momentary random abilities for units

That's a feature I'm trying in my scenario (by the way, see Italyization, for BTS!!).

Units are periodically given momentary bonuses or disadvantages that last for one, two, or few turns. This reflects high morale of the unit, or tiredness, or fury, or whatever.
This might cause some funny and unpredictable situations. For example, when your army is about to attack an enemy city, your CityRaider3 maceman is momentary a DefensiveOnly Unit! Or when your pikemen are attacked by a massive stack of horses and maces, your pikeman gets the "target mounted units first" ability!!

No. Way too much fantasy gameplay wise. But i thought once about a momentary random ability, it was with a military slider, or something approaching. You could gain bonuses, for example +10% strenght at 10%, +20% strenght at 20%, +1 move a 30%, etc... of course you couldn't switch on the military slider in the middle or a turn, attack, then returning the slider to 0. You would have to maintain it at the end of a turn for the next turn to be effective.

Or more simply you could buy military bonuses.

I feel mean, but I don't like either of your ideas. Sorry. I'm all for realism.

Firstly, ViterboKnight, the complete randomness of this is not a good thing to be adding in as an extra element to the game. I really can't think how the situation you suggested could come about realistically. Maybe as a once in a game thing this could be useful, but me thinks you are suggesting that it be a common occurrence, which would just screw up battle plans and war plans too much. I would much prefer if the factors affecting short term bonuses could be controlled, like through some sort of unit morale system, or something.

Secondly, Naokaukodem, I don't think a military slider is very realistic either. You can't buy experience, and military bonuses are gained through buildings, not gold. The only way I see this being useable is if this slider affected the level and type of bonuses given out by stable, barracks and drydock.

Personally, I'd go for a more controllable random ability thing. Such as, you keep your army modernised, you get a short-term bonus. You neglect to build barracks, you get a short-term impairment. Or something like that.

Camikaze said:

You can't buy experience

Click to expand...

Yes you can and it's called training.

and military bonuses are gained through buildings, not gold

Click to expand...

So you build empty barracks and your troops train magically? He he

Personally, I'd go for a more controllable random ability thing. Such as, you keep your army modernised, you get a short-term bonus. You neglect to build barracks, you get a short-term impairment. Or something like that.

Click to expand...

How do you keep your army modernized? And neglecting to build barracks is already a long term impairment as every AI builds them.

Naokaukodem said:

Yes you can and it's called training.

Click to expand...

The training comes through buildings such as the barracks. Realistically, you cannot just go and spend money automatically leading to your soldiers having more experience and training. You can, however, spend money investing in future improvements, through spending your dosh on barracks.

So you build empty barracks and your troops train magically? He he

Click to expand...

The idea is that all units that pass through those barracks after they are completed have gained training and experience, due to the infrastructure you have invested in.

How do you keep your army modernized? And neglecting to build barracks is already a long term impairment as every AI builds them.

Click to expand...

For the first, my idea is that id you upgrade all your units to the most modern available ones, rather than, say, have three longbows in every city after you've got rifling, then the chance of gaining a short-term benefit could reward this. This would change the balance of the military in the game, by more greatly rewarding more advanced armies, to give them an extra advantage over archaic and seemingly obsolete ones that can still defend cities due to their City Garrison 3 promotion.

Secondly, it don't think it is enough that the only impairment to a civilization that doesn't have barracks is the fact that other civ may have, say, 10% extra strength. This could be countered with the aggressive trait alone. This is highly realistic. In war, a trained army should be much more likely to win against a completely untrained army, and so I think random impairments to untrained armies, on a small scale, so as to not completely change war, would be a step towards that ideal goal of realism.

Barracks + Stables = Level 3 Horsemen. By the time the level 3 horsemen reaches level 7-8, he'll be fighting against Calvary or Knights. This is the moment to upgrade those level 8 horsemen to calvary units as they keep their promotions.

Camikaze said:

The training comes through buildings such as the barracks

Click to expand...

LOL, that's funny, but i feel you answer the #1 without taking into account the #2. Anyway, you sound funny.

Realistically, you cannot just go and spend money automatically leading to your soldiers having more experience and training.

Click to expand...

ROFL. Oh really? Why?

You can, however, spend money investing in future improvements, through spending your dosh on barracks

Click to expand...

Same remark than the first here.

The idea is that all units that pass through those barracks after they are completed have gained training and experience, due to the infrastructure you have invested in.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, units go through a magic gate you built and magically they stronger, need no money.

