http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=1122&original=1&c=24

Do you think this screenshot is from a scenario or the normal game?

SPA meaning self-propelled artillery, btw..

No. The only new units that Firaxis are adding are AT, paras, and Cuirassiers.

No. The only new units that Firaxis are adding are AT, paras, and Cuirassiers.

Proof? What about Carracks?

No. The only new units that Firaxis are adding are AT, paras, and Cuirassiers.

Proof? What about Carracks?

It should be stated as, so far, the only new units are....

Other than all the new UU's, I'm hoping they add a lot more than what has already been mentioned..

I hope they have SPA, the Normal Artillery Unit is WWII era!

No. The only new units that Firaxis are adding are AT, paras, and Cuirassiers.

Don't forget Privateers.

I can't say which units are in except the ones confirmed, obviously, but to say that "only" the three mentioned so far are the ones in, besides UUs, is ridiculous. The amount of work they've put into the late game indicates there will be many, many more units, and buildings, too.

I hope they add the old howitzers back in, those things were my best friend in civ 2. The name of the game i BTS so im sure there will be more modern then ancient-renassaince. My absolute dream unit is a uu axemen thats really buff, then id build even more and go on strike even earlier.

I can't say which units are in except the ones confirmed, obviously, but to say that "only" the three mentioned so far are the ones in, besides UUs, is ridiculous. The amount of work they've put into the late game indicates there will be many, many more units, and buildings, too.


Exactly - here's hoping that the modern age has been beefed up with dozens of new units, buildings, technologies, and gameplay innovations. If anything I think now cavalry will be less useful, since machine guns, artillery and infantry come around not long after rifling. Here's hoping (again) that all of this has been fixed and nicely rebalanced. :)

I can't say which units are in except the ones confirmed, obviously, but to say that "only" the three mentioned so far are the ones in, besides UUs, is ridiculous. The amount of work they've put into the late game indicates there will be many, many more units, and buildings, too.

Word! and I double the comment above. No worries on th number of new units friends. This expnasion comes packed, passes new precendent on Xpak content.

The best campaign we got comming shipped this time around is a PR one. Want proof? look back on what youve played so far(includin past sequals).

More damage was done this time but that means more to make up for with the last Xpack To make us forget about Warlords, nevermind the whole mem seapage scandel, their leave'n us with a good lastin impession that you best believe comes stock piled with units. (epic and scenario playable)
Its key for a proper push off to the next chapter. Spend a lil now and you push the for sales drive with Civ5.

Mmm im hopeing for lots more new units then just those and expect there to be.

ARGHH
Why do people think more units is better? It will just make the problem of 'my army is obsolete by the time I've built it' even worse! Think of musketmen, riflemen and infantry; they replace each other so quickly you barely have time to use them.
How many units are there in the ancient/classical era? 8 (axe, sword, archer, chariot, h-archer, cats, galley, trireme).
How many are there in the industrial/modern age? 14 (infantry, marine, paratrooper, aritllery, tank, anti-tank, SAM infantry, gunships, fighter, bomber, submarine, destroyer, battleship, carrier)

And I think that we can all agree that the ancient age is better balanced. I fail to see what adding more units does apart from making the game more complicated.

ARGHH
Why do people think more units is better? It will just make the problem of 'my army is obsolete by the time I've built it' even worse! Think of musketmen, riflemen and infantry; they replace each other so quickly you barely have time to use them.

Easy now, I never said I condoned such action I just told you what to expect and why. It sure never hurt Conquests havin a more defined history of warfare represented ( ala mod)
As for unit flow, thats an easy balance between custum world size, tech rate(cost of exchange between AI) and tech cost(in beakers)
You can even stop the clock with the year:turn ratio inorder to pump up any era with a higher rate of technalogical advancment in areas of warfare. (for scenario integrity or realism effect)


ADD: ..oh wait thats only with the easy to use editer in Civ3.... um,... sorry guys, your on your own with this one. Hey, Im sure some mods will get it right.

So you're saying that the game will only be playable when everything is slowed down. I don't think that forcing the player to play a marathon-style game is the best thing. What about multiplayer? What about people who want to complete a game in a week and not a month?

