Unit Upgrades

PLATO · February 6, 2003, 17:41

Why is Cavalry a dead end? I would like to see an upgrade to Armored Cavalry. Guriella to Light Armor. Can these units be created with the editor? If they can, what values should they have? How will they effect the modern era? Would an Armored Cav unit be an answer to the overwelming power of MA?

Palaiologos · February 6, 2003, 18:11

Armored cavalry? I am afraid my knowledge of English is limited.

The cavalry unit represents Napoleonic era and after cavalries.

An armoured cavalry unit would be more apropiate to an early medieval era, which is already covered by the knight.

Unless of course you mean something else with "armored cavalry".

Aramis · February 6, 2003, 18:22

Cavalry to Tank?

Following the logic of Spearman upgrading ultimately to Mech. Inf., Horseman would utimately upgrade to MA.

I like the Guerrillas just as they are.

Panag · February 6, 2003, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Why is Cavalry a dead end? I would like to see an upgrade to Armored Cavalry. Guriella to Light Armor. Can these units be created with the editor? If they can, what values should they have? How will they effect the modern era? Would an Armored Cav unit be an answer to the overwelming power of MA?

hi ,

try the editor , there are several good examples in several forums on this site

armored cav is lighter then MA , make MA a bit more expensive to stop those MA waves

have a nice day

Jaybe · February 6, 2003, 19:18

Palaiologos, Armored Cavalry in U.S. Army parlance refers to an armored reconnaissance type.

Not really something that would stand up to heavy combat, and not really appropriate in the strategic level of civ. In fact, Cavalry as it is, is probably appropriate for armored cavalry (other than the graphics, and maybe give defense of 6).

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 00:04

The exact same thing is being discussed in the "Asterisk after 'Elite'..." thread

This is what I posted:

How bout upgrading to light tank or something like an armoured recon vehicle. I'm thinking on something like the M8 or M20 from WW2. Something like 8.8.3

Palaiologos · February 7, 2003, 08:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
Palaiologos, Armored Cavalry in U.S. Army parlance refers to an armored reconnaissance type.

Not really something that would stand up to heavy combat, and not really appropriate in the strategic level of civ. In fact, Cavalry as it is, is probably appropriate for armored cavalry (other than the graphics, and maybe give defense of 6).

I suspected something like that, as i was sure i had heard the term before.

thank you for enlightening me.

Panag · February 7, 2003, 13:30

hi ,

, "armored cavalry"

; the hummer jeep from civ II

that ought to do it , ......

but , armored cavalry was a designation used in South - Vietnam to name large units that where moved with helicopters , ..... "air cav"

have a nice cavalry day

PLATO · February 7, 2003, 15:56

Jaybe: I think that you are correct that Cavalry is already in this role. I was just thinking that a more modern force would have better terrain mobility and (like you) better defensive capabilities. I have seen to many times waves of Cavalry being wiped out by MA. With a higer defensive value in the modern era I would think that they could at least slow down a rush until you got some MI on the seen.
Panag: Thanks always for the good advice. Can you recall a thread where the armored Cav unit would be? Also, I'm not familiar with the Hummer. Is it a unit that can be downloaded into Civ III ?
Palaiologos: Sorry for the lack of clarity. Jaybe accurately described the unit I was trying to discuss.

Amesjustin · February 7, 2003, 19:07

I think they reason you cannot upgrade cavalry is the horse. You can change that if you want, but I would rather create a new unit more advanced than cavalry that still is horse-based - Maybe an armored grenade launcher or better yet some kind of terrorist rider with a semiautomatic rifle. Basically a Guerilla rider.

