Thread Tools
Old June 7, 2002, 03:52   #1
nato
Prince
 
nato's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: West Unite
Posts: 532
Simple Unit Building Idea
Someone may have thought of this before, but here is a radical idea...

How about, except for settlers and workers, cities:

1. Must have a barracks to build ground units
2. Must have a harbor to build naval units
3. Must have an airport to build air units

A possible exception might be basic defender units, like spearmen, which might be able to be built by any city.

I think this might be very interesting. Even if 1 is too extreme, 2 and 3 make a lot of sense. Just an idea.

Any thoughts?
nato is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 05:16   #2
Nym
Prince
 
Nym's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: France
Posts: 545
Re: Simple Unit Building Idea
Quote:
Originally posted by nato
I think this might be very interesting. Even if 1 is too extreme, 2 and 3 make a lot of sense.
Same remark, but interesting idea, especially for 2 and 3.
__________________
Nym
"Der Krieg ist die bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln." (Carl von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege)
Nym is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 05:25   #3
AIL
Warlord
 
AIL's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 130
Especially for 3 I agree... The Airport is almost useless as it is now and so you could add some sense...
I don't know if the Editor allows itto be done like that... for buildings however it is possible to have a building as requirement so why not for Units too...
AIL is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 05:42   #4
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 03:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Good idea. But what units would they build? Veterans? Hardly, because this would narrow down the unit experience line. Regulars? This would give militaristic civs still a greater advantage in leader generation - cheap barracks and twice the sooner unit promotion.
Harovan is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 06:40   #5
graeme
Settler
 
graeme's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 18
Quote:
Especially for 3 I agree...
I don't understand the reasoning behind 3, why would you need an airport to build aircraft? Surely they are just build in factories.

Also I think that what would be better than 2 is a new city improvement, docks. This would require the city to be next to a river before ships could be built. Or something. Haven't really thought about it too much.

Graeme
graeme is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 06:49   #6
Jethro83
Prince
 
Jethro83's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally posted by graeme
I don't understand the reasoning behind 3, why would you need an airport to build aircraft? Surely they are just build in factories.
I'm certain that aircraft are built in factories. But you still need a place set aside where they can take off and land safely, and maintain communications with ground control.


Anyway, I don't agree with Idea 1, about ground units requiring barracks.

As for idea 2, requiring a harbour, I don't agree with either. However, you should need a harbour in the city to carry out repairs on the ship (since the tech for harbour and tech for first naval unit are the same, it seems reasonable).

But idea 3, I definitely agree. Churning your jet fighters out of their factories is one thing, but having a hangar for them to stay in, and a runway for them to be able to take off and land safely is another.
__________________
"Corporation, n, An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." -- Ambrose Bierce
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction." -- Thomas Jefferson
Jethro83 is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 07:11   #7
graeme
Settler
 
graeme's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 18
Quote:
I'm certain that aircraft are built in factories. But you still need a place set aside where they can take off and land safely, and maintain communications with ground control.
Thats a good point, but this relates to the control and utilisation of the aircraft rather than their manufacture.

Graeme
graeme is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 07:22   #8
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 03:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
As for the factory vs. airport discussion:

The aircraft works in Dresden, Germany were located right next to the airport. You certainly must have both. Or you will have to transport the detais via roads and must assemble them in the airfield, at least for the bigger planes, not talking about small fighters.
Harovan is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 08:17   #9
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Re: Simple Unit Building Idea
Quote:
Originally posted by nato
Someone may have thought of this before, but here is a radical idea...

How about, except for settlers and workers, cities:

1. Must have a barracks to build ground units
2. Must have a harbor to build naval units
3. Must have an airport to build air units

A possible exception might be basic defender units, like spearmen, which might be able to be built by any city.

I think this might be very interesting. Even if 1 is too extreme, 2 and 3 make a lot of sense. Just an idea.

