Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by j51, Aug 20, 2012.
Marines work as well.
I meant that plastics started being used in firearms around the 1950's - 60s, not that plastics caused assualt rifles to be used.
Perhaps, which is why I suggested we should just push back plastics, and give infantry new art.
The issue is that the civopedia discription CLEARLY treats it as a WW2 unit.
The issue is that marines are more of a specialized unit in game, and aren't part of the main Warrior... Mech infantry > Spearman...Helicopter > Horseman...Modern armor > Warrior.... rock paper scissors thing.
I wouldn't take the civlopedia at face value - game is totally art deco due to 2K Games, everything is going to reference WW2 at some point.
Its much easier to treat them as a generic infantryman of the 20th and 21st centuries (maybe militias and Tom Clancy badguys in the latter).
An argument going for having a single Infantry unit itself however - is that nowadays I don't see this happening, even with the new naval mechanics and increased AI naval invasion rates.
But even the, wouldn't the solution to be push back the plastics tech so great war infantry stays around a bit longer, and just change the unit art/civopedia discription a little bit?
In itself, the art wouldn't need that much adjustment, just change the unit icon to show them in a jungle or something, add a magazine to their gun in it and the model, and just change the 'pedia text. The unit icon in game works as is.
I thought Great War referred to WWI or something, not WWII.
Neither is the Paratrooper that I was responding to. It's too dense to include WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Modern.
I agree, hence why I am suggesting both world wars be combined into one unit, since the differences between the average solider in the 2 world wars was smaller than between world war 2 and vietnam.
There was a lot of tactical and vehicular technological advancements between the two world wars, but not a lot on the scale of a single solider. They more or less carried the same type of weapons, the same type of armor and supplies, etc.
On the one hand, putting them together as one unit would keep them around longer. One the other, it would defeat the purpose of the drawn-out tech tree. I think the easiest way they could have stretched out the later game would have been to increase the tech beaker costs. But this would have changed the timing of the game so you couldn't win before 2020 or something. I don't know, it's complicated. Maybe they could have increased bulb costs and also make the turns represent less than a year in the information era.
I actually do like the WWI units though, so I don't want them to go. But I can see why others would.
Great War Infantry and Great War Bombers and Landships and Triplanes are all WWI units. The Infantry unit looks like a WWII unit and apparently the civilopedia says it is. I made a point earlier in the thread though that we shouldn't necessarily look at them as strictly confined to those time periods. For an explanation, look at my posts on the previous page (posts #31, 37 & 40).
I didn't realize that. But, putting that civilopedia description aside as well, I think my original point still stands. In fact, the civilopedia could have just been used to justify a marketing decision for all we know.
I said this in another thread, but I think it's worth repeating:
There are a few late game units that don't fit the rock paper scissors model of the earlier ages. Because of this, when you are fighting a less advanced opponent (and the AI is usually behind in tech by the late game) using these units makes a lot less sense when you can do the job with bombers and a few tanks. Helis, Paratroopers, Marines, Rocket Artillery and other units just don't have much of a point in the late game - especially when your enemies are still using Cannons and Riflemen.
I'm not saying they have NO uses, but they are just kind of meh and I wish the devs had put more time into giving them more use outside of some narrow situations.
Why base a new unit on Vietnam? Isn't that a bit Yankee-centric?
Other than paratroopers and marines, everything else still fits in normally.
Warriors > Swordsman > Longswordsman > Musketmen > Riflemen > Great war infantry > Infantrymen > mech. infantry
Spearman > Pikeman > Lancer > Antitank gun > Heli
Horseman/Chariot > Knight > Calvary > Landship > Tank > Modern armor
Archer > Composite > Crossbowman > Gattling gun > Machine gun
Catapault > Trebuchet > Cannon > Artillery > rocket artillery
When you look at it that way, it's clear the warrior line has too much units, and other line didn't get new units from G&K or not enough, plus their are like 30 turn skips between unlocking the same era unit in standard pace.
I think it'd be fairly easy to balence everything for any one given game pace, but what works for standard won't work for marathon, and so on.
THAT'S the issue.
Personally, I would like to see the Gattling gun line be a offshoot of the main archer line, and have sniper type units be the normal continuation.
There could be an info era anti-tank unit in a VTOL gunship, a la AC-AC130, but this wouldn't solve the issue of having the lancer being active all the way from the rennasiance to the late atomic era.
