Changes to existing Civs?

[bombtrack]

Personally I feel that the existing civs are being ripped off by the new civs and their new units.
For example, the Greek civ special unit is the Hoplite which offers better defense, but at the same time the Carthaginian SU is much better, making the Greek SU rather pointless.
Speaking of SU's I think some are a little inacurate historically speaking.
USA should have the Stealth Fighter from Civ 2 back, and it should have the capability for air-dominance instead of just bombardment.
The French should have Napoleonic cavalry instead of Musketeers
The Greeks should have the Macedonian Phalanx instead of the Hoplite with the characteristics of Pikemen.
The Chinese perhaps would be better suited with warrior-monks.
(see Boxer rebellion)

Your thoughts?

 

[Masquerouge]

Originally posted by bombtrack
The French should have Napoleonic cavalry instead of Musketeers
The Chinese perhaps would be better suited with warrior-monks

Your thoughts?

I agree for the French UU. For the Chinese, all I say is stop watching hong-kong movies

 

[Padma]

So the Cartheginians (for example) have a *better* UU than, say, the Greeks. in your opinion. What difference does that make? Any competent player should be able to win with any Civ, when playing at his/her level of competency.

I never really worry about my Civ's UU, unless and until I am trying to time my GA. And I'm as likely to start that with a Wonder build as I am a UU victory, anyway.

 

[Aztek]

I find the persian UU to have the most impact overall.

Combine the UU inits with the Statue of Zues calvary and your pretty much going to destroy anything in the early building and land grab segment of the game.

 

[rabies]

Originally posted by Padma
So the Cartheginians (for example) have a *better* UU than, say, the Greeks. in your opinion. What difference does that make? Any competent player should be able to win with any Civ, when playing at his/her level of competency.

Amen!

..besides, I completely disagree with your Hoplite/Numid Merc assesement. I believe the Hoplite to be the superior unit...as it costs 10 shields less. An extra attack on a defense unit is nice, but not that important imo.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Carthage's uu is more expensive and they have to research the tech that gives it to them. Greece and Carthage's uu both have the same defense (Carthage has an extra attack, but not as much attack as a swordsman).

 

[bombtrack]

Originally posted by Masquerouge


I agree for the French UU. For the Chinese, all I say is stop watching hong-kong movies

LOL Agreed, so I have altered my original post with reference to the boxer rebellion.
A hand-full of monks caused serious trouble to the better equiped chinese forces.

 

[tasita]

Sir, boxer-rebellion != monk
and Winning a war not depends on better equipment

well, it will be easier to play by use of Chinese Mao if warrior-monks appear that trigger a earlier Golden Age, which benefit my tactic.
But as a chinese, hard feeling for the change. Does Rider offense anybody? Why not keep it?

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Originally posted by tasita
But as a chinese, hard feeling for the change. Does Rider offense anybody? Why not keep it?

It doesn't offend anyone, it's just been pointed out time and time again that the Rider is Mongol and it makes no sense whatsoever that it triggers a Golden Age for China. In some ways its like giving Alexander the Great's Phalangites or Companion Cavalry as a UU for Persia.

 

[tasita]

Yes, i agree that rider is a better choice as Mongol UU(attn: no Mongol at earlier Civ3). But it is not the reason to force chinese accept box-rebellion worrior monk, pls! this is my point.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

A UU from either the Han, Tang or Song (although probably not Song considering how much they hated warfare) Dynasties would be best IMO.

 

[Evie]

A crossbow unit of sort, perhaps?

 

[downwithgravity]

i'd like the USA to have a unique bomber. jet fighters suck.

okay, okay, so they have their use. but come on, a B-17 or B-29 would be so cool! i know there are mods out there for that kind of stuff, but i hate doing it. seems to me that if you tweak it enough, it stops being Civ after a while.

 

[tasita]

crossbow is not bad, as scatter-gun of cold weapon age.
movement and defense are both low, but attack value would be very high. maybe 6/2/1 ? and normally crossbow is rider killer in long distance, vice versa in short distance.
ADM 2/2/1
bombard 7 distance 3 ???

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Originally posted by tasita
crossbow is not bad, as scatter-gun of cold weapon age.
movement and defense are both low, but attack value would be very high. maybe 6/2/1 ? and normally crossbow is rider killer in long distance, vice versa in short distance.
ADM 2/2/1
bombard 7 distance 3 ???

Whoa! Thats high. I could live with it being 6/1/1 or 5/2/1 as a replacement for the longbowman (IIRC they are 5/1/1 but I'm not sure as I never build them), but 6/2/1 is a bit much IMO.

 

[Grey Fox]

Longbowmen are 4-1-1 I believe, if they have been unchanged. Berzerkers are 6-2-1 with amphibious attack for comparision, and they got an increase in cost aswell. (70 shields)

 

[tasita]

hmm...correct. i made mistake. 6 is too high. since rider defense less 3. longbowman is 4/1/1, maybe bombard 5 is enough.
maybe 2/2/1 is suitable, i feel finally. but bombard 6 distance 3.
Let crossbowman becomes a long distance unite. in short distance only 2/2/1 or 1/2/1 ADM. reality? feasible?

 

[Xen]

changes

Byzantine Empire-UU is changed to the cataphract knight replacement- civ is also made COmmercial-Religious

Romans- Legionary is given the ability to build roads, and *possibly* given an extra block of health, in ADDITION to an bumbep up cost- made non upgradeable, so production can continue past the advent of medieval infantry- civ is made militaristic industrious

 

[Capt Buttkick]

I don't think crossbowmen should have better range than artillery.
Increase alround stats instead.
IE: longbowman cost and A/D/M/B/R = 5/1/1/5/1

I know I could use that