But Cavalry are so powerful in their era that it's good that they cannot upgrade to anything. If they upgraded to Tanks or similar, they would just be too powerful. I think in this respect the standard game is best as it is.
How to make your game more historicly acurate
- Thread starter FascistRepublic
- Start date
El Justo
Deity
well, it depends on what type of tank we're talking about.choxorn said:
the machine gun actually made cavalry obsolete.
i wouldn't upgrade a Cavalry unit to a helo...sure, it's called "Air Cavalry" and all but the helo is an air unit and the Cavalry is a ground unit and you can't upgrade non-like units like that. helos as a ground unit is beat imho. takes too much away from them i think (can't travel over water and the inflated stats as a ground unit is quite ahistorical imo).
if it were me, i'd have the Cavalry units upgrade to a tank that wasn't considered an 'MBT' (main battle tank). most early WW2 tanks would fit this bill i think. and the FT-17 is the first one that comes to mind. its design was copied and it can be considered the forerunner of modern tanks (turret, armour design, etc but small and definitely considered a 'light tank').
of course, if you're uncomfortable w/ upgrading it to a tank, a 'Motorized Infantry' unit could fit the bill. same mvmt points as the Cav unit but with better A/D values. these most certainly came into fashion at or around the time that Cavalry units went by the way-side (c. the 1930s or so).
Very good points El Justo calvary could also upgrade to some type of mechanized recon unit since traditionally cavalry was used for rcon in the 19th century and was allready becoming obsolete by the Civil War with improvemants in firearms.
That sounds better. Motorized Infantry does sound good. Although Cavalry were still used for a while, the got obsolete in WW1. And from what you say, Motorized Infantry are the perfect upgrade. I guess we could make them available with Motorized Transportation.
El Justo
Deity
yea, that sounds about right.choxorn said:
now i would think that the trick would be to give the Motorized Infantry unit higher Attack and/or Defense stats than the Cavalry unit but lower than those of the standard Infantry unit.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
Much of these ideas to make the game more realistic are not very realistic in my opinion.
I love the idea of having two (or more) UUs but...
First of all this is a pretty weak unit(just like the civ F-15) and adds no strategy to the game. How about the minuteman having the same stats as a normal musketman except -20 shields and -1 hitpoint. This would represent the fact that minuteman were average guys who owned their own guns and ammunition.
The U-Boat was not a battleship. Perhaps the U-Boat should be the same as a normal submarine except that it comes one tech earlier in the tech tree. I believe that the German's were the first to utilize submarines to a great effect so this would mirror that advantage.
I don't think British soldiers were any cheaper than other countries nor do I think they were worse defenders. I'd give the redcoat +1 hit points because of extra disipline\training.
No knowledge of the realism but it is a pretty awful unit. 10 extra shields for an extra attack point that will never be used. On the other hand it would ballance the terrific mounted warrior. However if you want to improve realism you should take away the mounted warrior since horses didn't even exist in the Americas until the Spanish introduced them.
This would not be very realistic since the Goths and Celts were two different peoples. At any rate this would be an awful unit since it would be 50% more expensive to add more defense to an attacking unit.
Why would a longboat hold more troops than another vessel of the time? The real advantage of the the longboat the various types of longboats were their seaworthiness, flexiblity to use oars or sails, and their ability to navigate rivers. The last of these advantages can't be modeled in the game of course but a realistic longboat unit would have +1 movement and would not ever sink. The galley is the vessel from ancient times in the game while the Vikings were around in the middle ages. So instead it should repace the early middle age transport ship and become available the same time as the beserker.
Ninjas weren't analogous to foot soldiers. They didn't line up in lines and charge each other. A realistic ninja unit would probably be 3/1/1, 50 shield, invisible, with stealth attack unit that comes available with feudalism.
Barges are flat-bottomed boats. Barges of that time period would be complete unsuited for exploration. In fact it was the developement bigger keels that made ocean going travel safer and more reliable. In fact, the Spanish UU should be the galleon.
Sounds good to me.
Don't know much about turtle ships but this would be a great escort for the galleon.