Any thoughts?
hi ,

okay , BUT ; harbor for fishing , PORT for naval units , .....

have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 09:09   #10
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
Makes sense... but when does Firaxis listen to Apolytoners who have ideas that make sense?
__________________
(\__/) "Sava is teh man" -Ecthy
(='.'=)
(")_(") bring me everyone
Sava is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 09:29   #11
Apocalypse
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMMacInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization II MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCiv4 SP Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Apocalypse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,253
A barracks required seems a little extreme, and it isn't required in real life for an entity to produce a unit. Habors might be a little too much also.

The airport idea would be really nice though. I rarely build them in Civ games, and if I do it is one per continent.
__________________
"Yay Apoc!!!!!!!" - bipolarbear
"At least there were some thoughts went into Apocalypse." - Urban Ranger
"Apocalype was a great game." - DrSpike
"In Apoc, I had one soldier who lasted through the entire game... was pretty cool. I like apoc for that reason, the soldiers are a bit more 'personal'." - General Ludd
Apocalypse is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 09:45   #12
Solver
lifer
Civilization IV CreatorsAge of Nations TeamApolytoners Hall of FamePolyCast TeamBtS Tri-LeagueThe Courts of Candle'BreC4WDG Team Apolyton
Deity
 
Solver's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Latvia, Riga
Posts: 18,355
Alas, I'm against the idea, it's a bit too radical for me. The barracks one is completely radical, but the others seem pretty much so for me, too.
__________________
Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man
Solver is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 11:12   #13
dunk
Prince
 
dunk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 978
I like the airport idea. The other two make the game too difficult. Maybe require a harbor for sail age on, but not galleys or caravels.

Maybe something like this for airplanes...

Either an airport or an airfield within its city radius will allow construction of airplanes. I mean, the plane is built in a factory, but what are you going to do with it when it's done if there's no airfield? Take off from Main Street?
dunk is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 11:35   #14
Destroyer
Prince
 
Destroyer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hobbits Armpit
Posts: 311
Are veteran air units worth the cost of an airport?

One good thing about airports is that they can receive as many units airlifted as you have other airports.

The port in civ 2 was one of the most pointless buildings in the game.
__________________
The strength and ferocity of a rhinoceros... The speed and agility of a jungle cat... the intelligence of a garden snail.
Destroyer is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 12:08   #15
SultanofATL
Chieftain
 
SultanofATL's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 61
how about missions except for rebasing being disabled for a plane unless it is in a city with an airport. This would add a new level of strategy.
SultanofATL is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 12:14   #16
Navyman
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 63
At least for modern large naval units like the destroyer, carrier, and battleship the city MUST be required to build something like "Shipyards" or something. We don't see piddly little coastal towns with just a library being able to build 90,000 ton carriers.

And Shipyards should only be able to be built if a coastal city has had a harbor for over 100 years. Let's face it, not every country can build destroyers, or battleships, or for that matter a carrier. Being able to build these massive ships requires a tradition of ship building and naval architecture which the harbor requirement could fill.

But then if it is going to be this difficult to gain a naval capabilty, it should be worth it. My sugguestion would be make the carrier be capable of carrying 8-12 aircrafts. Battleship attack range and power be increased, and destroyers be able to take down aircraft. This maybe too radical a change but I thought I would throw it out there for some comments.
__________________
"Misery, misery, misery. That's what you've chosen" -Green Goblin-
Navyman is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 12:55   #17
candidgamera
Warlord
 
candidgamera's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NW PA, USA
Posts: 103
nato:

posted a couple of times beating this drum, and will help you beat it again: it takes infrastructure to build units especially modern ones. Consider that the game now lets "Kotzebue, Alaska" build a carrier if you have the money, which is ludicrous considering US only builds carriers in one place. I put pop cost now on anything in industrial and up - 3 for carriers and battleships. Done right this might help AI unit diarhea.