As an american, that's the conflict during that time period that sticks out to me, and probably the majority of people in NA and even europe/asia.
I don't mean literally based on vietnam, but rather the solider and his tools used at that time period in any given nation. Battle rifles, early assualt rifles, LMGs, etc.
Other examples of conflicts I am talking about: Koeran war, cuban revolution, various other revolutions and Independence movements in countries, mainly in africa and central asia.
You're right in where the units come from. I'm just saying that unless you are fighting someone of the same tech level, many types of units are redundant. Even at the same tech level, some units aren't really worth the effort. I'll take a Stealth Bomber or Modern Armor over a heli most of the time (especially since they all require Aluminum).
When it comes to units like Marines, Paratroopers, Helicopters and Rocket Artilleries do have their own advantages and niche uses. But the niches are so small (and really almost non-existent) against lower tech-level opponents that they are just meh.
For example, a Paratrooper that can attack on the same turn as a drop would be fantastic, I'd use it a lot. A Helicopter with an anti-Mech Infantry bonus OR an anti-Infantry bonus would be great (they chew through bodies and APC's/IFV's just as well as tanks irl, but both bonuses would probably be OP). Or a Rocket Artillery that got 3 or 4 movement points instead of 2 so it isn't left behind the lines so often.
Having the proper rock/paper/scissors army composition in the late game just doesn't feel as crucially important as it is in earlier eras, and some of the units just aren't that useful.
You limey turd, how dare you tell us Yanks we are too Yank-centric.
Hahaha I made a similar point about people being too concerned over when Great War Infantry and Infantry come into play, that people are really only focusing on Western history in their arguments.
Viet Nam is the watershed for modern warfare for BOTH G8/G20 armies and resource-starved guerillas -- and the reason is the same on both sides : the automatic carbine ("assault rifle").
It was both a significant leap in "combat strength" which otherwise was still matching circa-1918 benchmarks and a tremendous equalizer. In particular, the ramping up of production of the Kalashnikov ("AK 47), opened the door for developing-country parity in single soldier killing-power and put pressure on more advanced nations to revise and elaborate the supporting tactics and systems that keep infanty removed from confrontation: I.e. the technology sets represented by mech inf.
Viet-Nam era soldiering is the worldwide standard; it is not a western reference at all.
Well, being Western centric at least makes some sense in the late game (less so in the early-mid game), historically. From a playability stand-point, it is a Western game for (primarily) Western consumption....of course it is Euro-centric. If it wasn't, people would not identify with it and probably would not play it (unfortunate, but true.....we like what we know).
Way I see it, there are four main infantry units from the mid-1800s to now....a space of 150-odd years. It's too many, in my book. Spread them out.
I think you might be hard pressed to find a direct correlation between Vietnam and the development of APCs....especially as all sorts of armoured cars had existed long before Vietnam.
And how did your Redcoats fare against a rabble band of Musketmen?
Sure. Really, don't count on me for nuance, I like synthesis.
Anyway we're all in basic agreement here I think.
50 strength melee unit appearing at the same time as railroad (if not several dozen turns before) is broked.
I just finished a modern-atomic era invasion of Mongolia on marathon/immortal and seriously I didn't even need that extra HP (and Ghenghis was evenly teched with me), which is saying something considering I had upgraded to modern inf 100 turns prior.
Very well actually! The redcoats consistently defeated rebel forces in the field (both regulars and militia). The war was lost at the strategic level, not the tactical (not unlike Vietnam, actually...). The Crown could not (er, would not) provide enough troops to pacify such a large area. This lack of troops was not helped by early commanders (esp. Howe) not recognizing the importance of Loyalists, and failing to adequately support and utilize the efforts made to form Loyal militias. The failure to establish a clear, large, and vocal opposition to the uprising gave the rebels time to recover from tactical defeats, time to build up forces, and time to become accepted by individuals who sat between rebellion and loyalty. Of course, once the French and Spanish joined the war it was pretty much over.....
Aside from a couple of key battles, which, with the exception of Yorktown (and a few others, e.g., Monmouth), could be attributed to generaliship (Arnold, Morgan) rather than fighting prowess. Yorktown was an indication that the American troops were competent to fight the British (although the French Navy was certainly crucial as well).
I have no idea what this has to do with anything, though.
Vietnam is mentioned because it's the largest conflict by a major power during this period and because it's an infantry conflict rather than relying on armor. It also includes France, fwiw, not just the United States. Algeria is another example (for France).
Separate names with a comma.