able to see how strong the opposing units are without having to click on them.


Yuvo me too me too

quote:

how annoying would it get if you had to construct your own unit every time....


you're right.

ember now I understand what you were up to. Could you tell me how much variation can take place for each unit?

Arquebusier(with a rest)
Musketeer
Musketeer(with boyonet)
Musketeer(Napoleonic)
Riflemen(very early style)
or
Tank(WWI style)
Tank(WWII style)
Tank(Post WWII style)
MBT
MBT(next generation)

Are these similar to that you have in mind?

OrangeSfr both I believe.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 19, 2000).]
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 04:43   #30
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
I don't think building a unit will reduce the population of the city that builds it. The size of a unit is generally much smaller than a population point.

It's also a silly idea to stockpile weapons and such. A unit isn't just a mob with a bunch of weapons. A unit requires training to function as a conherent whole. So I don't think it is necessarily to build any training facilities although doing so will make the game to appear more realistic. A related idea here then is you can't rush build units, or not more by 50%, say. This represents the inherent necesscity for spending sufficient time in training.

As for a Unit Workshop, I think it's a good idea. There are special units -- such as Alpine units -- that not all countries have. These should be specificially designed.
Urban Ranger is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:21.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team