Unit Strengths by Era

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by dac
Ok, I'll dissent. I like Marines. They're the only unit that can invade a city right off the transport. I've flanked many an AI by having the Marines hit what I deemed an important coastal city a turn or two after I've invaded from another direction.

I agree, are you guys that are knocking on marines even using them to attack coastal cities from a transport? That is what they are for. D-day stuff. And for doing that they are fantastic. Bombard the city down to almost nothing then use a transport of them to take the city. Then you can put a transport each(or two or three) of tanks infantry and some artillery in the city, all with movement points available to set up defenses and strike inland. Anyway, if you are using marines for ANYTHING else you will likely be disappointed.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Sevorak
Hmmm...I like the idea of defensive artillery preventing retreat.

Defensive artillery, despite being a last-minute throw-in, has a lot of potential as a game concept. At this point, however, it's a little too weak since it only gets to fire at one opponent per turn, and at a ROF of 1. Why shouldn't a defender have to use combined arms too?
...
One shot ZOC doesn't really cut it, not much of a threat considering its low chance of success. Fortresses seem to be kind of an afterthought, just tacked on - Soren once said that the AI generally doesn't build fortresses because their value is "debatable" or something like that. I mean, any unit passing a fortress has a flat 50% chance not to be hit at all. Then, the unit in the fortress uses its attack value (which is not always too impressive) to attempt its advantage shot. You're sort of stuck there in terms of fortress garrisoning - you either stick a unit in there that can defend against a direct attack, or you put one in that might actually hit with its opportunity fire. Or, you could stack more units in, but then you're just dispersing your defense more.

Without the Civ2 style ZOC lock, even fortresses are of minimal use, since to guard a border that way would be to occupy every tile on the border with a fortress and unit. Otherwise, they ignore your fortresses, their only risk being a single 20-30% chance at a single hit point off a single target.
...
As for the 'stealth fighter' - since they're basing the technologies and units on real-world things (excepting the spaceship - note how even Fusion Power is gone from Civ2) they use the F-117A as their example, which is why it can't perform air superiority missions. There has never, in real life, been an operationally deployed 'stealth fighter' per se, just a 'small precise stealth bomber' and a 'large imprecise stealth bomber'. You can see they use the F-117A as its graphic, and the real-life F-117A carries no combat air-to-air radar, and most importantly, no air-to-air weaponry either - indeed, it cannot carry air-to-air missiles. So if you really think about it, the lack of air superiority from a stealth 'fighter' is completely realistic.

-Sev

DEFENSIVE ARTILLERY: Artillery may be very important in the attack, but they have often been the attack-breaker defensively (depending of course, on the time period). The defender supposedly has been in place, has laid out required coordinates, and has stockpiled ammunition.
SOLUTION: Allow each attacking unit to be bombarded by at least one defending artillery, and maybe by each defending artillery. Perhaps this would involve defending units not being limited to firing just once. CAVEAT: This almost begs for provisions for Artillery DUELS - Allow for Support units to be destroyed, with same bombardment defense as other noncombatants.

What ZOC was trying to simulate in old boardgames, back when ZOC was 'invented', was that they prevented units from passing through them because it was 'stupid' to try to do so. Do I hear the term 'flank attack?'
SOLUTION: Take out that 'movement' advantage for the offender, and give EACH ZOC projecting unit a full-value shot at EACH offending unit. This would allow non-warring states flexibility to move, but opposing forces would suffer appropriately. Also, units can be destroyed by moving through enemy ZOCs because it can involve physical engagement.
Regarding capturable units such as Explorers or Workers, I would recommend Workers would be SOL because they would involve lots of manpower, but Explorers might 'stealth' through -- (minor point, sorry).

The Stealth Fighter: Simple - just model it on the F-22 currently in development (or maybe on the chopping block) and grant it an air-superiority role. Either maintain its current bombardment role or not. Change the graphic or not.

[vmxa1]

Is not the reason that a civ can mount an all attack in one turn due to the RR? If RR was not there you could see the attack coming in time to defend. As long as you can send everything you have in one turn to any tile (yours) that has RR on it, it will be tuff to defend. I agree that walls are nearly useless except against barbs with great Wall. After that it does not do much.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by gus_smedstad

In short, all artillery needs to be about twice as good as it is now, since the value of the hits on the town instead of the unit are very low to the attacker. That value isn't zero, but it's at most elminating the 25% bonus for size 7+ cities.

