Generic Units

[Eddogegr3]

Since we will not be building as many soilders, it seems that the units will be much more generic in style. For example, in early states,you would have Swordsman, Archers, Horseman, Catapult. Don't really need anything else?

I have to admit, I love all the different Options. Maceman, Marine, Multiple types of Horseman, Crossbowman, etc.

What is your take on this? Do you agree CiV is shaping up to not really get into the "specific" type (or styles) of units and stay more "general"?

 

[paperfire]

I would prefer that all unit art is specific to the culture/civilization, ie: no European-looking macemen or knights for Africans, the Chinese, Aztecs etc.

 

[Ahriman]

Since we will not be building as many soilders, it seems that the units will be much more generic in style

Logic doesn't follow.

Just because you have fewer total units doesn't mean you have fewer types available; eg you might only have 1-2 of each type.

Battle for Wesnoth for eg has (for the main human faction) bowman, swordsman, spearman, javinleer, knight, dragoon, white mage, red mage.

I see no reason why there could only be one type of melee unit (defensive units, anti-cavalry units, shock troops). Or why shock cavalry vs missile cavalry couldn't function differently. or why you couldn't have skirmishers (javelins, slings), or some support units specialized in bombardment while others specialized in siege.

 

[plasmacannon]

I always felt the Romans needed some "Generic" units.
In Civ4 they are all the same strength, yet we know they lost to Hannibal more that once, and to others in the Germanic areas, and lost many to Attilla the Hun.
It would make since that Empires could build the generic unit (in Rome's case, for less) to explain how they could lose from time to time.