Would make it multilevel too: for ships, modern ones say frigate and up I'd say shipyard and harbor. for destroyers up navy base also and for carriers or planes going on carriers naval air station.
similar for air units. Along the lines of navyman's comments.
Navy's cost money and resources no doubt, but that's consistent with history too.

Just the way Civ works makes doing this the it really works hard:
US trains sailors at one base.
US trains pilots in another.
US builds carriers in another.
. . . builds planes in another place.
all come together in Civ terms as planes off a carrier.

However, putting these into building requirements for a city would be a workable compromise. Might need to make the actual units cost less to balance for the building requirements.

Sidebar:
Have had some ideas for some time on feeding these troops too, and keeping them linked to where they were built, but not quite the way Civ II does, and putting this together with a concrete method for war weariness. workers consumable to make units and demobilize too. Have to post on this.
candidgamera is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 13:05   #18
Jon Shafer
PtWDG RoleplayPtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG Neu DemogypticaInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG LegolandPtWDG Vox ControliPtWDG Glory of WarPtWDG2 SunshineApolyton UniversityC3CDG Desolation RowApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG SarantiumApolyCon 06 ParticipantsPtWDG Lux Invicta
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
 
Local Time: 22:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
Quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Makes sense... but when does Firaxis listen to Apolytoners who have ideas that make sense?


More often then you think, give them some credit. They said during the chat that most of their ideas for patches came from HERE, of all places.

Besides, you could probably make most of these changes with the current editor.
Jon Shafer is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 14:09   #19
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally posted by Navyman
At least for modern large naval units like the destroyer, carrier, and battleship the city MUST be required to build something like "Shipyards" or something. We don't see piddly little coastal towns with just a library being able to build 90,000 ton carriers.

And Shipyards should only be able to be built if a coastal city has had a harbor for over 100 years. Let's face it, not every country can build destroyers, or battleships, or for that matter a carrier. Being able to build these massive ships requires a tradition of ship building and naval architecture which the harbor requirement could fill.

But then if it is going to be this difficult to gain a naval capabilty, it should be worth it. My sugguestion would be make the carrier be capable of carrying 8-12 aircrafts. Battleship attack range and power be increased, and destroyers be able to take down aircraft. This maybe too radical a change but I thought I would throw it out there for some comments.
hi ,

there should be ports , one to make that carrier faster then in that only lib town , two it should be needed for the building of veteran ship's , also , it should repair them faster , like in civ2 , but a complete new concept , ...

have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 14:59   #20
Captain
King
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: by Divine Right
Posts: 1,014
Nato,

what about just adding a BUILDING requirement to certain units?

Which specific building would depend on what you set it to in the editor.

This would be editable so that by playtesting of hundreds/thousands of apolytoners and civfanatics, we could come up with better balance.
if not airport, then factory.

also would be good for scenarios.
if designing special WW2 scenario, you could add a building "aircraft factory" that is a prereq for planes. you could add a building "Launch centre" that is a prereq for building V2 rockets.
want to stop the V2 rockets? you don't have to take over the city, just bomb the Launch pad.
want to stop Panzer production? bomb the factories.



Trip:
It's not currently possible with the existing editor and Firaxis hasn't given any indication that building prereqs for units will be implemented.
those interested should keep posting about it, especially if they have a good rapport with firaxis.
__________________
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Captain is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 15:01   #21
Jon Shafer
PtWDG RoleplayPtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG Neu DemogypticaInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG LegolandPtWDG Vox ControliPtWDG Glory of WarPtWDG2 SunshineApolyton UniversityC3CDG Desolation RowApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG SarantiumApolyCon 06 ParticipantsPtWDG Lux Invicta
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
 
Local Time: 22:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
Well, I would have thought something like that would have been obvious, but I guess I was wrong. ^_^
Jon Shafer is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 15:13   #22
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Nato,

what about just adding a BUILDING requirement to certain units?

Which specific building would depend on what you set it to in the editor.