It's more than just pop reduction, its the fact it can do its damage with NO chance of being destroyed in the attack, and dramatically reduces the small odds of your mobile units of getting killed in a 1 hp v 1hp situation. Also, artillery at all ages is very cheap, and they are upgradable from their humble beginnings to the might of art and radar art.

[notyoueither]

Correction re Nukes.

Am back at the game that I have most experience using nukes in (my current game).

I may have noticed what caused the AI to choose its targets for ICBMs. I didn't notice it before because the key was hidden. It was mostly invisible on the map and was never important to me at any time.

Cycling through my cities to optimize gold output I came to one of the targets that I thought the AI had wasted an ICBM on trying to hit. I know this was a target, because I noted it due to the fact that I thought it was such a useless target. *Hey look at that, it's got Salt Peter right next to it. Wait a minute...* I founded this city long after I had Tanks and MechInf so I didn't give a hoot that there was SP hidden by Irrigation in a desert.

Yup, all of the cities hit had strategic resources adjacent to them. I didn't notice this while the AI had nukes to launch so I cannot say the same is true for all of its targets, but the coincidence is large. 3 cities hit (1 twice), 1 known target, 4 strategic resources adjacent. 1 Oil, 1 Aluminum, 1 Salt Peter, 1 Horses ( ).

So I may have discovered an exploit. Don't build important cities adjacent to strategic resources early in the game. Later in the game build small outpost cities adjacent to them (on top of?, several not targeted as far as I can remember). Then later the important cities will not get nuked (maybe).

Salve

/Edit
Of course if they have enough to go around, they will plaster you (tried that too).

[King of Rasslin]

Swordsman- Very powerful, but requires iron. Iron is somewhat rare on a small map. Resources should be concentrated on a smaller map so you don't have to wait for Longbowmen for a real offence

ALL defencive units- useless. The computer will simply pillage you instead! Putting a musketman in your base encourages the comp to wreck your land. You would have to make 3 dozen of them to cover your border! The horse units are WAY too powerful

Retreating from combat should be 50/50 since they have decent armor anyway. If they keep their high armor (knight and cavalry have 3) they shouldn't need to retreat like that. Its really an abuse of power to be able to retreat AND have tough armor as combined arms becomes pointless

The comp shouldn't be so crazy about pillaging if you make so many musketmen just not to be attacked. Horse units are too powerful for too long.

#1- Make the stupid chariot better.
#2- Make iron more plentiful on small maps.
#3- Make Horse units easier to kill
#4- Lower defence of modern armor, to make the mech infantry more useful in combined arms
#5- Tanks should be able to attack twice a turn, i think it says they can but i don't think they can...
#6- Some military techs should be bumped up some. Horseback riding is rather early, as the chariot is worthless. Military tradition is also early.
#7- Make the bombard units before artillery more useful. They can only attack 1 square so their power should be better.
#8- Why even bother bombarding with air fighters? This should be looked at again.
#9- Transports hold too many units, defending just 2 will get me in a whole island or small continent.
#10- Change some unique units, as hitting a golden age is easier for units that are useful for much longer. I can see Cossacks used for a long time, but not jaguar warriors.

This turned more into a patch suggestion thread rather than an actual strategy thread

But these are some things i find too easy/hard in combat.

[Skanky Burns]

#10- Change some unique units, as hitting a golden age is easier for units that are useful for much longer. I can see Cossacks used for a long time, but not jaguar warriors.

Actually i have to disagree with you on that one. JWs are the only ancient unit i would build in the modern times. They are extremely cheap to build, difficult for the AI to remove, and you can just imagine the look on your enemies face as hundreds of these little midgets burst into his territory, pillaging and looting

With all that going on, it would not be possible for the enemy to mount an effective offence

Not even the mighty Hoplites have the shelf-life of the JWs

[Nic]

Originally posted by Velociryx
This is actually a variant of "Doctrine-Defensive" from the SMAX guide, except instead of ringing your continent with sea bases and using them as "spotters," you're building fortifications at relevant borders and staffing them with an increasingly deadly array of nasty things.

If the attacker decides it's not worth the trouble to "punch through" since there would be no immediate gain (that is to say, no immediate city capture, nor a degradation of the defender's ability to crank out troops--raze a city), then the defender wins by default, having averted the attack before it began.

Or...no?