For the first, my idea is that id you upgrade all your units to the most modern available ones, rather than, say, have three longbows in every city after you've got rifling, then the chance of gaining a short-term benefit could reward this. This would change the balance of the military in the game, by more greatly rewarding more advanced armies, to give them an extra advantage over archaic and seemingly obsolete ones that can still defend cities due to their City Garrison 3 promotion.

Click to expand...

Damn, I don't get you. You want the newly upgraded rifle to be more powerfull yet??? WTH?

Secondly, it don't think it is enough that the only impairment to a civilization that doesn't have barracks is the fact that other civ may have, say, 10% extra strength. This could be countered with the aggressive trait alone. This is highly realistic. In war, a trained army should be much more likely to win against a completely untrained army, and so I think random impairments to untrained armies, on a small scale, so as to not completely change war, would be a step towards that ideal goal of realism.

Click to expand...

The problem stays full. With this small 10% strenght difference, everybody still build barracks. So imagine if the strenght out of barracks would be greater: everybody would still have barracks.

Naokaukodem said:

ROFL. Oh really? Why?

Click to expand...

Mr Obama goes off to the local military store and says, "Here, I've got 500 gold. I'll swap it for a city raider 3 promotion." That is unrealistic.

Oh yes, units go through a magic gate you built and magically they stronger, need no money.

Click to expand...

The assumption is that building the barracks provides that barracks with all the necessary equipment and skilled trainers to get your troops into shape. It isn't just a magic gate, it is a building which you assume your units have been trained whilst in the process of production. I do think there should be some building upkeep for it, however, or is this just included in city upkeep?

Damn, I don't get you. You want the newly upgraded rifle to be more powerfull yet??? WTH?

Click to expand...

Well, if you try and attack a city garrison longbow with a cavalry or rifleman, then they may have a hard time at winning. I do think that the gaps between the eras of units should be widened, so as to give the cavalry and rifleman a better, and more realistic, chance of winning. This could be done through momentary random abilities, I 'spose.

The problem stays full. With this small 10% strenght difference, everybody still build barracks. So imagine if the strenght out of barracks would be greater: everybody would still have barracks.

Click to expand...

Same goes here. I think that barracks are underpowered, especially when put up against aggressive or protective leaders. Momentary random impairments could be a way of giving trained armies an extra edge over untrained ones, regardless of whether or not units have promotions from traits.

Camikaze said:

Mr Obama goes off to the local military store and says, "Here, I've got 500 gold. I'll swap it for a city raider 3 promotion." That is unrealistic.

Click to expand...

Wow. You seem all things beyond stupid.

The assumption is that building the barracks provides that barracks with all the necessary equipment and skilled trainers to get your troops into shape. It isn't just a magic gate, it is a building which you assume your units have been trained whilst in the process of production.

Click to expand...

Wow. You seem all things beyond stupid.

I do think there should be some building upkeep for it, however, or is this just included in city upkeep?

Click to expand...

And upkeep costs what? Upkeep costs what? Upkeep costs gold! Hm wait. Obama can't go there and say: "we are gonna put 500 dollars on the roof so that all will go right!"

f you try and attack a city garrison longbow with a cavalry or rifleman, then they may have a hard time at winning. I do think that the gaps between the eras of units should be widened, so as to give the cavalry and rifleman a better, and more realistic, chance of winning. This could be done through momentary random abilities, I 'spose.

Click to expand...

Momentary random abilities as you describe them suck. I see no mean to see them work. You should pretend for better difference of strenght between units of different eras.

Same goes here. I think that barracks are underpowered, especially when put up against aggressive or protective leaders. Momentary random impairments could be a way of giving trained armies an extra edge over untrained ones, regardless of whether or not units have promotions from traits.

Click to expand...

Bad idea. How anyway?

Moderator Action: Do not flame other users
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Naokaukodem said:

And upkeep costs what? Upkeep costs what? Upkeep costs gold! Hm wait. Obama can't go there and say: "we are gonna put 500 dollars on the roof so that all will go right!"

Click to expand...

The difference being that building barracks is a lasting infrastructure investment, giving soldiers training, which is something that cannot be gained instantaneously, through purchasing it. As I've already explained, the assumption is that during production, units are being trained at the barracks. So, okay, you may be able to buy experience by, maybe, fortifying your unit in a city with a barracks for a turn, or something, but you cannot just plug them into some magical socket and upload experience to them. It takes time. This time is at the barracks during production. Sorry if I'm not articulating my idea well enough for you.