ARGHH
Why do people think more units is better? It will just make the problem of 'my army is obsolete by the time I've built it' even worse! Think of musketmen, riflemen and infantry; they replace each other so quickly you barely have time to use them.
How many units are there in the ancient/classical era? 8 (axe, sword, archer, chariot, h-archer, cats, galley, trireme).
How many are there in the industrial/modern age? 14 (infantry, marine, paratrooper, aritllery, tank, anti-tank, SAM infantry, gunships, fighter, bomber, submarine, destroyer, battleship, carrier)

And I think that we can all agree that the ancient age is better balanced. I fail to see what adding more units does apart from making the game more complicated.



Because I want to have as much of a choice in building an army as I currently do with buildings.

In my humble opinion, there are way too many buildings to build - stuff like supermarkets and grocers are really superfluous. Maybe we will be able to build corner shops and farmers' markets in BtS? :crazyeye:

If you want as much choice for units as you do for buildings; doesn't that mean that there will be too much choice for units too?

Also, there won't really be that much real choice, as the more complicated the system, the harder it is too balance. Think of naval combat. Youc an build destroyers, subs and carriers, but all you ever build are battleships, because there so much better. Chances are, the same thing will happen with land combats if too many units are added.
Also, what's the point of the anti-tank gun? Its meant to be an early counter to tanks, but gunships are literaly one tech later. Again, it looks like it will only ever be used by marathon players.

If you want as much choice for units as you do for buildings; doesn't that mean that there will be too much choice for units too?

Also, there won't really be that much real choice, as the more complicated the system, the harder it is too balance. Think of naval combat. Youc an build destroyers, subs and carriers, but all you ever build are battleships, because there so much better. Chances are, the same thing will happen with land combats if too many units are added.
Also, what's the point of the anti-tank gun? Its meant to be an early counter to tanks, but gunships are literaly one tech later. Again, it looks like it will only ever be used by marathon players.




You made some excellent points. I would just say a couple things in response,

1) Destroyers have the ability to intercept aircraft. I always have a few of them in my naval stacks. I think the current naval system in Civ4 is good for the modern age but inadequate for earlier ages, I mean the age of frigate in particular doesn't last long. I think the astronomy tech should be made cheaper so that galleons, frigates, privateers can come into force sooner.

2) I agree about anti-tanks coming right before helicopters. But don't helicopters need oil too? If not then they should. The anti-tank gun is meant to help those without oil to cope. Since resources are totally randomly distributed over the map I think such units should be added to factor out some of the randomness.

Basically what I want is to be able to custom-build my army without just building as many axemen, or cavalry, or tanks as possible, which is typical.

Gunships don't have defensive bonuses... probably the new anti-tank unit will have ( some gunpowder unit, like in Civ III). It it is so, they would be your primary city defense units in tank wars ( leaving Gunships for open field attacks on tanks)

Good point about the defensive bonuses. Hopefully gunships will be moved back to be more a modern armor counter than a tank counter. To be honest, I think that if they just add the few units that they have said, great. Any more and there will be a danger of duplicate units.

I would like to see a long range arty unit, to break the katakazi thing... but if SPA was intended to be just another arty ( maybe a little better ), I agree with Lord Olleus: no need.

Good point about the defensive bonuses. Hopefully gunships will be moved back to be more a modern armor counter than a tank counter. To be honest, I think that if they just add the few units that they have said, great. Any more and there will be a danger of duplicate units.


Well, I still want a tactical nuke, tactical nuke submarine, a helictoper that can transport a unit, a bomber that can carry a tactical nuke, and a cruise missile. None of those would be duplicates. They are all unique. :)

Explain to me what would be the difference between a tactical nuke and a nuke in a bomber?

Also, what would be the difference between a helicopter carrying units and paratroopers?

the game should be rock, paper, scissor in every era. three units, each against one specific unit and each having a specific counter. add one transportation and one combat naval unit to that. then one siege unit and you're done.

with the modern ages two flying units could come (bomber and fighter) and maybe such stuff as paratroopers with a very unique ability.

civ is a game about building a civilization. wars are part of this, but civ shouldn't be a combat simulation. keep combat easy and simple, just a handful of units with clearly defined roles. i don't need 18 different units where most of them just serve for the purpose of countering the 12th surplus unit ;)

Explain to me what would be the difference between a tactical nuke and a nuke in a bomber?

Also, what would be the difference between a helicopter carrying units and paratroopers?

