Unit Characteristic

[Dreadnaught]

In civ II there was a unit charateristic that enabled a unit to increase it defense by 50% agianst a unit with a movement facotr greater than two.

I think that There should also be the reverse. There should be a characteristic thatt a unit can double it defense agianst a unit with a move ment factor of one. It would be great for units like machinguns and pillboxes, or catapults and artillery. (stuff that good agianst slow moving soft targets).

I don't know if it is going to be incorporated or not, but this is a MUST for realist game play.


------------------
"It is well that war is so terrible-we should grow too fond of it."
-Gen. Robert E. Lee, 1863

 

[kundor]

Also, i don't know if someone mentioned this before, but combat shouldn't just be number-crunching...for instance, tanks should be unaffected by archer units, and machine guns should completelly rip up units without armor or units that move slowly...this is reflected to some extent in the offense/defense numbers, but not enough. The nature of the different units should have logical effects on combat.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

I disagree that archers simply cannot attack a tank. Ok, so arrows wouldn't necessarily have an effect on their own, but you have t remember that each unit represents a troop of thinking warriors who can improvise tricks. Like shooting fire-arrows, or even just digging a pitfall or causing an avalanche or something. If you were an archer facing a tank, you'd probably consider some alternate means of attack wouldn't you? Sneak up and put sugar in the gastank, whatever.

 

[TTG]

Mr Bond, you're missing the point which is:

...this is reflected to some extent in the offense/defense numbers, but not enough. The nature of the different units should have logical effects on combat.

The actual details aren't worth arguing about, really. The complaint is legitimate. The attack/defense numbers simply aren't enough.

------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal

 

[Squirrel]

Don't the hit points and fire power to a large extent solve this problem?

An archer can still make some minor damage to a mech. inf. unit, but the likelihood of the archer winning the whole battle is extremely small. So far, I have never seen a modern mobile unit killed by ancient units in Civ II.

 

[BlueMonday]

I propose that the attack/defense values system should be borrowed from the Panzer General series. In that game each unit was defined as either hard (mechanized) or soft (infantry) and each unit had a soft attack value, hard attack value, soft defense value, and soft attack value (plus values versus air units and a "close defense" value). That one system would solve all your problems.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I take every day one beer at a time; every beer one sip at a time.</FONT c>

 

[Dreadnaught]

Yep that would work, they also used it in the steel panthers series (good game suggest you try it)

But for sid's sake let's not fix anything that ain't broke.

------------------
"It is well that war is so terrible-we should grow too fond of it."
-Gen. Robert E. Lee, 1863

 

[Sukenis]

Even though I do not think anything really needs changing, I do remember back to a game of Civ I. I had a battleship attack a city with only a militia in it, I lot the battleship. The guy with a pitchfork sunk a floating island of steal. Oh well...

 

[TTG]

hehe... sucker. Why did you even build a battleship? They're overrated.

------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal

 

[Knight-Dragon]

In my opinion, if archers ever come into contact with tanks, they will probably run like hell away from the field of battle. Imagine it - you are an ancient god-fearing man holding primitive weopans and hostage to superstition and the terrors of mother nature and suddenly out of the horizon, you see these huge menacing beasts of steel storming towards you and belching fire and destruction.........

 

[bvd]

In SMAC, a defending unit with a higher movement than the attacker could spontaneously retreat ("disengage") if on the threshold of expiring. This was very annoying during the "Believers vs. University" scenario, in which the inferior Believer cruisers always managed to withdraw and return to kill my attack vessel. Nevertheless, there was a "Com-jammer" ability that would prevent this from happening ...

and allow a 50% bonus against units with a higher movement rate.

Never quite saw the point of this, nor the +1 defense against cavalry in Civ II denoted by an asterisk. If anything, they're should be a "mobility" bonus by attackers that haven't exhausted their movement points, and, yes, perhaps a +1 defense against units with movement demeaning to the defender.

TTG: Yes, I've had Battleships sunk by a single militia in Civ I - and an single archer in Call to Power. In Civ II, I could run the combat cycle 400 times, as luck would help decree the winner, and not have a warrior killing a battleship once; quality, not quantity, should be the means of success.

[This message has been edited by bvd (edited July 01, 2001).]

 

[TTG]

I'm not sure about later games, but in Civilization 1 each unit represents 10,000 soldiers exactly. Those militiamen probably boarded the battleship and ate the crew. Most of the crew on a battleship are not armed. Or perhaps they used trickery... pretending to surrender or something.

------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Hey, sometimes horsehocky happens. But I think in Civ2, the hps concept has mitigated this a bit. Maybe for Civ3, we can have a drastic penalty when an ancient unit squares off against a modern one; less against a medieval unit.
Also would like to see land units capable of some ambush ability. In Genghis Khan 2, on the tactical map, you can have you units hidden in forest squares in preparation for an ambush. When an enemy unit passes thru it or thru a square adjacent to it, that unit will be automatically be attacked (with the ambushing unit having attk bonuses for having successfully laying an ambush).
Maybe we shld also have a morale quantifier in the game which will provide additional bonus/penalty to units. This will be different from the experienced/veteran quantifier in that you can have veteran units that are low in morale right now. Perhaps the morale of your units shld drop during the period of a revolution or when the unit has had its supply line cut (in conjunction with the supply lines idea).