Panag · February 8, 2003, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Jaybe: I think that you are correct that Cavalry is already in this role. I was just thinking that a more modern force would have better terrain mobility and (like you) better defensive capabilities. I have seen to many times waves of Cavalry being wiped out by MA. With a higer defensive value in the modern era I would think that they could at least slow down a rush until you got some MI on the seen.
Panag: Thanks always for the good advice. Can you recall a thread where the armored Cav unit would be? Also, I'm not familiar with the Hummer. Is it a unit that can be downloaded into Civ III ?
Palaiologos: Sorry for the lack of clarity. Jaybe accurately described the unit I was trying to discuss.

hi ,

well one could make a thread in the CIV III forum about armored cavalry

the hummer ; standard multi terrain version of the US and other armed forces of the modern day jeep and utility platform with multiple purpose , ....

in CIV II the hummer pic was used to represent mech infantry , .....

if anyone needs assistance conserning the hummer for pics or detailed information just ask , but it would have to be in its own thread , .....

have a nice day

mullenstephen · February 8, 2003, 04:10

i am also a fan of having cavalry upgrade to something else. i've modded it so that they upgrade into motorized cavalry at the same time tanks become available. the motorized cavalry keep the 3 movement, but only attack at 12 and defend at 8. so, you sacrafice some power for speed. then, they all upgrade into modern armour

as a side note, i'm pretty sure that the u.s. military designates certain divisions as being motorized cavalry divisions. they're mostly made up of m1a1 tanks and bradley mechanized infantry units. they also carry with them a hefty number of attack helicopters.

Master Zen · February 8, 2003, 13:20

Actually there is an Armored Cav division, the 1st Cavalry Division (in Vietnam it was an Air Cav division).

Each Corps also has an Armoured Cav regiment for breakthrough exploitaition (or plugging holes in defense).

Thes units are armed with M1 tanks and M3 Bradley CFV (cavalry fighting vehicle). I don't remember well but I think one of the few differences between the M3 and M2 Bradleys is a smaller troop load on the M3, what this compensates i don't know.

Jaybe · February 8, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
... I don't remember well but I think one of the few differences between the M3 and M2 Bradleys is a smaller troop load on the M3, what this compensates i don't know.

More TOW missiles.

Aramis · February 8, 2003, 19:04

A chara--

No no no.

I've done a complete turn around in my thinking.

It is fine that cavalry is a dead end. One must go through the expensive process of building a better military when modern forms are available. It's a challenge in the game.

I agree that units representing armored recon would be a nice addition. I've often thought that 'tank' (which I think of WWI terms) to MA (Desert Storm) is too much of an advance.

Slan--
rmds

Master Zen · February 9, 2003, 01:27

Well, going from Spitfire to MiG-29 is also a quantum leap.

I think the biggest gap is between the Infantry (WW1 looking Tommy) to the Mech Inf (M2). We're talking about 70 years of progress and there should be a default intermediate unit (plus, how the hell do you draft an M2??)

The solution I found is in the Modern Infantry unit (downloadable from CFC) 10.14.1. Upgradeable from the regular Infantry. Mech Infs are therefore to be built from scratch.

Sisawat · February 9, 2003, 02:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen (plus, how the hell do you draft an M2??)

Because its an icon, you draft the men who would man the vehicles. There is no such thing as a purely infantry unit anymore, at least not in any modern army. For instance, the US 4th Infantry is technically an infantry unit, but that merely describes the balance of arms in the Division. While they are primarily foot infantry, they assuredly tool about in Hummers and are supported by Infantry Fighting Vehicles and heavy armour.

As for Armoured Cav, its the same thing. My father was with the 11th Armoured Cavalry in Vietnam; they were essentially a mechanized infantry unit whose organization was designed for hight mobility. My father comments that this is entertaining considering they basically stayed in the same place for the whole war.

I'm adding armoured cav and modern infantry to my game, mostly as variety units.

Panag · February 9, 2003, 10:27

hi ,

what is needed is this ;

infantry ( draft )
advanced infantry ( vietnam era ) ( draft )
motor infantry
modern day infantry ( draft )
mech infantry

cavalry
tanks
light tanks
armoured cav
modern tanks

have a nice day

PLATO · February 10, 2003, 12:07

Panag, you have given me an idea. Instead of Armored Cav, lets call it motor infantry and give it more mobility and a little less defensive capability than MI.

Rmds, I still disagree that Cav should be a dead end. In reality, when Cavalry started going away Military's kept the soldiers but gave them new equipment. I would not be against a high upgrade cost, but I still believe the unit should be upgradable.