This would be editable so that by playtesting of hundreds/thousands of apolytoners and civfanatics, we could come up with better balance.
if not airport, then factory.

also would be good for scenarios.
if designing special WW2 scenario, you could add a building "aircraft factory" that is a prereq for planes. you could add a building "Launch centre" that is a prereq for building V2 rockets.
want to stop the V2 rockets? you don't have to take over the city, just bomb the Launch pad.
want to stop Panzer production? bomb the factories.



Trip:
It's not currently possible with the existing editor and Firaxis hasn't given any indication that building prereqs for units will be implemented.
those interested should keep posting about it, especially if they have a good rapport with firaxis.
hi ,

that ww2 stuff sounds like fun , .....try to bomb the factory , .....one shall have to try a long time , ......

have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 15:22   #23
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
While I acknowledge the "realism" logic of the suggestion, my fear is that it would greatly damage gameplay, especially in the ancient age. What's a barracks cost, 40 shields? Being forced to build a barracks in a new city before building ground units would be a killer -- on anything above Regent level, your population would grow and become quite unhappy while you're waiting for the barracks to finish (1 - because fewer military police, 2 - because no ability to control city growth through building workers/settlers). It would essentially force you to specify your first two or three cities as the "ground unit prioducers" and avoid building barracks in later cities until your empire was up and humming, with luxuries aplenty and trade deals going.

Similar, but progressively lesser problems, with both harbors and airports.

This IMHO, together with some of the other posts here, strongly argues for leaving the unit build requirements as they are.

Catt
Catt is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 16:07   #24
Spiffor
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG LegolandApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Spiffor's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: jihadding against Danish Feta
Posts: 6,182
Nato's ideas are too radical for me, but I wouldn't mind a "building prereq" box for each unit individually. For example, I'd like to build tanks only in cities which have a factory, even if I want to recruit my infantry anywhere.
__________________
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Spiffor is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 16:14   #25
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally posted by Catt
While I acknowledge the "realism" logic of the suggestion, my fear is that it would greatly damage gameplay, especially in the ancient age. What's a barracks cost, 40 shields? Being forced to build a barracks in a new city before building ground units would be a killer -- on anything above Regent level, your population would grow and become quite unhappy while you're waiting for the barracks to finish (1 - because fewer military police, 2 - because no ability to control city growth through building workers/settlers). It would essentially force you to specify your first two or three cities as the "ground unit prioducers" and avoid building barracks in later cities until your empire was up and humming, with luxuries aplenty and trade deals going.

Similar, but progressively lesser problems, with both harbors and airports.

This IMHO, together with some of the other posts here, strongly argues for leaving the unit build requirements as they are.

Catt
hi ,

the building should not be a must , just to produce a veteran , if you dont use the building , you have a to pay a bit more , and its a regular , ...

have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 17:27   #26
candidgamera
Warlord
 
candidgamera's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NW PA, USA
Posts: 103
Catt:

Would think the early game units wouldn't need a barracks to be built as now, but if a barracks is built they are veteran- representing better training, per Panang. For modern I'd make it needed to even make certain units and combat required to get to veteran.

I mentally treat modern units from about Muskets on as a sort of "division" - they have a bombardment, roadmaking ability - and they cost pop and ought to have building requirements. (Also allow them to add to cities).

Navyman:
reading your post again, guess I'm seconding it with my comments (sorry for being repititious) - definitely agree, Maritime Tradition should matter more.

Captain:
Like it - on the bombing factories.

Also like the ideas above on aircraft factories needed to be built to build planes - similar to emphasizing difficulty in building modern ships. Think it ends up being airport+air force base+aircraft factory requirement per my last post - "civworld logic":

"dunk999: Either an airport or an airfield within its city radius will allow construction of airplanes. I mean, the plane is built in a factory, but what are you going to do with it when it's done if there's no airfield? Take off from Main Street?" agreed.