I think probably yes, the key to making this work is that the defender retains control of the roads so they should be able to mass sufficient counter-force. I think we can all agree that the AI does not really understand strategic reserve but human players will quickly learn it or become eternal losers to the MP cav-rush players. A purely static defense will never achieve more than slowing down an opponent, something that is true not just in civ3 but throughout most wars in history.

Defensive terrain is crucial, forts are an obvious part of that but there are other factors. Borders should have limited crossings, surplus roads should not be built and if necessary (e.g. after cultural absorbtion) should be pillaged by your own forces. Extensive open terrain where the borders are close is a prime spot for surprise attack so plant a forest that will really annoy attacking cavalry. Then of course there is the obvious strategy of building your cities on defensible terrain in the first place. Throughout history borders between nations have tended to end up along defensible geographic features, understand why and emulate. All these things buy time for your mobile reserve to rush up on roads and launch a counter-attack on an increasingly exhausted attacker.

All other things being equal it is a matter of who has the most skill and luck - exactly as it should be.

--
Nic

[Matthevv]

As is mentioned above, the sudden rush of a concentrated horseman/knight/tank army across a border is very difficult to counter effectively, because of the turn based nature of the game. Once railroads are invented, I can move all my cavalry or tanks to one spot, cross the border, and capture an enemy town all in one move. Building up a proper army of combined forces is not necessary, as this strategy (if it is worth calling it that) can be repeated every turn. Even before railways, cavalry are moving nine squares on roads, so it is nearly as effective.

To prevent this, I would make the crossing of a border take the same number of moves as moving onto a mountain square. All invading armies would then stop on the border, allowing the defender to move to respond to the invasion, by moving troops to defend the threatened cities, or by engaging the enemy at the border. I would prefer this to approaches that require stationing a line of units along the border, or forts containing units, as that would require a lot of tedious micromanagement, especially at the times when troops need to be upgraded. I did that once for a border only 5 tiles long, and it was still too boring for words.

I would like to see city walls made more effective, as they were in Civ2 so that to take a city it is necessary to build an army with catapults, cannons, etc. and perhaps also some workers to build forts for the attackers when besieging. Perhaps there could be an upgrade cost for city walls as the city grows, and/or as new technology requires new types of fortifications. Currently with the attack units generally stronger than the defenders, the possibility of the attackers getting lucky, and walls weak, there isn't much value to walls, as you still need to defend always with a big stack of units.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Matthevv

To prevent this, I would make the crossing of a border take the same number of moves as moving onto a mountain square. All invading armies would then stop on the border, allowing the defender to move to respond to the invasion, by moving troops to defend the threatened cities, or by engaging the enemy at the border. I would prefer this to approaches that require stationing a line of units along the border, or forts containing units, as that would require a lot of tedious micromanagement, especially at the times when troops need to be upgraded. I did that once for a border only 5 tiles long, and it was still too boring for words.

Don't kill blitzkrieg just because the AI can't handle it. That doesn't make sense. Remember WWII and France?

[vmxa1]

I kind of like the virtual mountain for borders. The game could act as if one move terrain was at the border of all cities. Once you cross the border for that city the terrain would be treated normally.
Blitzkrieg was not done instantly, it took time to get the tanks in place. It is not so much of a problem for the human as it is for the AI to see it coming and try to defend. I can have my units spread out and then move them all in one turn, I have not seen the AI do that, but then by the time they have RR everywhere I have thinned out the army.

[Matthevv]

It wouldn't kill blitzkreig I think. If the defenders choose to use slower moving infantry based defenders, as was the case in WWII your massed tanks would still be quite effective, because of their speed, but you would be forced to fight the enemy's troops to defeat them. Currently, you don't have to, just pick off their cities one by one before they have time to even move. Once the cities are under your control, you can move in additional defenders all in the same move, making it very difficult for them to re-capture when it is their turn.

[Arrian]

Hmm... I don't like the "border like mountains" idea. As you might have noticed, I am one of the (relatively few?) people who doesn't mind that mobile units are powerful. I know that once the human gets Cav, the human can usually overrun entire empires with it, and agree that it's a bit of a problem. HOWEVER, I don't like any of the "do this one thing and it will fix the problem" ideas. I think it's gotta be a number of small changes rather than 1 big one.