Anybody think we should have an upgrade from Gurilla to "terrorist"? Make them colorless, with a large range of movement, moderately high attack, and very low defensive ability????????

Amesjustin · February 10, 2003, 12:13

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003 Anybody think we should have an upgrade from Gurilla to "terrorist"? Make them colorless, with a large range of movement, moderately high attack, and very low defensive ability????????

I think a terrorist unit should be a seperate unit from the guerrilla. Not all countries use terrorism as a weapon, and as you said it would have a very low defensive value vs the moderate def value of guerillas makes them at least decent defenders.

Panag · February 11, 2003, 09:19

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Panag, you have given me an idea. Instead of Armored Cav, lets call it motor infantry and give it more mobility and a little less defensive capability than MI.

Rmds, I still disagree that Cav should be a dead end. In reality, when Cavalry started going away Military's kept the soldiers but gave them new equipment. I would not be against a high upgrade cost, but I still believe the unit should be upgradable.

Anybody think we should have an upgrade from Gurilla to "terrorist"? Make them colorless, with a large range of movement, moderately high attack, and very low defensive ability????????

hi ,

, ..... well there is a huge diference between motor "infantry" and armored "cav" , .......

its a good thing that cav is a death end , make a scen and let cav upgrade to tanks , ...... see what happens , it aint funny , .....

no there should be some units that become outdated , we need death ends , its a reflection of the real world , ....

imagine going with a horse to a barracks and coming out with an abrams , .......

the terrorist could be intresting , .... it should cost a lot , with a limit of the amount you can have , two three should do it high attack rate against foot units , buildings , roads , etc , .....

have a nice day

PLATO · February 11, 2003, 15:49

Okay...if we are not going to upgrade the Cav, what do you suggest as their best use in the modern age? Or should we just disband them? If we disband them and take the shields to build tanks, is that really much different than having them upgrade to tank (assuming a high upgrade pricetag). If they do have a use in the modern age, would it not be similar to the role of the "motor infantry" suggested above (maybe a little higher defense to recognize the advance of technology)?

Panag: You really get me thinking with the "it ain't funny" quote! I'll have to create a scenario to see what happens. I do take partial issue with "it's a relection of the real world" conclusion. All militarys are stuck with outdated units. The ones that have the tech and the cash upgrade (and keep the same troops), the ones that do not have the tech and cash are stuck(and keep the same troops). Hence, I stick with my conclusion that it is a cost issue to solve (Cost of the upgrade, that is), and that Cav should NOT be a dead end.

Let me know where I'm wrong. You guys, admittedly, are light years ahead of me on this issue.

Master Zen · February 11, 2003, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Sisawat

Because its an icon, you draft the men who would man the vehicles. There is no such thing as a purely infantry unit anymore, at least not in any modern army. For instance, the US 4th Infantry is technically an infantry unit, but that merely describes the balance of arms in the Division. While they are primarily foot infantry, they assuredly tool about in Hummers and are supported by Infantry Fighting Vehicles and heavy armour.

I know the unit is representative, it's just kinda hard to picture the fact that a country can do a massive "call up" and violá, I now have 50+ Mech Inf units with all their equipment!

Sisawat · February 11, 2003, 16:25

The Soviet Union built its armoured forces in that way during WWII, the factories were manned by patriots, who amounted to willing slaves, who would drive the T34's right out the door and into battle in many cases. Or think of 'Rosie the riveter'; when a population is pressed into service, not all of them end up as soldiers. Wether its makes sense in a city without a factory facility is another matter entirely.

Jaybe · February 11, 2003, 17:46

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Okay...if we are not going to upgrade the Cav, what do you suggest as their best use in the modern age? ...

Panag: You really get me thinking with the "it ain't funny" quote! ...

Obsolete Cav are useful as Pillagers and Resistance Supressors. Also, use them to jump-start the production of that Temple or Marketplace in that newly captured city. Of course, if they are Elite, you can always hope that some easy target will appear so you get another chance at generating a Leader.

Depending on what combination of fun/challenge you play Civ for, massive upgrades from 6-attack Cav to 16-attack Tanks can make the late industrial age too much a pushover when there is a whole age to potentially play.

