Mech Inf: why so late in the game?

[morchuflex]

Hello.

Why do Mech inf units require computers? I'm no warfare expert, but I think mechanized infantry appeared during WW2. It should be available with mass prod, don't you think? And it would make the game more interesting if tanks and MI appeared at the same time.

 

[vmxa]

Remember most issue are resolved in favor of playability, not realism. Tanks would not fare well against MI, it is hard enough for MA to bust them forted in metros.

Yeah I know bombardment, but that is boring and would take out the fun. They could have a lot more units and have a weakened version of the MI for that time, but they do not want more units. It is hard enough to get to use all the ones in the game now anyway that is what mods are meant to do.

 

[Rohili]

If they appeared at the same time the usefulness of tanks would be severely limited. Letting tanks appear first at least gives the players a chance to successfully attack while their opponents are still stuck on infantry. At the same time, due to defensive bonuses, the infantry still have a pretty good chance of defence.

As for mechs appearing before the advent of computers in real life, I don't think that matters very much.

 

[Grogs]

I think the problem is the fact MI has so much of a better defense than regular infantry. The assumption (in game) seems to be that since they're mechanized they defend better, but I think in real life the reason for a better defense value would be better weaponry (AK-47's and M16's instead of M1 Garands.) If they put a fast defender (motorized infantry) that had the same stats as infantry but 2 movement I think it would be a nice complement to the tank.

 

[morchuflex]

In fact, I think the one and foremost problem in Civ3 combat system is the lack of per-unit attack values.
I'm not sure the last sentence was good English, so I'll explain. In most advanced, hardcore wargames, units have different attack values depending on what they attack. Civ3 however has a simplistic combat system that causes many absurdities.
For instance, in the real world, cavalry (generic term) is great on open field against infantry (idem). But you wouldn't attack a walled city with charging cavalry.
Tanks are devastating against ground troops but can be ridiculed by good anti-tank guns. Etc. I really wish Civ3 reflected at least some of these subtleties.

 

[dresdor]

In fact, I think the one and foremost problem in Civ3 combat system is the lack of per-unit attack values.
I'm not sure the last sentence was good English, so I'll explain. In most advanced, hardcore wargames, units have different attack values depending on what they attack. Civ3 however has a simplistic combat system that causes many absurdities.
For instance, in the real world, cavalry (generic term) is great on open field against infantry (idem). But you wouldn't attack a walled city with charging cavalry.
Tanks are devastating against ground troops but can be ridiculed by good anti-tank guns. Etc. I really wish Civ3 reflected at least some of these subtleties.

Civ 2 had a little sample of this. Pikemen getting 2x defence against mounted units, and such. I don't know if that was carried over or not, but if you get too complicated, you have to remember a huge rock paper scissors board of unit strengths and weaknesses.

 

[morchuflex]

Civ 2 had a little sample of this. Pikemen getting 2x defence against mounted units, and such.

Yes, that's the kind of things I'd want to see.

 

[crimson238]

In as much as Mech Inf and computers go.. dont forget, the first "computers" were created during WWII... of course they were the size of a room, but still. In as much as the Mech Inf in the game is concerned, i think the computer preq is mainly due to the fire control/opitcal systems in place on many mechanized infantry units of today (i.e. the Bradley, on which I'm 90% sure the civ Mech Inf is based.)
Of course, personally, I'd like to see a mechanized inf unit in the WWII era of civ as well, but, of course, subdued in the grander scheme of things.. basically just a faster version of the infantry.

 

[morchuflex]

The trouble with the game as it stands is that it incites the player to build nothing but tanks when they become available. In the real world, only infantry (foot units) can really control a battlefield. A way to reflect that would be to require foot units to capture cities, or to quel resistance.

 

[crimson238]

The trouble with the game as it stands is that it incites the player to build nothing but tanks when they become available. In the real world, only infantry (foot units) can really control a battlefield. A way to reflect that would be to require foot units to capture cities, or to quel resistance.

Very true morcheflex. I modded my game to give a bit more diversity in foot units in the late modern ages to try to reflect this (rangers, special forces, terrorists) as well as a new mech inf (UU for Australians i made, Austrlaian mech inf {the AI loves them for the extra hitpoint and attack.. a super unit}).
Of course, having tanks, for a good period of time, was very important. However, recently with the shift from open field battle ot urban warefare, especially in the US military, there is less of an emphasis on the tank.
For cIV (I know, not the suggestions place), I'd hope that they emphasize this by decreasing the tanks ability to attack a city (not a fortified structure though) while hieghtening the attack infantry, special forces, and LAV (light armored vehichles) attacks against cities while diminishing their effectivness on open terrian.

 

[nullspace]

I think the time period of WWII matches very closely the last column of techs in the industrial era and the first column of techs in the modern era. Mech infantry should come later than tanks, since they were developed when it became apparent that fast-moving infantry were needed to support tanks. It is a bit weird to to stick them on the computer tech, but there isn't a much better solution.

I wouldn't worry about the per-unit attack values. Civ isn't a "hardcore wargame" as morchuflex put it, and it shouldn't be. If you want a game that is an accurate and detailed representation of WWII combat there are absolutely tons of those. I'm fine with with the simple combat in civ, more complexity = more micromanagement, and there's already plenty of that in civ war.

 

[garric]

I don't get it. Mechanized infantry = tanks. Why is there also another Tank unit you get later on??? Anyone help me out here?

 

[Tomoyo]

Tanks were designed to penetrate enemy lines. Mech Infs were designed to protect the Tanks.

 

[Yuri2356]

'Mech Inf' just refers using infantry in combination with light vehicles to impove their mobility. (APCs and such) It's realy the Infantry that defend, the vehicles just make them more effecient defenders. The Mechinf Icon should be either an APC or a Humvee to reflect this (As in Civ I and II), rather than a light tank as it is in CivIII.

 

[Rohili]

Civ 2 had a little sample of this. Pikemen getting 2x defence against mounted units, and such. I don't know if that was carried over or not, but if you get too complicated, you have to remember a huge rock paper scissors board of unit strengths and weaknesses.

I agree. Too many strategy games use this formula such that it gets boring and cramps your style. While I wouldn't mind small things like pikeman doing better against mounted units etc, a full-fledged combat system with weaknesses and strengths for every unit would be too complicated IMO. That should be reserved for games which are totally focused on battle and warmongering.

 

[Civ3Newbie]

Remember most issue are resolved in favor of playability, not realism.

Too bad countries like America are stuck with sucky UUs just because they appeared later in historyh.

 

[vmxa]

Yes, I have never made one. They could have used Minutemen. No big deal.

 

[Civ3Newbie]

That'd be pretty cool. Like a 4/6/2 rifleman. The industrial ages version of the impi

 

[plarq]

USMC suits best,14/6/1 Marine

 

[Thangorodrim]

how are we supposed to call it a computer without civ on it????