The first preview screenshots of Civ IV gave some shots of Multi-units, is that a good thing or a bad thing according to you?

Bad

Boy, Thunderfall really needs to do soemthing about this whole '10 characters' thing, it just isn't working out for posts like this

It wouldn't be bad if done correctly. I would like to see a few hundred very tiny, hardly distinguishable figures, with the unit name underneath, rather than a single unit that's taller than the cities themselves. When two units fight, it could look like two divisions clashing. But I know that unit creation is a huge part of what many like, so it will never happen. It would add to the realism though.

I think it's good. It'll reinforce the feeling your fighting a war, not a series of duels.

It wouldn't be bad if done correctly. I would like to see a few hundred very tiny, hardly distinguishable figures, with the unit name underneath, rather than a single unit that's taller than the cities themselves. When two units fight, it could look like two divisions clashing. But I know that unit creation is a huge part of what many like, so it will never happen. It would add to the realism though.

I've been thinking about this too, might be interesting.
Makes you feel more like you really move armies around instead of units :)

@lastcon; well, units of 4 figures are as "bad" as just 1 IMO ;)

EDIT; sorry for the name change LastConformist :)

People still confuse me with nonconformist?

I think there's a difference. Four figures can cooperate, die off one by one, and a whole lot of "unitty" things a single one can't.

I would like to see the number of figures in a unit represent the strength of the unit. An elite unit (5hp) would have 5 figures. Then in battle when the unit loses a hit point, one of the figures would disappear (die). A red-lined unit would have a single figure. Once the unit returned to the barracks for R&R, it would regain it's full stature.

Another idea would be to have the additional figures represent additional talents the unit has. Example: a unit containing 3 swords, could be upgraded to include an archer giving the unit a defensive shot, or a Pike, MDI & LB could form a unit and the pike would defend, the MDI would attack and the LB would provide cover fire for both.

I would like to see multi units, but only if they actually represented something, kinda like what denyd is saying.

I think there's a difference. Four figures can cooperate, die off one by one, and a whole lot of "unitty" things a single one can't.Yes, it's HP can go down, representing less of it left. Each unit represents a division/squad/brigade/platoon- whatever, whether or not it looks like one.

The only thing they should have is mayby a RoN rip-off, having the infantry be multi-figure, but the tanks/cavalry be single-units. But no more than that, IMHO.

How about having single units, but when you have stacks, the graphic changes to show each unit, up to some sensible limit?

Some people will like it and some people will hate it. An option to toggle multi-units on and off would be nice. :)

It could make the game more strategic also, like dropping some paratroopers behind the enemylines and attack the enemy from behind, which could render the enemy's fortification bonus useless or something...

I think it's good. It'll reinforce the feeling your fighting a war, not a series of duels.
Thats what I think :goodjob:

------------

I would like to be able to attack an enemy unit with several of mine, to overwhelm them! At the moment you can have 10 units vs their one yet mebbe loose some of yours because you can't send them all in at once.

My opinion too!

I don't like multi-figure units at all.

Considering the map is 3Dish, MU would be the best way to go about it.

Thumbs up for multi-units!

I vote no. It will make things harder for unit creators, and that's where it's at for me, modding and custom units.

I voted yes, but only because we had a thread earlier where someone suggested that Armies become the norm, to streamline combat, and even create new strategies based on "recipes" of armies. I think this would save more time in the long run, and could even create new strategies.

If this were the case, then the use of military great leaders would need to improve too. Like building an army that can be one unit larger. Or building an army that gets a 20% bonus to attack and defence. Or maybe building an army that you have more *control* over (depending on how they implement it).

If multi-units represent something really important in the combat system (not just the old health bar, what a joke ! :mischief: ), then I'm for it, at least I wanna hear from it. Otherwise, ie. if it's just like Civ3's modded multi-units, then it's a plain NO from my side. I fail to see why 4 warriors represent a squad of 10,000 warriors better than 1. That takes some space on the screen, that won't help modders, and it will confuse me, and it's not nice-looking. Forget it. And if it's just to replace the health bar, forget it too, this is too ridiculous.

Of course I voted NO. Until I can be presented with a solid counter proposition, Firaxis...

I'm with Kryzfelt Jakobs, I mean kryszcztov(is that Greek?) on this. If its part of battlegroups, yes, but to make things look nicer, spend time elsewhere.

kryszcztov(is that Greek?)

If it is, then it's a very strange dialect.

Wow, so many people voted yes, that was rather unexpected :eek:

The problem with having multi-units represent something is that it might make unitmaking more difficult, no? :)

I voted yes - multi-units are cool. (I haven't seen the screenshots yet though)

Would it make unit making more difficult? I don't know... - it really depends how they would work. Would, for example, the multi-unit be a dupicate of the same unit in different positions, or would each have to be unique?

From what I gather, from various things that I've read, unit making in Civ 4 will be much more like unit making for modern RPG games - with a low poly count neccesary (slightly more skillful), and expensive programs required...

Of course I voted NO. Until I can be presented with a solid counter proposition, Firaxis...
I'm sure they're getting right on it as we speak. ;)

I think Kryszcztov is a rip-off of Eastern European names. He said that his real name was krys or something... :hmm:

I vote no. It will make things harder for unit creators, and that's where it's at for me, modding and custom units.Well, as was said here:Would it make unit making more difficult? I don't know... - it really depends how they would work. Would, for example, the multi-unit be a dupicate of the same unit in different positions, or would each have to be unique? Unimaking would be no more difficult for Multi-Figures, assuming that each figure in a unit is Identical. You would only needd to create one, and then the computer would simply display 4 of it. Even if each unit had to be made seperatley, that's what copy-paste is for! Even with 3-Dimentional art being so much more complicated than 2-D, I'm quite certain that it is possible to duplicate an image without re-drawing it.

No. Too much clutter on the screen. I may consider it if it is implemented in a similar way to Denyd's suggestion earlier in the thread.

If multi-units represent something really important in the combat system (not just the old health bar, what a joke ! :mischief: ), then I'm for it, at least I wanna hear from it. Otherwise, ie. if it's just like Civ3's modded multi-units, then it's a plain NO from my side. I fail to see why 4 warriors represent a squad of 10,000 warriors better than 1. That takes some space on the screen, that won't help modders, and it will confuse me, and it's not nice-looking. Forget it. And if it's just to replace the health bar, forget it too, this is too ridiculous.

Of course I voted NO. Until I can be presented with a solid counter proposition, Firaxis...


At least a sensible man! Couldn't agree more!

I think Kryszcztov is a rip-off of Eastern European names.
It is, but it doesn't work - I was sure he was called 'Krzysztof' (a Polish name) till he said it was a rip-off in one of the "your username" threads down in OT, which made me check the spelling again.