Camikaze said:

The difference being that building barracks is a lasting infrastructure investment, giving soldiers training, which is something that cannot be gained instantaneously, through purchasing it. As I've already explained, the assumption is that during production, units are being trained at the barracks. So, okay, you may be able to buy experience by, maybe, fortifying your unit in a city with a barracks for a turn, or something, but you cannot just plug them into some magical socket and upload experience to them. It takes time. This time is at the barracks during production. Sorry if I'm not articulating my idea well enough for you.

Click to expand...

Well it takes time to build barracks. Nothing to do with the time needed to train units.

Plus, I would be curious about your opinion on upgrades. I am surprised that you didn't make a topic on this as this must seem to you intolerable.

To be straight, I'm all for an automatic and free upgrade of units as soon as a tech is discovered. It would put more yet emphase on techs.

And that would still be logical, as a turn in civ means many years. I see no problem to instantaneously upgrade units with this point of view.

Naokaukodem said:

Well it takes time to build barracks. Nothing to do with the time needed to train units.

Plus, I would be curious about your opinion on upgrades. I am surprised that you didn't make a topic on this as this must seem to you intolerable.

To be straight, I'm all for an automatic and free upgrade of units as soon as a tech is discovered. It would put more yet emphase on techs.

And that would still be logical, as a turn in civ means many years. I see no problem to instantaneously upgrade units with this point of view.

Click to expand...

With upgrades, I think it wouldn't be a good idea to automatically upgrade units with the discovery of a new technology, but to give the player the a pop-up option of upgrading their units, so that they remember to do so. This is for one of two reasons, depending on what exactly you meant:

1. If you meant upgrade for free, I think this would be unfair to those civs who have saved money. If you could upgrade for free, there would be a lot less reason to save money, and so the military advantage of having a strong economy would be lessened.
2. If you meant automatically upgrade units by automatically subtracting gold from one's treasury, this could create some problems. What if a civ doesn't have enough gold? What if they were saving up for something else? What if they were wanting to give the illusion of being weak, to provoke a war, only to upgrade when a war has started, surprising the enemy?

Camikaze said:

With upgrades, I think it wouldn't be a good idea to automatically upgrade units with the discovery of a new technology, but to give the player the a pop-up option of upgrading their units, so that they remember to do so. This is for one of two reasons, depending on what exactly you meant:

1. If you meant upgrade for free, I think this would be unfair to those civs who have saved money. If you could upgrade for free, there would be a lot less reason to save money, and so the military advantage of having a strong economy would be lessened.

Click to expand...

Yes, a pop up would be usefull if in Civ5 the units don't have a single upgrade path, just like in Civ4 where you can upgrade a unit in several other units. Or make the units upgrade in the basis unit, like for example swords, axes, spears, pike into riflemen or infantry.

I mean upgrade for free. Some reason to have and use money could be buying promotions. But there should be other ways to spend money other than spying, unless spying is included in a scheme of revolutions and rebellions that could hurt greatly another peacefull civilization.

Naokaukodem said:

Yes, a pop up would be usefull if in Civ5 the units don't have a single upgrade path, just like in Civ4 where you can upgrade a unit in several other units. Or make the units upgrade in the basis unit, like for example swords, axes, spears, pike into riflemen or infantry.

I mean upgrade for free. Some reason to have and use money could be buying promotions. But there should be other ways to spend money other than spying, unless spying is included in a scheme of revolutions and rebellions that could hurt greatly another peacefull civilization.

Click to expand...

I suppose this could work, as in upgrading with the discovery of a technology, and not through financial expenditure. And, yeah, there needs to be more to do with your money. But then again, I reckon that a lot of economic aspects in Civ 4 could be changed. Maybe, you could invest your gold or something.

Let's suppose that I thought your idea about buying promotions was good. Maybe the promotions could be made to have an even larger influence on the outcome of battle, so as to further reward those with money, and to reflect the fact that trained armies are better than untrained ones.

Going back to the upgrade thing, perhaps under your idea of free upgrade, more advanced units could have higher upkeep costs to give a higher cost to having a more modern army.

Yeah I don't like random events; they should be at least toggle-able.

The only modifier I would potentially have would be something like if the city they were "built" in is conquered then give them a +50% revenge/rage bonus.