Patch idea: obsolute units.

[muxec]

In game often occurs the situatin: Longbowman destroys tank. But in the real life it's phisically imposible. I saw a lot of solutions and have my own variants:
1. Industrious unit always destroy ancient taking no damage and modern destroys midaged units.

2. Each unit have attack type and armor type. Examples:
Warrior- Melee attck, skin armor
Longbowman- Arrow attack, skin armor
Tank - Steel armor, heavy autogun attack
etc. So melee and arrow attack can-not destroy steel armor, autogun attack always destroys melee units.

[zulu9812]

you could just increase the attack/defense of units using multipliers based on the era they come in. It's not difficult, just a matter of playtesting - so give it a try and post it as a mod.

[Jon Shafer]

He's right.

But I think the main reason that Firaxis didn't make the values so terribly far apart is because if you get a certain tech that gives you a new unit from a new era (say, Modern Armor), then if someone still has a few units hanging around from the Industrial Era, then that civ will be demolished. Giving Riflemen, say, a 10 defense and Modern Armor a 50 attack means total destruction.

[Carver]

Yes Zulu, but I think Muxec's point is that it should be impossible for a pikeman to destroy a moder armor. Changing the A/D/M still leaves open the possibility.

Personally, I think there should always be a chance for a pike to destroy a tank (this is a game and in games all players should have a chance - although it should happen much less frequently).

[Velociryx]

Remember folks.....

It's a feature.

-=Vel=-

[dunk]

I think it's fine the way it is. No need to change it. I would, however, like to not see swordsmen in my build options in 1945. They should become obsolete with riflemen (a land unit with higher attack). Same with longbowmen. Obviously, if these units are the only ones I can build, by all means, I want them in there. But I don't want my Domestic Advisor suggesting I build swordsmen after I complete the Interplanetary Party Lounge.

EDIT: Added text below.

Here is a link to a "Civilization Calculator" that someone made. Great work.

http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

A pikeman fortified in a metropolis on grassland will destroy an attacking tank about 16% of the time (assuming both units are veteran). That's fine to me.

EDIT: corrected the number.

[Inverse Icarus]

do i have to say it again? alright, here we go.

the longbowman division sneaks up behind a few of the tanks, opens the hatch, and quickly launch a volley into the tank. With all the people dead, they sieze the tanks, and begin opening fire on the other enemy tanks.

all the tanks they conquered are destroyed in the melee, and the archers walk away scot free.

[Velociryx]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but what would really be interesting to see is a price comparison.

How much do five pike cost vs. one tank?

-=Vel=-

[Destroyer]

Why not just make longbowmen, swordsmen and what ever else upgradeable. Its simple enough, and also fairly realistic; whats the difference upgrading between pikemen to musketeers and longbow men, or even warriors to musketeers?

[OPD]

Yeah IMO everything all units should be upgradeable and perhaps even interchangable. But the more bizarre changes should be more expensive for example swordsmen to modern armour could cost about 1000 gp.

I remember the film appocalypse now when Sheen talks about how a cavalry unit swapped all their horses for choppers.

[Palleon]

Well, even in real life, obsolete units can defeat modern ones, just taking massive losses, which does happen in the game. When Germany invaded Poland, Poland only had cavalry units. They were decimated, but a few were able to throw grenades inside the panzers and destroy them. Obviously not enough to win the battle, but it did do some damage. Lucky shots do happen.

Edit - Or maybe it was when Italy invaded Ethiopia. One of the two I remember reading about it in my war history class.

[Ben Williams]

I like the idea of eliminating extream combat differances by making it impossable for some units to destory others. Because an upgrade is the equivilant of re-arming and re-training the same men (ignoring for a moment that nobody lives 5000 years), a unit of troops is defined by the weapons they use, a pikeman cannot sneak up on a tank and throw an explosive at it because they do not have them. The basic problem would arise from the AI using dated units, changing the probablity of victory in some situations from slim to none, giving the player a great advantage. This could be fixed as well, however, just by making the AI upgrade periodically, say at the beginning of every age.

[Nakar Gabab]

I mod swordsmen and longbowmen to upgrade to riflemen. No muss, no fuss, you can upgrade, and they both poof out of the build menu. Nice. Did a similar thing for ships. Probably the simplest solution I can think of.

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by UberKruX
do i have to say it again? alright, here we go.

the longbowman division sneaks up behind a few of the tanks, opens the hatch, and quickly launch a volley into the tank. With all the people dead, they sieze the tanks, and begin opening fire on the other enemy tanks.

all the tanks they conquered are destroyed in the melee, and the archers walk away scot free.

Now that's a funny thing to picture

I am not sure though that a longbowman would know how to open a latch and I know he would be able to handle an armor.

On the side for game balncing reasons I do agree with some absolete units having a chance of eliminating more modern ones. It's funny though to see Samurais eliminating not just one but a couple Tanks all in one turn without them taking any casualties!!!