As for the issue about cavalry becoming obsolete. I think the way the game handles it now is very realistic. You can build them but they die horribly against entrenched infantry (armed with automatic weapons). This mirrors the first world war where it became apparent that cavalry were obsolete. Nations still could have used them but it would result in exactly what happens in the game. To be more realistic, cavalry should be more expensive and have a higher upkeep cost. This encourages the use of other units and prevents the unrealistic strategy of simply spamming cavalry to overrun you neighbors.
I'll post more later.
I love the idea of having two (or more) UUs but...
First of all this is a pretty weak unit(just like the civ F-15) and adds no strategy to the game. How about the minuteman having the same stats as a normal musketman except -20 shields and -1 hitpoint. This would represent the fact that minuteman were average guys who owned their own guns and ammunition.
The U-Boat was not a battleship. Perhaps the U-Boat should be the same as a normal submarine except that it comes one tech earlier in the tech tree. I believe that the German's were the first to utilize submarines to a great effect so this would mirror that advantage.
I don't think British soldiers were any cheaper than other countries nor do I think they were worse defenders. I'd give the redcoat +1 hit points because of extra disipline\training.
No knowledge of the realism but it is a pretty awful unit. 10 extra shields for an extra attack point that will never be used. On the other hand it would ballance the terrific mounted warrior. However if you want to improve realism you should take away the mounted warrior since horses didn't even exist in the Americas until the Spanish introduced them.
This would not be very realistic since the Goths and Celts were two different peoples. At any rate this would be an awful unit since it would be 50% more expensive to add more defense to an attacking unit.
Why would a longboat hold more troops than another vessel of the time? The real advantage of the the longboat the various types of longboats were their seaworthiness, flexiblity to use oars or sails, and their ability to navigate rivers. The last of these advantages can't be modeled in the game of course but a realistic longboat unit would have +1 movement and would not ever sink. The galley is the vessel from ancient times in the game while the Vikings were around in the middle ages. So instead it should repace the early middle age transport ship and become available the same time as the beserker.
Ninjas weren't analogous to foot soldiers. They didn't line up in lines and charge each other. A realistic ninja unit would probably be 3/1/1, 50 shield, invisible, with stealth attack unit that comes available with feudalism.
Barges are flat-bottomed boats. Barges of that time period would be complete unsuited for exploration. In fact it was the developement bigger keels that made ocean going travel safer and more reliable. In fact, the Spanish UU should be the galleon.
Sounds good to me.
Don't know much about turtle ships but this would be a great escort for the galleon.
As for the issue about cavalry becoming obsolete. I think the way the game handles it now is very realistic. You can build them but they die horribly against entrenched infantry (armed with automatic weapons). This mirrors the first world war where it became apparent that cavalry were obsolete. Nations still could have used them but it would result in exactly what happens in the game. To be more realistic, cavalry should be more expensive and have a higher upkeep cost. This encourages the use of other units and prevents the unrealistic strategy of simply spamming cavalry to overrun you neighbors.
I'll post more later.
El Justo
Deity
i'm afraid i have to disagree w/ you FugitivSisyphus...wrt your points about the cavalry unit.
the way it's set up now is not realistic.
cavalry tactics were nearly extinct by 1940. sure, many nations fielded cavalry regiments and such. however, as you mentioned, the advent of automatic weaponry in connection w/ static warfare rendered them obsolete.
i can't think of any post-ww2 military that employed a front line cav regiment/brigade/troop, etc. iow, by 1950 or so, horses on the battlefield were long gone.
now, how to implement that obsolesence into civ3? easy - you make a unit for an upgrade and a 'motorized infantry' unit is as good as any that i could think of.
the way it's set up now is not realistic.
cavalry tactics were nearly extinct by 1940. sure, many nations fielded cavalry regiments and such. however, as you mentioned, the advent of automatic weaponry in connection w/ static warfare rendered them obsolete.
i can't think of any post-ww2 military that employed a front line cav regiment/brigade/troop, etc. iow, by 1950 or so, horses on the battlefield were long gone.
now, how to implement that obsolesence into civ3? easy - you make a unit for an upgrade and a 'motorized infantry' unit is as good as any that i could think of.
