Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
I am thinking that perhaps the Hunter line should also be <Special>SPECIALUNIT_PEOPLE</Special>. It fits with their role of bringing back strange new animals.
Yes and no. Fits with bringing back animals but the Recon line does that well enough and a Hunter unit can attack, which is what the Special Unit People can not do.
Better would be to set the subdued animals as Special Unit People so they can be loaded onlt those ships.
Cheers
OK in the pic 1 i have what i mean about Gunpowder units. Also the Zephyr size is way off, cant hardly see it??
Also the Crossbow units, like 5-7 of them are LOW str 11 or so when normal units are at 24-38?? Shouldn't they be moved back in the tech areas?? pic 2,3
1. Yeah the Zephyr should be bigger and also floating above the ground.
@Hydro, this is the closest i think i have for units, sorry.
Yeah I found that one too. I swear I saw an orange/yellow bulldozer model one in the download section or a mod. I just cannot find it again.
EDIT: I found the model! ...
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=13087
Well actually isn't that the same model, just a re-skin?
Archers are too pwerfull in preh times against cities
They have 5 agains like most units 3 (stone axeman, spearman and maceman).
They have +50% defense bonus in cities - everything above is correct but
They should have
- 50% city attack moddifiers because now the are the best for capturing cities before metal casting.
All archer combat class should have the same -% city attack moddifier like they have +% city defense. This will be historicly accurate. Archers always was good defensive and support units - they never attack themselves and never was good to captur cities.
Also city is place where you can easily hide from their arrows.
Maybe the Stone Maceman should, aside its +15% city attack get a +25% bonus against archers and at tech Obsidian Weapons become strength 4?
(Once the equipment/combat mod is in place I figure this will, aside the -city attack malus for archers- nevertheless be obsolete, anyway.)
I think we do need a stage there. Is it possible this could be categorized as:
Prehistoric Macemen -> Ancient Macemen
etc...
?
Basically, equipments may vary from the wood/stone/bone/obsidian/copper/bronze/iron etc... but the unit itself carries the base strength establishment and the weapons and armor mostly adjust the 'side stats' that deepen the picture such as puncture/accuracy/armor/dodge etc... The Strength would be a basic formidability that stems not from the equipment so much as from the hardiness, training and advancing strategies of war. Thus, it becomes more appropriate for the naming of them to not reflect the equipment so much as the era. Make sense? I know this is something you said you'd need to 'think on' but those are my thoughts to add to the discussion there. Perhaps even an Era indication isn't quite correct but I'm not seeing another more valid approach.
guys i talking about one simple thing
Please add to all archers
-x% city attack (the same percentage as +% city defense)
Thanks to that change archery units will be strictly defensive and supporting (renged bombardment) units as they should be. Now they are best units available to capture cities and this is not historicly accurate.
Ok but remember that arrows/stones are effective only when your enemy have no place to hide. City capture combat is meele combat not combat from distance.
Imagine a lot of buildings. Tight streets. Arrows will not be effective in that environment
I like that. So basically I'm hearing you say that once equipment goes into use we can adjust these kinds of things. And that works for me.it could just as well be called "Neolithic Maceman"