I also have moded my game for absolete units to upgrade to rifleman and for ships to destroyers which may be an unbalancing factor because the AI does not upgrade them.

[notyoueither]

hmmm...

First, they are numbers more than they are any particular 'unit'. Look at it this way they are 2.1.1 units and 16.8.2 units.

Given the system of combat, you could very well lose a 16.8.2 when attacked by a 2.1.1. Not very often, but it can happen.

Maybe you'd be happier if you modded the graphics? It is possible to have your 1.2.1s and 2.1.1s show up with bazookas in their hands in the industrial era if you add some folders and animations. Just how many units do you know that kept the same weapons for 6000 years?

I agree, it would be better if Firaxis did this and made it part of the 'standard' game.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by dunk999
I think it's fine the way it is. No need to change it. I would, however, like to not see swordsmen in my build options in 1945. They should become obsolete with riflemen (a land unit with higher attack). Same with longbowmen. Obviously, if these units are the only ones I can build, by all means, I want them in there. But I don't want my Domestic Advisor suggesting I build swordsmen after I complete the Interplanetary Party Lounge.

As XarXo says... "I agree."

I do think that as it is now, it is great in terms of the game balance. A unit of longbowmen can occasionaly toast a unit of tanks. But an army of longbowmen has absolutely no chance against an army of tanks. And that is the point.

Besides, consider the fact that longbowmen have even a higher attack value than riflemen... and you would probably not feel outraged seeing a bunch of characters armed with rifles eliminating a small group of tanks (remember that the first tanks as seen in WW1 were something completely different from the tanks in WW2! Civ3 does not distinguish between WW1 tanks and WW2 tanks - even a bunch of longbowmen would be able to obliterate a unit of WW1 tanks as those machine were highly unreliable and had various technical issues that were seriously limiting their use as a fighting weapon).

OTOH, I do support the idea of changing the graphics (like what happens to workers) and maybe even names of "obsolete" units in such a way that they retain their ADM values, but bear more realistic names. That would do absolutely nothing to the game balance, while enhancing the feeling of realism in the game.

[Blake]

I have a special combat chant:
"You have guns! They have swords! Beat them!"
Then I imagine the troops saying (in defense of their loss...) "But they have shields too!"
Then I just accept my troops are totally incompetent, and deserve to die for their gross incompetence.

I even find it amusing when a longbowman attacks my Tank and causes it to retreat.

Legions in particular tick me off, because they have excellent odds of beating riflemen when fortified on defense (a 50% chance). They even have a 10% chance of winning when the roles are reversed, which results in plenty enough occurances of legions beating my Riflemen. In fact with Elite Swordmen vs conscript Riflemen the swords have a 50% chance of victory .

As amusing as combat is, and as much fun as having special chants and mantras for combat is, I think I would prefer it if an ancient unit didn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of beating a Tank. (like in Civ2)

[dexters]

People have surprisingly little imagination.

Firaxis could make obsolete units like Longbowmen, and any unit for that matter, be pegged to a technology scale -- that is, the technology of the current tech leader multiplied by some constant.

This would in effect give a bonus to all existing and obsolete units as the overall state of technology on the planet increases. This would make sense.

A militia in 2002 is not the same as in 1776, and while they may be represented by the same graphic, the 2002 militia have guns.

Firaxis chose the path they chose for the simple reason of efficiency. I suppose they could have crated a variant unit for each obsolte unit to track its progression from longbowmen, to lowbowmen with modern bows and sidearms, but it is frivolous and would likely cause even more slowdowns as your CPU manages the massive amoints of unit graphic files and variants and keeping track of multipliers and which civ's unit is at such and such level vs. another civ's similar unit.

It is rather nightmarish for the programmer and the system that is going to run the game. Considering Firaxis isn't exactly Blizzard when it comes to resources, it would be a very difficult proposition to make.

The current system is an ABSTRACTION. When a pikeman kills a Tank, think of it as a modern Pikeman, with guns. But still a PIKEMAN unit. It is the same as adding mutipliers to keep up with technological advancement, changing unit graphics and the like.

For those who still don't see my point

2/3 = two thirds. 200/300 is still two thirds, despite the numerical difference. Giving unit technology bonuses by pegging them to a scale is essentially upping the the unit's POWER, to keep them relatively as powerful as before so that you don't face 1 D vs 1,000 Attack point situations.

By throwing out the pegging system and keeping units relatively closer to each other in terms of A/D , you abstract the pegging system by making it possible for less advanced units to defeat more advanced ones. It is in fact, an ingeneous design implement into that game that does the job of far more complex systems.

To throw another analogy, I'd rather have my cake with 2 pounds of icing now, than have my cake with ten tons of icing. At some point, adding anymore icing to that cake isn't going to matter. Principle of diminishing Returns.


I however agree with the point that obsolete units should be separated. Perhaps a separate menu? I'd still want access to them in cases where I build ceremonial guards (hehe) usually my ceremonial guards are a Civ's UU if they get it earlier or some unit class that had distinguished in some major conflict.