Presumably the tactical nuke would be carried around by submarine, battleship, destroyer, or launch from a city. Perhaps with an operational change that is less than a bomber...otherwise I guess I don't see the point of putting it in one, which is probably what you're getting at.

Instead of transport helicoptors, why not a paratroop promotion that allows units in a city with an airport to be airdropped anywhere within a range of 20 or so? Paratroopers obviously start with the promotion much like marines start with amphibious.

the game should be rock, paper, scissor in every era. three units, each against one specific unit and each having a specific counter. add one transportation and one combat naval unit to that. then one siege unit and you're done.

with the modern ages two flying units could come (bomber and fighter) and maybe such stuff as paratroopers with a very unique ability.

civ is a game about building a civilization. wars are part of this, but civ shouldn't be a combat simulation. keep combat easy and simple, just a handful of units with clearly defined roles. i don't need 18 different units where most of them just serve for the purpose of countering the 12th surplus unit ;)

Brilliantly said, i couldn't agree more.
That's why the ancient age is so perfectly balanced, there are no useless units or units which do not serve one clear purpose.

Explain to me what would be the difference between a tactical nuke and a nuke in a bomber?

Also, what would be the difference between a helicopter carrying units and paratroopers?




A transport helicopter can take my perilously wounded great general, who has 107 experience points but who is about to die, quickly out of the battle scene and he can live to fight another day. :)

Tactical nukes obviously should be less prone to being intercepted by the SDI but should be slightly less powerful than the ICBMs.

Actually, a nuclear submarine would be sufficient without a nuclear-carrying bomber.

the game should be rock, paper, scissor in every era. three units, each against one specific unit and each having a specific counter. add one transportation and one combat naval unit to that. then one siege unit and you're done.

with the modern ages two flying units could come (bomber and fighter) and maybe such stuff as paratroopers with a very unique ability.

civ is a game about building a civilization. wars are part of this, but civ shouldn't be a combat simulation. keep combat easy and simple, just a handful of units with clearly defined roles. i don't need 18 different units where most of them just serve for the purpose of countering the 12th surplus unit ;)



The modern age is boring with the same old units and same old diplomatic processes. There needs to be more stealth, terror, and weapons of mass destruction. To say that everything should fit into 'rock paper scissors' is rigid thinking. Sometimes the only way to counter something of your enemy is to use it yourself.

About the nukes, here's the progression:

You get nuclear bombers, sort of like a B-29 (or B-52) equipped with an atomic bomb a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right off the bat with flight and fission. A few techs down the road, when you get nuclear subs and vanilla ICBMs (nuclear power and rocketry), you get to build tactical nukes and ICBMs.

The difference is obvious: a nuclear B-29 has a much lower blast yield (kilotons vs. megatons) and can be shot down by enemy fighters (though the atomic version should have a high evasion probability, which is easy to set in XML); an ICBM is the biggest nuclear weapon but has a chance to be intercepted by SDI; and a tactical nuke is a lower yield and has a shorter range, but is more likely to destroy units. An ICBM, on the other hand, will destroy everything. :mischief: There are real differences.

I agree with the additional of a tactical nuclear bomber. I have a feeling if it were added, the Manhattan Project would be researched and nukes will get used more often, which is definitely something that would make the modern age stand out. SDI should not apply at all to tactical nuke bombers, but SAM Infantry and fighters should have a decent chance of shooting one down.

About the nukes, here's the progression:

You get nuclear bombers, sort of like a B-29 (or B-52) equipped with an atomic bomb a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right off the bat with flight and fission. A few techs down the road, when you get nuclear subs and vanilla ICBMs (nuclear power and rocketry), you get to build tactical nukes and ICBMs.

The difference is obvious: a nuclear B-29 has a much lower blast yield (kilotons vs. megatons) and can be shot down by enemy fighters (though the atomic version should have a high evasion probability, which is easy to set in XML); an ICBM is the biggest nuclear weapon but has a chance to be intercepted by SDI; and a tactical nuke is a lower yield and has a shorter range, but is more likely to destroy units. An ICBM, on the other hand, will destroy everything. :mischief: There are real differences.


