A futile feature... But I would like it!

[Mad Hab]

Maybe this can be easy to implement in the expansion: I would like a feature that would allow me to rename or add comments to EACH of my units (as in Panzer General II). That would make possible to easily arrange units in groups (1st army, 2nd army), or to remember each unit history (like where they fought, for example). I know it's kind of futile, but I always wanted to do that in Civ games...

Cheers!

Mad Hab

 

[ButSam]

That would be cool! And easy to implement--just throw in a string for each unit, and display it when prompted...easy to add from a programming perspective too! Ask them on Friday We could see it in the next patch

Sam

 

[ProPain]

Would be uselfull to mark elite units that have already created a great leader too.

ProPain

 

[etj4Eagle]

I think Firaxis Mike mentioned that he was thinking of implementing this for the elites that have generated leaders. However, he had misgivings about doing this for the regular units. Since you could very easy start running into display issues with having massively long names. And you know someone is going to do that and start complaining.

But it could still be nice, and maybe it would be a toggle option in the ini file. So that way for those who want it and understand the changes, they could go into the ini file and change that 0 to a 1 (like using the standard windows dialog boxes with their full file management controls).

 

[Machi]

This reminds me of an idea I've had for a long time. It is this:

A winning army enters a city and they have a positive influence because of their victory!

1]reduce corruption
2]increase shield production for say 5 turns
3]bonus shield of say 20 shields
4]increase science say 20 extra beakers added
5]etc

One of the above. Wouldn't that be neat?

 

[De Lorimier]

I would love for this to happen just to be able to identify army. Also, because I always have one particular unit in every game (usually a warrior) who explored a big chunk of the map in the ancient times, went through goody hunts and barbarians attacks...I always fall in love with the little guy

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by ProPain
Would be uselfull to mark elite units that have already created a great leader too.

ProPain

Has it been proven that an elite unit can not make 2 GLs? I saw the discussion but lost track. Was any proff documented?? Did Firazxis have anything to say on the subject.....

Why don't I go search for the thread and look for myself?

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by Machi
This reminds me of an idea I've had for a long time. It is this:

A winning army enters a city and they have a positive influence because of their victory!

1]reduce corruption
2]increase shield production for say 5 turns
3]bonus shield of say 20 shields
4]increase science say 20 extra beakers added
5]etc

One of the above. Wouldn't that be neat?

I think that they would have a positive influence only if it was an ally city or their own. Why would any Babylonian City welcome my victorious armies into their homes with open arms?
Afterall, we are normally at war (from 3000 BC until the end of the game )

 

[Wild Weasel]

I hope no one minds me tacking this on here, it's a feature add I would like to see but I don't think it's worth starting a new thread for. No thread-jack intended.

I think the ability to vary the length of a deal would be very useful. For instance, I might want French furs for 40 turns - or perhaps only 5 - and the cost to me could be bargained out accordingly. I think it would add another strategic factor to the non-military side of the game. I'm not sure how fair it would be to the AI though, as its ability to make an optimum choice for duration is probably limited.

 

[LKendter]

Variable length deals



Think my feelings are clear?

 

[zeeter]

Can you guys imagine the consequences of adding a label to units? Now, along with keeping track of where units are, the AI needs to keep track of where units are AND what they are called. Think about it - "$elite cavalry" is now "$1st Army Group$elite cavalry". This will take more time between turns, and take more diskspace, not to mention memory. Maybe its just me, trying to play on an AMD 475, but I think it would be unneccessary processing in an otherwise already performance-challenged game.

 

[rangers85]

Originally posted by zeeter
Can you guys imagine the consequences of adding a label to units? Now, along with keeping track of where units are, the AI needs to keep track of where units are AND what they are called. Think about it - "$elite cavalry" is now "$1st Army Group$elite cavalry". This will take more time between turns, and take more diskspace, not to mention memory. Maybe its just me, trying to play on an AMD 475, but I think it would be unneccessary processing in an otherwise already performance-challenged game.

The AI wouldn't use this. It's be merely a thing for the player to use if they care to to keep track of units.

 

[Mad Hab]

Well, maybe they could, instead of opening fields, register each unit stats. That would include how many battles it fought, how many units they destroyed (and from which civ they were) and if they produced or not a Great Leader...

But I would rather still go for the 'add coments' feature - it could be limited to, say, 30 characters, and it would not make the game necessarily heavier (the ones with performance issues could simply refrain from adding comments!!!).

Cheers!

Mad Hab