Engineers and Armies

[SerapisIV]

Here's an idea, what if armies also include engineers?

Would you get a combat bonus, for mine-fields, trenches, earthworks, that kinda thing? Players have always used "combat" engineers in SMAC and CivII near their fronts to make their attacks easier, why not include them in armies as well.

In particular, you could get a bonus for using them with city-attacks, sappers, siege machines, etc.

[Nemo]

it has been my understanding that we will be able to do this. an army=stacked combat units, engineer=worker unit, therefore just stack the worker in with your combat units, and walla...you have an army engineer at teh front lines. but as far as a bonus...i dont see why they would get a bonus. is the army general holding a pistol to their head as motivation to work faster or something?

[airdrik]

Actually, you already get such an advantage (to an extent). You take your engineers and build a railroad right up to his front door and unload your troops. You can also use them to build fortifications which give a defence bonus to all units present. As for the mere presence of an engineer in and of itself giving any sort of bonus, I think that would be rather ify.

[dognheat]

When you talk of siege engines the engineers could build to assist, I know you mean virtualy as a % attack bonus. But I am curious, if you have a catapult/cannon/armor/howitzer/etc. what could an engineer do that these units couldn't? I would be all for some kind of bonus system for stacked armies like Warlords to some extent. For those who haven't played warlords the power of your army was based on the composition of the stack that was involved in the battle:

+1 for hero
-3 for fighting against dragon
-1 for fighting against evil units
+1 for catapult when attacking city
+ 2 morale for champions

You get the idea.

These bonuses would offset each other and the result would be the combat modifier for the battle.

Now I am not advocating the use of this solely as the decider of battles, but the addition of attack and defense bonuses (+ %) that would depend on the composition of the army stack in combat is something to be considered.

[Colonel Rhombus]

I think a combat engineer unit is a good idea. Weaker in attack/defense than a specialist infantry unit but still not too bad (they are put through basic training like all other recruits and issued with a weapon) but with the capability of building bridges, fortifications and repair damaged units (maybe). To reflect their skills in demolitions, their presence in an attack on a city or fortified position would give the attacker a small bonus (10 - 20%, whatever).

------------------
Regards,
Col. Rhombus

[Ilkuul]

I think engineers should only be combat engineers/sappers in Civ3. I remember my surprise when I first played Civ2, to discover that these units called 'engineers' were just super-settlers: to me the name 'engineers' (plural) always means specialist military personnel. Any other kind of engineer is a 'civil engineer', 'hydraulic engineer', or whatever the specialisation is. So I like the idea of a separate unit, as Rhombus suggests.

There would then (perhaps) need to be some other 'super-worker' unit to take on the civilian engineer functions (irrigation, road/railroad building, terraforming): or else after Explosives (or its equivalent), workers could receive augmented abilities.

[Colonel Rhombus]

Just a whimsical suggestion, but perhaps the construction of irrigation, mining, etc. could be handled within the city screen without the need of a unit?

You could allocate distribution of production between city improvements and terrain enhancements.

That, however, doesn't account for roads, railroads, etc. outside a city radius, as I have just realised. Hmmm.

Nah, cancel that idea.

Here's what I reckon. Keep the current configuration of Settler unit which can found cities, build roads, mines, fortresses and irrigation, but none of the modern enhancements. It is then replaced by the civilian engineer, which can do all of the same plus construct the railroads and farms and whatever other new terrain improvements Civ3 offers that are off limits to ancient settlers. The combat engineer, however, is required for the construction of military installations like airfields and modern fortifications (to replace the ancient fortress). These new fortifications would consist of cyclone fences, razor wire, hardened bunkers, minefields, guard towers and machine gun nests to make life hard for both modern infantry and tanks alike. This combat enginerr would also be able to help out with civilian tasks like roads, repairing damaged structures (if Civ3 does include hitpoints for city improvements) in times of need, as they do in real life.

------------------
Regards,
Col. Rhombus

[SerapisIV]

CivIII will be having a division of settlers/workers, ala SMAC. Having a combat engineer as a seperate unit, I think there's too little difference between a combat engineer and regular super-worker unit. At least that's due to my assumption that a combat engineer would be able to make roads and railroads, since military engineers always have had to build transportation improvements for themselves. The only difference between a worker and combat engineer would be irrigation and mines.

I don't think that there's enough differentiation between the two ideas to require a two different unit. I suggest merely that the regular engineer unit (super-worker as you've called) just take on an extra combat bonus when included in an army. A combat engineer would have no attack value of its own, its just gives a combat bonus, a % attack bonus or something of that order.

I'm all for more units, but I'd like the option to use my engineers in an army if they're needed but then use them to build normal civil improvements once the war is over. If a combat engineer is an independent unit, it would be sitting on its duff just like my army is after a conquest instead of being productive.

[Admiral PJ]

I'm reminded of World war 1 where teams (engineers?) had to cut through the barb wire fortifications around trenches with heavy duty wire cutters,
which is the earliest modern form of combat engineer perhaps.

I think there should be a separate millitary engineer unit, they could build some things much quicker like pontoon bridges (with special bridge laying trucks) and maybe come with JCB diggers and heavy machinery for building trenches, destroying fortifications , good for pillaging
(exploding buildings too) and have special abilities - could lay AND diffuse mine fields.
Near here in Colchester theres a bomb disposal unit.. Bomb disposal could be another mil.engineer ability, for preventing terrorism (stopping spies/terrorists by defusing their bombs)
And they could be able to sabotage units, and set booby traps (like in the vietnam war.. though this is complicated)

Admiral Pete

[SerapisIV]

What I call a combat engineer is just a worker/engineer in an army or stacked unit. They would not be combatants by themselves, however they would be able to give attack and defense bonuses (like a SMAC +25%).

Since WWII engineers have always followed the armies, not just building supply lines, but also doing demolition of bridges for retreats, forging rivers, etc. Engineers in the Gulf breached the sand berms with water cannons, cut lanes through the Iraqi minefields and bulldozed over infantry trenches. The engineers increase the effectiveness of attacking armies/units. For these reasons, an engineer/worker added to an army should give that army some kind of attack bonus at least. They shouldn't add attack value on their own, just make the army itself more effective.

My mention of siege engines and sappers were just examples of roles that engineers play in ancient attacks as well. I'm not advocating new units, just saying that attacking a city with a army that includes an engineer/worker is able to lower the effectiveness of city walls, as their capapbilities (acting as sappers, building siege engines for the attacking troops) help bypass the frontline defenses. I just provide that to say that engineers in particular should be also able to give armies attacking a city a bonus.

[Ilkuul]

I throw my vote in with the Admiral. Coming from Colchester, he should know a thing or two! (Oldest recorded town in England, long-standing army base, etc...) It should be army engineers, not spies, who destroy city walls! As well as the other special abilities he mentions. Laying minefields and defusing mines would be an exciting addition to the game, if it could still be included at this stage...