Why are Firaxis reducing the number of units in Civ 4?

[Winston]

Firstly, I would like to state that the info releases for Civ 4 look very promising - the game looks very slick and it has introduced a lot of features that I wanted in the game (such as better trade and diplomacy) - the religion and civics ideas seem good too so overall a big thumbs up from me .

However, I'm a bit concerned that the game is shipping with only 85 units (I think) - given that 18 are going to be Unique Units and c13 are going to be 'utility' units (scout, explorer, worker, workboat, settler, 5 great people, spy(?), caravan(?), missionary) - that only leaves c54 main units. I sure hope king and flag units are being counted separate to the 85.

Given that Civ 3 missed out great chunks of historical units (e.g. Renaisance and WW1 era are the two periods that really stick in my mind) then Civ 4 is almost certain to miss out vast chunks too .

This bugged me in Civ 3 but Rhye's excellent modpack redressed this by filling in the gaps - unfortunately Civ 4 seems likely to have even bigger gaps and the detailed units look like they are going to be hard to replicate by the modders - I reckon it will take about 12 months after the games release before someone has had time to construct a pack that sets all this straight.

I will probably need to upgrade my PC to run this game anyway so I reckon I might wait a while until the modders have done their magic and added in all the units that should have shipped with the game but didnt.

I understand, the idea behind less units = more value from promotions - but can't they simply transfer the promotion skills to upgraded units?

I don't want to critiscise what looks to be overall an excellent game but the lack of units does bother me - I think just a few more units (say 15 more) would make a large difference.

What do you guys think? Do you think 'less is more' or do you think 'the more the merrier' or do you think 'wait and see'?

[charlesolmsted]

The game as released has fewer civilizations and fewer units so that we have to buy expansion packs - it's that simple.

[Dante Vergil]

I just think we should wait and see what happens. Alot could change in the months we got left to wait before Civ4 is finished and shipped. I'm pretty sure its not going to be that hard to mod. Modders will jus have to learn how to do it for the game, and then after that is should be pretty easy to mod for. At least thats what I'm hoping.

[SniperDevil]

I think more will come in future expansions, but I simply think that the main reason they have reduced is because of the new promotion system and also new "strength" ranking.

[Colonel]

I hope they didnt do what they did with tanks in Civ2, only one to represent WW1,WW2 and modern tanks.

[Brain]

I agree that it's just so that they have something left for expansions. Actually, I'm pretty sure they already have a lot of ideas for expansion but purposely decided to leave them out from the basic game.

It's all just business.

[BearMan]

I'd say with the current system (1 type of unit per "pawn")
-> less is more realistic.

Example - "Modern infantry" unit.
(that represents all mortars, light artillery, tranports, snipers, light flaks, etc, etc.)

But if they would make it possible to group different types of units, more would be marrier, but i don't think that's going 2 happen.

[Drakan]

Originally Posted by Brain

I agree that it's just so that they have something left for expansions. Actually, I'm pretty sure they already have a lot of ideas for expansion but purposely decided to leave them out from the basic game.

It's all just business.

Certainly

[Darwin420]

And most of us will still end up buying the expansions...

[charlesolmsted]

Originally Posted by Darwin420

And most of us will still end up buying the expansions...

Well, of course...

I just sometimes wish they would charge me $150 up front and deliver the full game all at once...

[Philips beard]

I have a bad feeling they will only give us culture based unique units in this game, and not Civilisation based UU's, perhaps that can explain a bit of this. I was really hoping for more diversity between the CIV's not less!

[Volstag]

Given that many units were rarely, if ever, used in Civ III (IME) reducing the number in Civ IV makes sense to me.

[charlesolmsted]

Originally Posted by Volstag

Given that many units were rarely, if ever, used in Civ III (IME) reducing the number in Civ IV makes sense to me.

Which units were rarely, if ever, used? I added thirty or more new units to the full game and I still used every unit.

[narmox]

Let's start with explorers and conquistadors, marines and helicopters...

[Arathorn]

Feel free to add paratroopers, modern paratroopers (in C3C, at least), chariots for most people, AEGIS cruisers.....

Arathorn

[charlesolmsted]

I agree that some of these units were almost useless as the developers made them, but they could be modded into usefulness. Increasing helicopters' range makes them much more useful - as does increasing the range of units they can carry. Improving the range and the attack stats on paratroopers make them very useful as well. Improving the Marines' attack to make them into elite shock troops gives them more usefulness as well - especially when deployed via the now longer ranged helicopters.

The question is not whether it was essential to use all of the units to win - but whether they had their role. I have seen plenty of strategies that call for just using Celtic swordsman, Cavalry or Mounted Warriors to win - does that mean that all of the other units should be taken out of the game? Of course not...

Would you people really rather have a game with fewer units than C3C? I would rather have more units and more ability to make "useless" units useable than have fewer units and have to create flavor units from scratch.

[RandomInsanity]

also they took away defence/attack values so now each unit can be either a defender or attacker, so there's more options for one unit

[Krikkitone]

I think that is probably a key point

With the special abilities addable, it looks like you would start with

Infantry and then as they advanced you could make them Paratroopers or Marines or Commandos (depending on your needs)

So each unit essentially represents an additional 1-3 possible 'specialized' units [of course you wouldn't be able to Build Marines/Paratroopers, but how many of them do you need, you would just have to plan major amphibious/airborne assaults one war ahead of time...Also All infantry might have limited amphibious/paratrooping ability..and you can just choose to upgrade it..such as Marine 1 (built with), attacks from sea at 1/2 strength...Marine 2, attacks at full strength, etc.]

plus 54 main units sounds like more than even C3C had (I think 48 on a quick count)

[Volstag]

Originally Posted by charlesolmsted

The question is not whether it was essential to use all of the units to win - but whether they had their role.

You hit the nail on the head: many units in Civ don't have a role, or can't have a role. They're either obsolete before you even build 'em, or the game can't accurately portray their traditional use.

Paratroopers, as an example, are traditionally employed "behind the lines": cutting off retreats, supply lines, communications, securing geographic chokepoints, etc -- none of which exist in Civ III (or, as I suspect, Civ IV).

And, ultimately, there's nothing you can't accomplish with bread 'n' butter forces: infantry, armor/cav, artillery. Throw in some transports, if necessary, and conquer the world. The rest of the units are nothing more than chrome (w/ the exception of UUs).

[one_man_assault]

Doesn’t even matter with the modabillity C4 is supposed to have...

@ Volstag I agree...the base should be infantry, armor/cav/horsement, artillery/catapults, transports, and the dominant naval vessel of the era (Frigate, Battleship, and Aircraft Carriers)


The beauty of this game will lay in the unit’s customization their uniqueness in doing so