I'd agree with FugitivSisyphus on this one. I think it's perfectly realistic as it is. As the game stands, Cavalry do - to all intents and purposes - go obsolete once Infantry and Tanks appear. They're just useless against these units. You're right that they're not technically obsolete in the Civ sense (ie, you can still build them, because they're not "replaced" by some other unit), but they're still obsolete in practical terms. No-one would build them when they could still build the more modern units. That means that there's no point in trying to model the real-life obsolescence into Civ III any more than it's already modelled. Moreover, as I suggested, using the method you suggested would be unbalancing - it would mean that the horse unit line would go from the original Horseman unit all the way into mechanised units of the twentieth century. As it stands, the Knight and Cavalry rule their respective periods, and allowing the units to be upgraded still further into modern warfare would simply be unbalancing. As it is, once the Infantry and Tanks appear you have to scramble to start building them anew. I think this is actually more realistic as well as more balanced. In real life, nations did have to scramble to start building the new technology rather than just sit there and pay for a big hassle-free upgrade.
To put it another way: in real life, many people were reluctant to adopt the new weapons and new methods of warfare of the early twentieth century. If you like, they were over-attached to the old ones, including Cavalry. In the game, because you can't upgrade Cavalry, there's always a temptation to "use them up" in foolhardy attacks on superior opponents. And it takes time to build the new units that will replace them. This seems to me to model what really happened more accurately than an instantaneous upgrade would.
One more point: it's true that you don't see horse units in battle any more, but you do see them in ceremonial guard positions - as you can see simply by walking along Whitehall. That's modelled nicely in the game too, because the non-upgradeable, useless-in-battle Cavalry are typically used (when not thrown away in hopeless charges) as military police or simple guards in cities.
To put it another way: in real life, many people were reluctant to adopt the new weapons and new methods of warfare of the early twentieth century. If you like, they were over-attached to the old ones, including Cavalry. In the game, because you can't upgrade Cavalry, there's always a temptation to "use them up" in foolhardy attacks on superior opponents. And it takes time to build the new units that will replace them. This seems to me to model what really happened more accurately than an instantaneous upgrade would.
One more point: it's true that you don't see horse units in battle any more, but you do see them in ceremonial guard positions - as you can see simply by walking along Whitehall. That's modelled nicely in the game too, because the non-upgradeable, useless-in-battle Cavalry are typically used (when not thrown away in hopeless charges) as military police or simple guards in cities.
El Justo
Deity
Plotinus:
name for me 1 army in the post-ww2 landscape that deployed and maintained a cavalry force.
it's simple b/c you can't. it's a matter of removing the darn thing from the build que. modern militaries aren't 'building' cavalry troops anymore if you haven't noticed...and to even have them appear in the que in, say, 1950, is "unbalancing" imo.
"ceremonial guard positions" in civ3? i think you're reaching a little...
name for me 1 army in the post-ww2 landscape that deployed and maintained a cavalry force.
it's simple b/c you can't. it's a matter of removing the darn thing from the build que. modern militaries aren't 'building' cavalry troops anymore if you haven't noticed...and to even have them appear in the que in, say, 1950, is "unbalancing" imo.
"ceremonial guard positions" in civ3? i think you're reaching a little...
Of course no-one maintains a military cavalry force these days, but neither would any Civ player at this stage of technological development either. So what's unrealistic about Civ on that score? Similarly, what's unbalancing about having them appear in the queue? I don't see why this is a problem of either playability or realism.
As I said, obsolescence doesn't have to be modelled only by unbuildability. In the real world, obsolescence means that you probably could build it if you wanted but there's no reason to, because it's been superceded.
By the way, when I play Civ I generally leave old and weak units guarding the core cities, where there's no chance of sudden enemy invasion, and I like to think that they're sort of the equivalent of the guards of Buckingham Palace - perfectly capable of dealing with problems should they arise, but not exactly frontline troops. Since they can't upgrade, old Cavalry units are perfect for this sort of thing, and it's a nice coincidence that they look just like the units that perform this sort of function in real life!
As I said, obsolescence doesn't have to be modelled only by unbuildability. In the real world, obsolescence means that you probably could build it if you wanted but there's no reason to, because it's been superceded.