[=DrJambo=]

In my mod i have:

longbowmen upgradable to marines.

swordsmen upgradable to marines.

Reason being since they are both offensive units they should upgrade to offensive units and riflemen are defensive units.

Swords and bows lasted a lot longer than you think. If in doubt just think of a swordsman as an infantry man with he knife out as opposed to his gun!?

cavalry should not be upgradable to tanks though. Too big an advantage to the human player.

[Solver]

Dexters has a very nice point, and so does Trip.

Generally, I can easily live with one in twenty Tanks I have being beaten by an old an weak unit. Really, if you want "fairer" combat results, there are two options:

1) Increase HP for all units by 2 by going to the Experience Levels tab in Editor, so that a Conscript had 4 HP and an Elite had 7 HP. This will slightly decrease the chances of an inferior unit beating a superior one.

or

2) Increase units by 1 HP per age in the Units tab - so that a regular Pikeman had 4 HP, a regular Rifleman had 5, and a regular Mech Inf would be at 5 points. This will also decrease the chances of a unit earlier on the tech tree beating a more adanced, but, IMHO, isn't too fair. If you're in the Industrial Age, and the opponent is still in the Middle Ages, you get an advantage in combat...

[dunk]

Maybe all these people would feel better if they played SMAC and their 16-8-2 unit was defeated by the 1-2-1 unit. You know, since they all have laser guns. It could happen.

Plenty of things can happen in combat that causes something like a tank to lose to a bowman. Maybe the tank gets stuck and the bowmen open the hatch, fart into the cabin, forcing the men out of the tank, then the tank men get shot with arrows. It could happen.

If your tank gets beat by a spearmen, bring two next time. Or better yet, bring ten. One tank unit isn't going to conquer an empire. I don't care how backwards they are.

[Solver]

Dunk, exactly.

Imagine practice. Of course, the current army of a small country (like mine) would easily conquer the Ancient Rome, with Tanks vs. Legions. However, 2 Tanks would not conquer such an empire, even an ancient one. Roman Legions would run in hunred at the two tanks.

[muxec]

Originally posted by OPD
Yeah IMHO everything all units should be upgradeable and perhaps even interchangable. But the more bizarre changes should be more expensive for example swordsmen to modern armour could cost about 1000 gp.

I think that easier to build new tank than pay 1000gp. I often see in modern times when attacking enemy cities spearmans and hoplites with mech infantries. I think that upgrade cost must be at least halfed.

[muxec]

Originally posted by Palleon
When Germany invaded Poland, Poland only had cavalry units. They were decimated, but a few were able to throw grenades inside the panzers and destroy them.

Classical cavalry have no grenades. Poland used a new unit "Mounted grenade thrower"

[muxec]

Originally posted by notyoueither
hmmm...
Maybe you'd be happier if you modded the graphics? It is possible to have your 1.2.1s and 2.1.1s show up with bazookas in their hands in the industrial era if you add some folders and animations. Just how many units do you know that kept the same weapons for 6000 years?

It often occurs while playing on lowest dificulcy: You have modern armors and your enemy's scince remains in ancient ages.
Your variant isn't good solution.

[muxec]

And one more idea:
reduce cost of "uprgade to" units as it was in civ1. mushketman 30 shields, rifleman 30 shields infantry 40, mech infantry 50.
Also to avoid disbalance reduce production bonus of plants and factories.

[Jeph]

I don't think its so much a problem of obsolete units as much as the AIs ability to keep up with unit upgrades. Think about how fast YOU start upgrading units and building modern units to fit your tech level. I have noticed the AI pretty much has to be dragged kicking and sceaming into the next era even though they have the technology. For example, I am fighting a war right now and they have the ability to upgrade/build pikeman but I still only get 1-2 per city then the rest is full of spearman. If they would just upgrade to pikeman it would be harder for me to take thier cities. But I still lose my horsemen to warriors and the like so they still have a chance I supose

[Palleon]

Here's what I'd like to see happen. I've seen this in a game before, I don't recall which one however. We all know upgrading units can be expensive, which is why you can't always do it. But what if we were able to upgrade in the build queue? Lets say you have a spearman, and you want to upgrade it to infantry. You move it to a city with a barracks, and select it to be upgraded. It would work like you were building infantry, but the shield cost of the spearman would already be done, so it would take less time than it would to build a new unit. This way, your big production cities could upgrade units exceptionally fast, without a crippling gold cost. What are your thoughts on this?

[Velociryx]

I still like Imperialism's methodology....at the dawning of the new age, you get prompted to upgrade your units, and told how much it will cost. If you can't afford it, the game will upgrade as many units as you can afford, and you lose the rest.

Simple. Elegant. Adds strategy to climbing the tree.

-=Vel=-

[muxec]

And to F3 advisor's menu should be added "UpGrade all" button.