Possible non-AI changes:

1) change in cost for mobile units (either in shields or upkeep)
2) slight increase in defensive combat bonuses, perhaps a 25% vs. 2+ move units for units fortified in cities.
3) increasing defensive power of artillery, including possibly disallowing retreat of a unit that comes under def. bombardment
4) % chance of failed retreat, maybe dependant on the defender
5) removing military tradition and moving cav to nationalism

My personal wishes for the AI, which would help w/this issue:

1) Upgrading... they need to do it.
2) Border fortification & an end to "patrolling"
3) Responding to an invasion stack with as much force as they can muster... possibly waiting a turn or two in order to marshall their forces.
4) Massing bombard units, and using them on the attack... or if they're not gonna use them right, stop building them and build other things. Right now, the AI is just wasting shields on units that I will capture and use against them.

I'm probably just dreaming about the AI stuff.

-Arrian

[CivalusMaximus]

Most people can agree that all mounted units are too powerful in the game. I like the idea of having retreat only be 50% sucessful as it would serve to balance the game.

For me Civ has always been about multiplayer and with that in mind I would like to discuss some of the most powerful units in the game as it stands:

#1 Zuli Impi: This guy defends horse rushes even better than the greek hoplite, furthermore, a 2 move defender lets you move in a defensive unit that can keep up with your horse rush. This makes the Zulu's strong despite the limited amount of discussion about them. Note that the impi can also come early enough to fend off a Jag rush on all but the smallest of maps.

#2 Jag Warrior: Most civs just can't deal with the early rush of these guys produced en mass.

#3 Mounted Warrior: This guy is going to be counter attacked constantly. Seeing as he can't use enemy roads he (like all other horsies) will have to slow down his charge towards the enemy to bring along his support. If your opponent has early enough warning (and most humans are able to recognize a massive group of units for what it is (unlike the AI)), by the time your units start arriving the garrison will be too large, and the counterattackers will be ready (MW's will drop like crazy). That being said for most civilizations (except say Zulu) the same disadvantages apply to horsies, and a 3 attack horse is still a big gun.


I would talk about other ages but for me so far the game is 80% determined by the ancient age so I have limited experience with the other units from balanced positions.

That being said: The game needs a standard 2 move defender unless the cavalry rules are changed, incredibly large forces are needed to defend and even if the defender is victorious by the time they mobilize the attacker will have a new large force (pop rushing is just that good) and the defender will likely be disrupted by mass pillaging.

Note: Making it impossible to capture cities without culture has opened the door to sick abuses in multiplayer( if/when it comes around), If I know my opponent builds lots of temples I can fight a border war with them destroying my 0 culture cities while I capture their cultured ones. Even better since culture resets with capture, even if they are able to recapture they will still lose the city (since I would sell or destroy any temple in a city I'm not able to keep).

Lastly, along the same lines as this post, PLZ PLZ PLZ add some form of multiplayer in the next patch, if not the full thing than at least hotseat, many of us are itching to test strategies against human strategies not just the AI.

[halley]

What about:

City walls give +50% to def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

Cities with 7+ pop give +50% to def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

Cities with 12+ pop give +100% def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

I'm not a history expert, but I don't think Cavalry were used to assault cities. Their speed and maneuvrability would be severely limited if they had to fight in narrow city streets. Cavalry should be used for attacking units in the open, where their mobility gives them the advantage.

Also, artillery units need a boost. Right now, they are too weak.

[Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS]

Thanks guys. This is very useful information.

Jeff

[player1]

Originally posted by halley
What about:

City walls give +50% to def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

Cities with 7+ pop give +50% to def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

Cities with 12+ pop give +100% def vs. movement 2+ units, in addition to current bonuses

I'm not a history expert, but I don't think Cavalry were used to assault cities. Their speed and maneuvrability would be severely limited if they had to fight in narrow city streets. Cavalry should be used for attacking units in the open, where their mobility gives them the advantage.

Also, artillery units need a boost. Right now, they are too weak.

Just look my post several pages up.

The best way is to make retreat IMPOSSIBILE when attacking cities with City Walls or cities with pop 7+. Forts should be included also.
But, tanks should be excluded (as all blizt flag units).

I think that is very elegant, and simple solution, which won't distrupt gameplay.

[Arrian]

Jeff,

Glad to give my input (though I seem to be in the minority on what should be done). I do agree that some balancing is needed. The game, as it plays right now, probably isn't exactly the way it was meant to be. You can really build a bunch of Cavalry and annihilate large empires in short periods of time, especially pre-nationalism. No combined arms necessary.