The "building required" flag would need a "in city" added to it also would think. Seems like if it were to be done, might want 3-4 building requirements chooseable - like required resources are now.

This is all stuff to avoid arguement over by putting into the editor so its optional and explorable. But a bigger issue is even if its in the editor, does the AI work with it sensibly? Not that I don't want it. Wonder if that's why F. guys may not want to do it.
candidgamera is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 17:37   #27
candidgamera
Warlord
 
candidgamera's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NW PA, USA
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Nato,

This would be editable so that by playtesting of hundreds/thousands of apolytoners and civfanatics, we could come up with better balance.
if not airport, then factory.
Reminds me of "an infinite number of monkeys behind typewriters coming up with Hamlet"

Message to Fireaxis: give me a "typewriter".

sidebar: anybody given more than the SAM an air strength yet?
candidgamera is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 18:30   #28
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:06
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
hi ,

as for the buildings , what about a sewer system , .....

further more , a radar building should allow air-units to go further then 8 spaces , .....

have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old June 7, 2002, 23:03   #29
nato
Prince
 
nato's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: West Unite
Posts: 532
Right now, I think Civ3 is very very warmonger. I was thinking this might weaken warmongering. Also, I thought it might lead towards more specialized cities, which I think is very cool and more strategic than all generalist cities.

Given comments, especially Sir Ralph's about what level units would be, and everyone who thinks it would be too radical, I think a slightly revised version might be:

0. All cities can build settlers, workers, and conscript level defenders (the spearman/pike/rifleman line). Drafting continues to give you a conscript level defender.

1. All cities must have a barracks to build other ground units, who start out as regulars. Defenders built in a barracks city also come out as regulars (not conscripts).

2. All cities must have a port to build naval units, who start out as regulars. Only cities with ports can repair naval units.

3. All cities must have an airport to build air units, who start out as regulars.

0, allowing cities to build defenders without a barracks makes 1 less of a radical change. I think it is also vital so that non-warmongers don't have to build barracks to have some basic defense.

1 would make offensive warfare harder I hope, which I think is good because currently war is so strong. It would also boost the power of the militaristic trait, which many people feel is weak on large maps.

2 would slow down exploration across the seas, because a port would have to be built first. I think this is good ... however, if you don't agree, maybe the Galley could be excepted, just like spearman guys are from 1.

Like panag says, I agree it should be a harbor for fishing food bonus, and a new building port for shipbuilding ... I would also think the new building port should be the building that allows over seas connection to the trade routes.

3 basically just gives airports more reason to be built and is more realistic.

Overall, 1 makes early offensive units a little harder to get out. I think this would be great because early war is so strong. 2 and 3 make naval and air units harder to get out. I think it would be fun and strategic to make cities more specialized. I also think it would be good to make it a slightly bigger step to cross the seas.

Captains building requirement for some units would be fantastic and straightforward. candidgamera, I figured someone had already thought of this, so I guess it was you... I think its a cool idea.

Thanks all for reading and replying...
nato is offline  
Old June 8, 2002, 00:09   #30
candidgamera
Warlord
 
candidgamera's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:06
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NW PA, USA
Posts: 103
nato:

suspect, judging from the sheer size of this community more have thought of it too. Nice to see it getting discussion though. keep banging the drum I guess.

good general outline with your last post. Kind of makes veteran and elite mean more - have to go to war to get them or do some fighting.

some points:

harbor needed for overseas trade and repair, agreed.

but also shipyards needed also for galleons, caravels -and up - shipyards like a specialized factory, like having to build aircraft factories to build planes.

naval bases too for say frigates on.

especially agree with your first comment - the sheer number of units the AI builds without consequence has to have some to do with how the game drags now - "as they all 80 of them wander around the jungle without visible means of support like zombies".

kind of why I put in pop cost for modern units.
come on 260 riders?!

AI never seems to upgrade either.
candidgamera 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 22:06.


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