By the way, when I play Civ I generally leave old and weak units guarding the core cities, where there's no chance of sudden enemy invasion, and I like to think that they're sort of the equivalent of the guards of Buckingham Palace - perfectly capable of dealing with problems should they arise, but not exactly frontline troops. Since they can't upgrade, old Cavalry units are perfect for this sort of thing, and it's a nice coincidence that they look just like the units that perform this sort of function in real life!
FascistRepublic
Warlord
After losing intrest, i have returned.
choxorn said:
Didn't see the Magellan's Voyage post before....
Anyways, I think it does make sense to keep it un-obsoletable. Why? Sure, you can just fly around the world now, but consider that Magellan made maps/charts that gave better, more efficient ways to get from point "A" to point "B". So the extra movement point remains valid, even with flight. Ships still sail.
Anyways, I think it does make sense to keep it un-obsoletable. Why? Sure, you can just fly around the world now, but consider that Magellan made maps/charts that gave better, more efficient ways to get from point "A" to point "B". So the extra movement point remains valid, even with flight. Ships still sail.
FascistRepublic
Warlord
Sorry for the double post.
As for the muinet man, they were called so because they were ready in a miunet. More speed therfore is fitting.
Yes, you right, the U-boat was a submarine, that will be changed.
The readcoat gets less def becasue they were easily sceen. If this was civ 4, i'd just give them like -20% forest defence, but i can't here. the shields r to balece out the techicaly +0 stats (+1,-1).
The barge ok, fine, you got me.
Ninja, your right, but im concidering your changes. 50 shields seems cheap for to abilitys.
The rest, common, your just nitpicking. Not every one of The orgional UU's are awsome ethier. A lot of your shild problems were recomended by Choxorn, and i figured it was the least i could do for being so active in this thread.
As for the calvery debate, i do belive they become obsolete with infantry and stuff. Again, I'd obsolete horses in Civ IV, but alas...
So, U-boat has been updated and explorers barge deleted.
FugitivSisyphus said:
As for the muinet man, they were called so because they were ready in a miunet. More speed therfore is fitting.
Yes, you right, the U-boat was a submarine, that will be changed.
The readcoat gets less def becasue they were easily sceen. If this was civ 4, i'd just give them like -20% forest defence, but i can't here. the shields r to balece out the techicaly +0 stats (+1,-1).
The barge ok, fine, you got me.
Ninja, your right, but im concidering your changes. 50 shields seems cheap for to abilitys.
The rest, common, your just nitpicking. Not every one of The orgional UU's are awsome ethier. A lot of your shild problems were recomended by Choxorn, and i figured it was the least i could do for being so active in this thread.
As for the calvery debate, i do belive they become obsolete with infantry and stuff. Again, I'd obsolete horses in Civ IV, but alas...
So, U-boat has been updated and explorers barge deleted.
FugitivSisyphus said:
As for the Minuteman, U-Boat, and Redcoat, I agree with fascist.
Tomohawker: I find that to be reasonable, since it also doesn't require iron. As for the M.W., maybe we should make it not require Horses.
Longboat: I agree with you there.
Gothic Knight: Then maybe we should call it a Celtic knight?
Ninja: Get rid of Invisiblility. There is no Land Unit with detect invisible.
Barge: Makes since.
Turtle ship: I created that unit. Why does it get an extra defense point? Turtle ships looked just like turtles. I know this because they are one of the Korean UUs in AOE2. And they had more defense points and way more HPs.
FascistRepublic
Warlord
Alright alright, CELTIC kinigt and hidden nations for ninja. Yes, Japan can only bulid them, but now, like privateers, you can attack w/o declaring war. Stats are 3/1/1.
That would work on a AI, but humans would declare war because they know it's Japan. In other words, it disadvantages the AI, unless you did the same thing Sima Qian did in SQ2 (there's a link in my sig) to make all the civs Zulu, except use it to make all the civs Japan.
FascistRepublic
Warlord
Well then make up an ability, i'm not giving it attack from sea, it makes no sence and it would take away most of the besrek's awsomeness
FascistRepublic
Warlord
Ok, 4/2/2 stats, with iron