But I also think it's only partly the units, partly the AI, and maybe partly the defensive bonus rules. Player1's idea about disallowing retreat from cities or walled towns is pretty good, IMHO. 1) it probably deals with the game balance issue and 2) it makes more sense than the present rules. He's right - historically, unsupported Cavalry (read: horsemen, knights, cavalry) charges against walled towns with intrenched footsoldiers (of comparable technological advancement) was suicide.

-Arrian

[David Weldon]

I just had a better thought regarding an idea I posted last page:

Originally posted by David Weldon
Obsolete units being competetive vs. modern units was a design decision to prevent people without resources from being completely screwed. I understand the sentiment but think that it was a poor implementation. Instead...

Create "non-resource" versions of all units that simply cost more. You can balance the extra cost so that resources are just as important as they are now, and then you can introduce a more powerful obsolecense mechanic that will prevent all the whining about frigate v. sub, or spearman v. tank, etc.

OK, that's what I had to do because of the limitations of the editor, but you guys could do even better. Just add some code that increases the production cost of a unit if you don't have the required resource. This will have the added benefit that the finished unit would be exactly the same as a normal one, and therefore wouldn't be worth more when disbanded. It makes more sense, because the extra expense is due to difficulty in obtaining the raw goods necessary, while the finished product is still just a tank (or whatever).

I'll also briefly mention here that I think the cost of rushing units in the late game is too small. Empires by then have huge economies, and the cost of modern units is too low in comparison. This allows a giant "scientific, peaceful, builder" civilization to actually be the most powerful military nation by simply buying an immense military. Even mobilized communisms can't keep up.

[Foxglove]

Did I read this right?
Units (such as cavalry) should not be able to retreat if attacking a city/stack which has artillery in it, due to the bombardment range.
Sounds good if I got it right.

My points:

* Jaguar warrior will be unbalancing in a MP situation and may need modiying at a later date, but only for MP purposes.

* City walls in ancient era should get more of a defensive bonus imho. At present their effects seem negligable.

* Tanks should get a better defense rating, or there should be an upgrade route of tanks available, kind of like WW1 - WW2 - Present day tanks. I love tank warfare, but hate seeing a musketman or even a longbowman taking out my chunk of steel.
Also, i`d like to see automatic pillaging of enemy improvements if a tank is fortified on that enemy square. I mean these units in real life tore up whatever land they drove over. /shrug

* F-15 is a poor choice for the American UU. It comes to late in the game and ends up as just a glorified bomber, of which one usually has loads already. Suggest making it a non-UU unit and making it available as an upgrade for the basic propellor fighter.

I`d have preferred to have seen an American UU around the beginning of the industrial age, when the Americans were wiping the American Indians off the face of the continent. Perhaps call it a "Cowboy" unit or something with a +1 attack difference compared to a regular musketman. (And John Wayne if a leader is produced lol)

* The AI seems to like producing shedloads of ironclads, even when destroyers available. Granted that the AI`s ironclads always seem to sink my destroyers....even my battleships. But I don`t think ironclads had much "Shelf life" in history, perhaps only lasting 10-20 years or so in terms of usefulness (WW1 era)

* Cities with a coastal fortress and artillery in it should get an attack range to edge of cities culture line out to sea or something at least worthwhile to deter the enemy from getting close.
Coastal fortress remains a useless improvement imho.

* Almost forgot. Chariots. Useless as an attacking unit, and I only really use them as an exploration unit. Would like to see a +1 attack added to them making them 2,1,2, or if this is too unbalancing then just allow movement on roads and on grass/plains. Dunno.


Regards

--
Foxglove
--

[player1]

Despotic rush needs to be tweaked.

Why?

Becase of 1 pop city can be always made content with just one Mil. P. unit.

How to fix:
So you need to make some sort of NEGATIVE unhappines so 1 pop city wich rused 3 units should need 2 M.P. and Temple to stay content, not just one M.P. unit.

Also this startegy is very effective because of RAMPANT CORRUPTION.

So losing a pop is NOT A BIG DEAL.

