Should there be a C-5 Galaxy type unit in Civ3?

Zanzin · May 4, 2001, 22:29

Me thinks so. There are more ways in the modern era to transport your units than via sea. I found it agrivating in Civ2 that you couldn't move your units via air.

I think you should be able to move 5 infantry units per airplane...or 2 tank/artillery/mod inftanty units etc etc.

What are other peoples thoughts?

polymths · May 4, 2001, 22:55

In Civ2, you can definitely move units via air transport by using airports. This is sufficient and I do not see the need to actually load units into cargo planes and move them around.

tniem · May 4, 2001, 23:26

quote:

Originally posted by polymths on 05-04-2001 10:55 PM
In Civ2, you can definitely move units via air transport by using airports. This is sufficient and I do not see the need to actually load units into cargo planes and move them around.

Only addition to this would be to allow soldiers to be flown to airstrips and have helicopters that can hold marines or some other type of military unit for a Vietnam style of war.

May 5, 2001, 00:30

They had the helicopter thing in CtP2. It was so-so.

Venger · May 5, 2001, 01:00

quote:

Originally posted by Zanzin on 05-04-2001 10:29 PM
Me thinks so. There are more ways in the modern era to transport your units than via sea. I found it agrivating in Civ2 that you couldn't move your units via air.

I think you should be able to move 5 infantry units per airplane...or 2 tank/artillery/mod inftanty units etc etc.

What are other peoples thoughts?

I would like the ability to at least customize. I wanted an amphibious carrier that carried Marines and Helicopters in Civ2. No dice. I wanted heliborne cavalry that could carry one light infantry unit. No dice. The ability to flag a unit as carrying another type of unit and a carry capacity should be included.

Venger

Zanzin · May 5, 2001, 01:03

quote:

Originally posted by polymths on 05-04-2001 10:55 PM
In Civ2, you can definitely move units via air transport by using airports. This is sufficient and I do not see the need to actually load units into cargo planes and move them around.

Lol, I completly forgot about the airports in Civ2. Please, excuse me!

On the same token though, if you have seaports in civ3, would it be a good idea to make it possible that you can automatically move units between cities with seaports?

BeBro · May 5, 2001, 09:05

I´d love real air transport. Planes and helis! Since we have sea transport, air transport is the next step.

"Normal" units could need an entire turn to "land", paratroopers and other special forces could make paradrops and attacks in the same turn...

------------------
Civ2000 hosted by CivII Universum

Admiral PJ · May 5, 2001, 11:59

Well airports aren't suitable I think,
you Should be able to land troops on airstrips at least..
helicopters would be useful for transporting vehicles and troops over rough terrain, a role which airports don't cater for.

What about ground trucks too.. they should be able to transport units faster than an ancient legion could go for example.

This shows the holes in the old Civ2's combat system which needs to be fixed.. just make troops move faster if they can be supplied with trucks after automobiles discovered..

Railroads also move too fast.. or should roads be speeded up?

Admiral Pete

Zanzin · May 5, 2001, 20:43

The railroad issue is a dicey one. It makes movement of troops more realistic in the modern age, but, yes, it does seem to move them to fast.

Roads I think should be sped up, costing 1/5th of a movement point instead of 1/3rd.

Gramphos · May 6, 2001, 00:07

I think that Helicopters shall be able to transport land units, And that paratroopers shall be able to attack from them as Marinas from transports.

Kc7mxo · May 6, 2001, 15:38

I disagree. You can't transport a large number of units effectivly in planes. Thats WHY we have transports. Tanks are freaking heavy. Artillery is even worse. Leave the armies on the ground and on the sea please.

Youngsun · May 7, 2001, 00:01

quote:

I would like the ability to at least customize. I wanted an amphibious carrier that carried Marines and Helicopters in Civ2. No dice. I wanted heliborne cavalry that could carry one light infantry unit. No dice. The ability to flag a unit as carrying another type of unit and a carry capacity should be included.

Venger's suggestion makes sense to me.

A mechanised infantry unit represents number of MBT + number of APC/IFV + support artillery + number of infantrymen.

A para trooper unit represents number of infantrymen + permanently attached air transports.

A Marine unit represents number of infantrymen + number of amphibious landing craft

You wouldn't divide a horsemen unit to horses and men, would you?

Sea trasnports are the only exception since they operate in completely different military branch from a land army.

Adm.Naismith · May 7, 2001, 04:35

I suppose we miss all this when Firaxis decided to cut the Unit Workshop concept out of Civ III. I would like to see a better developed Unit Workshop, learning from SMAC errors, but lots of fans think different.

Now they get what they deserve, with CIV predefined and fixed special units

Generally speaking, it seems to me the level of military details in Civ is uncertain: Firaxis is not sure if steer to a more tactical military (sea transport of troops by dedicated ships) or keep them as strategical as possible (instant move of units between airports, but with silly "risk o enemy planes shooting your transport" - how in the hell I can't escort them with my fighters as I do with my ships?).

If Firaxis will go on "tactical" side, then transport planes and choppers are acceptable (but very limited to modern time, and with reduced capacity); OTOH, if they go back to strategical side, they can ignore anything different from a tweak to airport rules, e.g. the ability to extend air transport to the airfields built by engineer outside of cities.

Just a final note: it needs a great game AI improvement if we want to really see all this advanced air rules at work, because too often in CIV II and SMAC they come in action when the game is almost over.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

tniem · May 7, 2001, 20:03

quote:

Originally posted by Zanzin on 05-05-2001 08:43 PM
The railroad issue is a dicey one. It makes movement of troops more realistic in the modern age, but, yes, it does seem to move them to fast.

Roads I think should be sped up, costing 1/5th of a movement point instead of 1/3rd.

By the end of the game, you are looking at 1 year per turn. What country in the last 100 years couldn't move its entire army from one end of the country to the other and be ready for battle. WWI, WWII, and today's modern armies all have to be ready for battle within weeks. Railroads allow this to happen. I would be very angry if I couldn't in Civ III take my entire army from NY to LA in a year. It may seem fast but when a turn is characterized in a year and a map to the globe it is actually to slow.

Lonestar · May 7, 2001, 20:16

If they did, I am sure they would have the C-130, not the C-5. It's much more common.

polymths · May 7, 2001, 21:17

quote:

Originally posted by tniem on 05-07-2001 08:03 PM
By the end of the game, you are looking at 1 year per turn. What country in the last 100 years couldn't move its entire army from one end of the country to the other and be ready for battle. WWI, WWII, and today's modern armies all have to be ready for battle within weeks. Railroads allow this to happen. I would be very angry if I couldn't in Civ III take my entire army from NY to LA in a year. It may seem fast but when a turn is characterized in a year and a map to the globe it is actually to slow.

The time/turn really shouldn't be looked at literally. It is better to think of it as an approximate indication of the age you're in. I wished that a better way to mark time was used but it is extremely minor point because the true unit is really turns.

Forgetting about time-unit issues and realizing that the true time units is the turn it really doesn't make sense that you can move land units at far distances in one turn but can move much much less distance using air/naval units in that same turn.

Youngsun · May 7, 2001, 23:10

quote:

Now they get what they deserve, with CIV predefined and fixed special units

Yes they asked for it!

Adm.Naismith · May 8, 2001, 02:37

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 05-07-2001 11:10 PM
Yes they asked for it!

Are you playing with my words, YoungHUN?

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

Zanzin · May 8, 2001, 03:04

quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar on 05-07-2001 08:16 PM
If they did, I am sure they would have the C-130, not the C-5. It's much more common.

I don't really care what type of air transport unit they might use!! C-5 was just the first one that popped into my head as an example to get the concept across