How many times per game, however, will you use each of these? As I understand it, you want nuclear bombers with flight+fission, while ICBMs need satellites as well. The problem is that by the time you've built the Manhatan project and your first nuclear bomber, you'll probably already have satellites. The second problem is strategical. You are at war and there is a city you want to nuke. Which unit do you build? The answer is an ICBM if they don't have the SDI, and a nuclear bomber if they do. That doesn't make the game more interesting as the decision is such a simple one to make. Now way that you think that the enemy will nuke you. What do you do? 1)Build a bunker, 2)Build SDI, 3)Build SAM Infantry. If you know that the enemy doesn't have satellites yet, swap steps 2) and 3) around. Again, the desision making is too simple to be interesting. What I'm trying to say is that it won't add any more strategic depth to the game and will become just one more of these monotonous tasks.

On a different note, how would nuclear bombers work? Would they 'die' after they've bombed a city or will they be reusable. Because if you can use the same nuclear bomber several times, then it is simply far, far too powerfull. If it dies after its bombed something, then it doesn't matter if it gets intercepted as chances are it will be damaged and not killed; and who cares if a Kamakazee unit dies?

In response, a question for you: how do you win when playing as the Romans? :p
Some decisions are just easy to make. You're complaining about the late game as it is RIGHT NOW; the issues you raise can easily be fixed by simple rebalancing of the late game, which is what they've claimed they've done. So I don't think it's a fair objection.

Nuclear bombers work like the Atomic Bomb in C3C World War II in the Pacific. They 'die' after use, like a regular ICBM.

Again, I'll list the differences as I see it:

Nuclear Bomber
-has limited range, can be shot down by flak/fighters/SAMs
-lower damage than tac nuke or hydrogen bombs
-available right off the bat (with fission and flight)

Tactical Nuke
-kills more units than buildings/city pop
-available with rocketry and can be launched from sub
-limited range, but longer than nuclear bomber
-more useful for taking out stubborn fortified locations than killing off cities

ICBM
-highest damage, but highest cost
-infinite bombard range
-not available until satellites
-can be intercepted by SDI

Now, as to what you said about strategy, how is this any different than saying:
"Oh, I see my opponent has mounted units. Build spearmen."
"Doggone it! The Romans are heading for me with Praetorians! Build Axemen."
"Uh-oh, Tanks! Build gunships."

The problem is that nukes are not properly implemented as it stands right now. With just a few changes, we could really make the nuclear race interesting and the divisions among nuclear/non-nuclear powers much more important.

It might be SPA will enter as the AT upgrade.

I think SPA is artillery with extra movement.

Imagine your siege units being able to keep up with your tanks... super!

Imagine the AI getting its siege units to the battle before it rams its forces against your cultural defenses... dangerous!

.

The problem is that nukes are not properly implemented as it stands right now. With just a few changes, we could really make the nuclear race interesting and the divisions among nuclear/non-nuclear powers much more important.

The way I see it, the best way to implement nukes is
1. Make the Manhattan project a Team Project [Non proliferation bans building it]
2. Make Nukes Cheaper
3. Make SDI higher tech


This implements the "Nuclear Club" (difficult to to get in)
and
"MAD" (once in the Club you can rapidly accumulate nuclear power and defense is hard to get)

Here's my suggestion
Nuclear Bomb-150 requires Uranium; ground unit attacks by moving, moves 1, 1 sq damage
upgrades to Tac nuke

Nuclear Bomber-170 req. Flight, Radio, Uranium, Oil; air unit, range 12, 1 sq damage

ICBM-200 req. Computer, Satellites, Uranium; same effects

Tac Nuke-220 req. Composites, Computer, Uranium, Aluminum; ground unit attacks with bombarding, move 2, with only 1 square damage at 8 range (can be loaded into/launched from Sub/Transport/Airlifted)

SDI-Requires Satellites, Computers; 30% chance of Intercepting ICBMs or Tac Nukes

Adv. SDI-Requires Composites, Fiber Optics, Robotics; 90% chance of Intercepting ICBMS or Tac Nukes

Now since the Modern Tech tree is going to be reworked entirely, then obviously it won't go in like this, but that is the general Idea
[Ideally instead of SDI one would have a new class of units "Satellite units" that don't exist on the screen but are automatically 'launched' where they help your other units with Command/Control/Reconnaissance, intercept ICBMs/Tac Nukes, and spontaneously conduct combat with other enemy Space units]