[Sirian]

I agree with Player1: poprush can be exploited, because there are no additional penalties to small cities for rushing over and over. There SHOULD BE. It's fine to rush once, since at every difficulty level, there's at least one content citizen, period. However, for drafts and forced labor, there ought to be extra penalty accumulated that overwhelms the contentment factors. Right now, if you have a temple or (under communist/despotic) a military unit, no amount of unhappiness can erase that contentment. This is unbalanced. The unhappiness, rather than the contentment, deserves the priority. If unhappiness is large enough, nothing should be able to quell it, short of assigning every citizen in the city to specialist duty. I've seen that happen under democracy/republic, with captured cities and no temple, but even the temple should not be able to quell so much unrest.

If that sticks a thorn into the AI, then improve the AI so they rush less. Every AI I've seen is complete and hopeless TOAST once they go to communist anyway. They will erode their population in a hurry and fall by the wayside. The AI's are only a threat when they stay in democracy. That's been my experience. I'll even make a point of getting them to war with one another, because if one of them loses and is swallowed whole, the other will go into communist to do it and wreck themselves in the process. It's then east to outtech them all to the modern era and lay waste to them at my leisure. Even on Emperor. Communism actually blows, for the AI's at least. They aren't able to turn their forced production into military victory against a smart human opponent, and they just waste themselves in the process.

Allowing the human player to whip whip whip whip without any penalty for whipping too much, is unbalancing. Do whatever it takes to fix that, as it will completely distort and condemn the game for any MP action. The whip rush will be all there is to it if you fail to correct this. The whip is a great addition, but I don't think you have it balanced just yet.


I've been giving more thoughts to air units. The air game is the least well developed, has the most holes in it. I've already made some suggestions: move paratroops to Flight and drop the airport req, move carriers to adv flight, etc etc. I have new thoughts on this.

What good are veteran air units? These things don't have hit points like other units, so what USE is it to have them veteran?

What sense does it make to allow bombers to attack from any city, but not paratroops?

Airports right now are completely useless. You can't afford to build one where you need it for paratroops. It's not worth it even to rush one, under democracy, since paratroops can't compete with tanks anyway. Airports are so much more expensive than harbors, both to build and maintain, and so much more useless. This whole game system needs some changes.

I suggest not even allowing a player to BUILD air units except in cities with an airport. Same goes for paratroops. Whether or not the units are "veteran" should depend on the presence or absence of barracks. Then allow all air units, including paratroops, to attack from any city or carrier. Allow units that drop from helicopters to attack or fortify or move on the same turn. I know that's huge, but it would give more use to marines and modern combined arms, and it would make air superiority vs the AI much more urgent, as even a mildly competent AI use of such aggression would pose a serious threat. Players would then have to build much more airforce, not just to fight off bomber annoyances, but to stop helicopters from penetrating behind the lines. The AI would also have to place much more importance on air superiority in its own territory. As it should. Give this phase of the game some teeth. It deserves more than it has. Fighters right now are mainly just weak bombers. They ought to be VITAL defense units. And give any city with an airport a bonus to any units running air superiority missions there.

At the very least, allow paratroops to launch and attack on the same turn. This is the only thing that made them useful in Civ2.

F-15's in particular ought to be dominating at air superiority. Give them a stronger attack value. There also needs to be an aggressive offensive option for fighters, to challenge the enemy for air superiority over its own lands... something that goes beyond the current "attack/defense" values, as the defenders should have the advantage in that regard, with radar support and SAM support, etc.

Also, Sattelites ought to introduce new bonuses to air units. If you need some rationale for this, I direct you to examine the results in Afghanistan.


- Sirian

[DaBear]

In the leadup to the release of civ 3 one of the flags that was being waved was for outposts. With outposts being swallowed by the boarders of culture there dosn't seam to be a big requirment to use them over a settler. Never seen an AI build one. They would be much more usefull if the had some culture of there own and able to resist a settler ploping down beside them. Needing a oposing culture to sway them over. (temple library ect.) Not quite a unit so I may be alittle off topic here.

[Aeson]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up already or not, but workers have had their automation trashed by the patch. Automated workers won't stack more than 2 per tile, and this really makes pollution cleanup miserable in the late game. Usually 10 - 15 workers can keep up with a good sized empire's pollution problem, but having to manually move them onto the pollution is inane and boring, why the change? Before the patch I could just hit shift-p and off they went until all the pollution was gone. Now only the first two go to each patch, and if they are captured workers it takes several turns for them to clean up the pollution. Even with home grown workers it takes 2 turns to clean up(non industrious), losing a whole turn of production from that square. I can, and do, put enough workers on each spot of pollution every turn anyways, but it just takes a lot more work now. I was just finishing up a game where turns took nearly 10 minutes to complete, doing nothing other than cleaning up pollution. And even then there were turns when I missed spots of pollution because it's hard to keep track of 20-50 places every turn. Please change this back to how it was.