Master Zen · February 11, 2003, 18:39

Oh well, I still think its whack to have that type of drafting. After, all in Civ3, drafting takes away population, not shields, which would be what is needed to build the damn things.

PLATO · February 11, 2003, 18:59

Quote:

Depending on what combination of fun/challenge you play Civ for, massive upgrades from 6-attack Cav to 16-attack Tanks can make the late industrial age too much a pushover when there is a whole age to potentially play.

Jaybe: I wasn't really thinking of an upgrade to tank. The previous posts helped me develop from the concept of an armoured Cav unit to a "motor infantry" unit. With all the input that I am getting here I am thinking of a highly mobile defense oriented unit ( 8.14.3 ???) as the next step in Cav development.

This unit could fill the role that you described for Cav in the modern age. In addition, it would serve as a slowing mechanisim for MA later in the game . Also,with MI not becoming available until Computers, it seems there should be some pre-computer motorized force.

All this being said, you guys are about to convince me that man and horse should not be seperated.

Panag · February 12, 2003, 06:14

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Okay...if we are not going to upgrade the Cav, what do you suggest as their best use in the modern age? Or should we just disband them? If we disband them and take the shields to build tanks, is that really much different than having them upgrade to tank (assuming a high upgrade pricetag). If they do have a use in the modern age, would it not be similar to the role of the "motor infantry" suggested above (maybe a little higher defense to recognize the advance of technology)?

Panag: You really get me thinking with the "it ain't funny" quote! I'll have to create a scenario to see what happens. I do take partial issue with "it's a relection of the real world" conclusion. All militarys are stuck with outdated units. The ones that have the tech and the cash upgrade (and keep the same troops), the ones that do not have the tech and cash are stuck(and keep the same troops). Hence, I stick with my conclusion that it is a cost issue to solve (Cost of the upgrade, that is), and that Cav should NOT be a dead end.

Let me know where I'm wrong. You guys, admittedly, are light years ahead of me on this issue.

hi ,

its just not funny to see some mods that let cavalry upgrade to modern armor , all of a sudden your counterpart has modern armor rolling , units he or she , or the AI is going to use , ...... no there should be units that stop to upgrade down the line , ....

like the example before , imagine going with a horse to a barracks and going out with an abrams , .......

, its just not right , ......

cav it self should not be a death end , it should be upgraded around the time motorised units came into the world , ...... Firaxis should also work something out that makes units "outdated" , ......

make a couple test scenario's , this is the best way to see what happens , .....

have a nice day

aaglo · February 12, 2003, 06:31

Remember that the idea of mounted units is, that they require "horses". So, a light tank (upgraded cavalry) requiring horses is not a very good option...

Cavalry is the good end of the line unit. Cavalries should not upgrade at all.

PLATO · February 13, 2003, 15:44

Alright...What I'm getting here is the idea that the transition from horse to horsepower is a central development for a civilization (as it was in the "real" world). Some have suggested that Cav has a limited use in the modern era and therefore retains some utility as a unit (I agree). Some have suggested that upgrading to a powerful motorized unit would create havoc as the world goes through a change to a motorized society (I could argue that WWI & WWII were both results of the "motorization" of the worlds large armies and thus really did create havoc). I agree that a POWERFUL motorized unit is not the next step for Cav, but rather an early motorized unit.

I believe that you can take a horse to the barn and come out with some type of motorized unit (as long as the capacity to build that unit is present.). I think that this really did happen in the early 20th century. Here is where the line should be drawn... Cav should upgrade to motor infantry that reflects the new ability of motorized transport. This unit should have a good range of movement, an attack only slightly better than Cav and an increased defensive ability. This unit should then be the dead end!!(picture old rusting motor infantry vehicles!!) Many armies today still operate outdated motorized equipment, but none that I know of operate Cav units. If a country wants to invest a significant amount to be first on the stage with a motorized unit, then let them upgrade Cav. If they want to make their investment in Tech than let them wait on MI. I believe that this is the "real" world solution to the problem. The items to be solved are: 1.) what should the cost of the upgrade be, and 2.) what characteristics should the unit have.