[steelehc]

* The AI seems to like producing shedloads of ironclads, even when destroyers available. Granted that the AI`s ironclads always seem to sink my destroyers....even my battleships. But I don`t think ironclads had much "Shelf life" in history, perhaps only lasting 10-20 years or so in terms of usefulness (WW1 era)

I must comment on Ironclads.

They were first built in the American civil war, as you know, the Monitor and the Merrimac (Virginia) were the first two ever built. However, they were not useless after this point. The US Navy built a massive fleet of ironclad warships, and maintained them until 1910. The Great Lakes fleet was also made up largely of ironclads, and this was kept until abour 1915. Thats more then 50 years of ironclads, directly tying them into modern warships.

I agree with everything else you have said, especially the "cowboy."

Steele

PS: Bring back the Cruiser, please!

[Foxglove]

Thanks for the info Steelehc.
Never knew that......

Regards

--
Foxglove
--

[player1]

Something about unit flags:

in 1.16f these units have THE_WHEEL flag:
Catapults
Cannons
Chariot
War Chariot

So you NEED to UPGRADE civilopedia
(is it intentional to have TANKs without the_wheel flag?)


in 1.16f these units do not have ZOC flag anymore:
Horsemen
M. Warrior
Rider

So you NEED to UPGRADE civilopedia

Communism has in editor 2 units draft rate, while in civilopedia 3 unit draft

So you NEED to UPGRADE civilopedia (or give communism 3 units draft)

Conclusion:

So you NEED to UPGRADE civilopedia

P.S.

These land units can't be airlifted:

Settler (I can understand, a lot of people)
Worker (I can understand, a lot of people)
Scout (why, it is just ordinary unit)
Explorer (why?)
Catapult (Why? You can airlift tank)
Cannon (why?)
Artillery (why?)
Radar Artillery (why?)
Leader (Why, presidents today do not use planes?)
Army (ok by me, it is more units anyway)

P.P.S.
I posted this at bugs topic, but since it is about UNIT FLAGS I think it would be nice to have it here also.

P.P.P.S
And I thought that first patch is Civililopeda patch.

[vmxa1]

The ironclad may have been around 50 yrs, but what did ours do? Not much.

[pcasey]

The question is, when does a ship cease to be an ironclad and start to be something else? Where in the history of ship design to we draw the line?

Do we say "Iron Clads are wooden hulled vessels with Iron Armor overlays?"

If so, The monitor, Merrimac and Gloire (frennch) are all Ironclads.

HMS Warrior, launched on Dec 29th 1860, however, was an all iron warship and she was launched *before* the monitor and the merrimac making them obsolete as soon as they were launched.

Do we take a more permissive definition and say that an ironclad is any warship with an iron rather than steel superstructure?

If so, the first all steel ships were coming off British and French production lines in the late 1870s.

Which makes the age of the Iron Clad about 20 years.

The problem with trying to decide when Iron Clads became obsolete is trying to figure out exactly what *is* an ironclad. People have this mental image that everyone in the world built lots of erickson monitors until 1906 when HMS dreadnaught changed the world.

The reality, of course, is quite a bit more complex. First there were wooden ships, then there were wooden ships with Iron armor. Then there were iron ships. Then there were steel ships. Then there were more and more advanced steel ships. Eventually, Dreadnaught was launched.

So when along that timeline did warships cease to be ironclads and become something else? Its not as cut and dry as we'd like to believe.

[Sirian]

The Wheel flag prevents units from traversing mountain/jungle without a road. Don't tell me tanks need roads.

If tanks can be airlifted, that's a serious bug. I never even tried it, because both logic and the game docs say it won't happen. Heh.

Oh yeah, and allow armies to unload or AT LEAST to upgrade units. That is just not realistic, nor does it make sense to me in the game balance. No nation would purposely prevent its best armed forces with the richest traditions from access to the best available tech, training, and equipment. Quite the opposite! This could help the AI's, too. They get lots of armies. Oh wait, they never upgrade anything anyway, so what use?


- Sirian