• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

My version of the Civ 3 units.

1-800-DOCTORB

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
12
After playing several games of Civ 3 and getting a feel for the combat statistics of all the various units, I decided to look into modifying certain stats that I had concerns about. Below is a list of the various changes I made. While the changes are numerous, I think I maintained a fairly good balance and I would welcome any comments or ideas, good or bad that anyone might have.

MODERN FOOT UNITS a-d-m [original stats]
-Musket Man 3-5-1 [2-4-1]
For guys with muskets, they're pretty weak compared to the guys with pikes which doesn't sit right with me.
-Rifleman 4-8-1 [3-6-1]
When rifled weapons came around, they were supposedly many times more superior than muskets, the game doesn't reflect that too well. Besides, if I tweaked the Musket Man, I had to do so with these guys too.
-Infantry 8-12-2 [6-10-1]
When I think of infantry, I think of modern troops with jeeps and APC's and stuff like that to get around with. I also ticked the zone of control flag in the editor. I tweaked his other stats to keep the edge over the Rifleman.
Marine 12-10-1 [8-6-1]
Marines were woefully weak the way they were, not what I would expect for guys as well trained and equipped as them.
-Paratrooper 10-12-1 [6-8-1]
The paradrop ability is enough to pay for the added cost they have over infantry in my opinion, so why should they be weaker?

MODERN MOUNTED UNITS
-Cavalry 8-4-3 [6-3-3]
There should have been a dragoon unit like in civ 2 with the Cavalry's original stats. These guys strike me as a little too weak compared to knights.
-Tank 18-10-2 [16-8-2]
I didn't want to keep Tanks so weak compared to my upgraded Cavalry, so I incresed them too.
-Mechinized Infantry 14-20-3 [12-18-2]
Reason is along the same lines as the Rifleman, Infantry, and Cavalry. Increased the movement to justify their mechinized title, since Infantry now move at 2, and so they can keep up with the modern armor.
-Modern Armor 28-18-3 [24-16-3]
See Mechinized Infantry

ARTILLERY UNITS a-d-m [original stats] (b-r-f [original stats])
-Radar Artillery 0-0-2 [0-0-1] (16-2-2 [16-2-2] ) zone
I'm no expert on modern artillery, but the animation for the unit lookes like a type of vehicle to me, so I increased the movement.

ANCIENT NAVAL UNITS a-d-m [original stats] (b-r-f [original stats])
-Frigate 3-3-4 [2-2-4] (4-1-2 [2-1-2] )
Frigates were pathetic before, so I beefed them up a bit. Also, I think a boat with tons of cannons on it would at least be a little more effective than the rock throwing catapult (2-1-2) at bombardment.

MODERN NAVAL UNITS a-d-m [original stats] (b-r-f [original stats])
-Transport 1-4-6 [1-4-5]
I think a ship with a mechanical engine should be a little faster and reliable than a Galleon
-Carrier 1-14-6 [1-8-4]
I'd think a massive carrier would be able to sustain much more damage than a destroyer 1 quarter its size. I think that a carrier is also faster than a sailing ship, hence the movement increase.
-Destroyer 12-8-10 [12-8-5] (8-1-2 [6-1-2] )
In Civ 2, destroyers were the fastest ship of all. The Civ 3 civilopedia also indicates their faster than most other ships. Think 10 is too much anyone?
-AEGIS Cruiser 18-14-8 [12-10-5] (8-2-2 [4-2-2]
Isn't an AEGIS Cruiser a really advanced warship? It Isn't much better that a destroyer in Civ 3, except that it can detect subs, so I enhanced it significantly.
-Battleship 30-24-6 [18-12-5] (12-2-2 [8-2-2] )
The civilopedia says it's the queen of the seas, yet if a destroyer attacks it, it can go 1 on 1 which just isn't very realistic. Hmm, well maybe if it used a harpoon missile it could......oh well, I think the battleship should be much more powerful than it was anyway.
-Submarine 14-2-4 [8-4-3]
Submarines were so pointless before, I just had to do something about it.
-Nuclear Sub 18-4-5 [8-4-4]
I may have let this editing get to my head, but here's my version of the Nuclear Submarine. I also gave it the ability to carry an extra tactical missile. See Cruise Missile below.

AIR UNITS a-d-m [original stats] (b-r-f [original stats])
-Jet Fighter 8-4-0 [8-4-0] (6-6*-2 [2-6*-2] interceptor
Why would a "JET" fighter be as pathetic as a prop plane fighter at bombardment?
-Cruise Missile 0-0-1 [0-0-1] (18-6-3 [16-2-3]
Was it the 1.17f patch that increased the bombardment value of this, I can't remember? I also gave it a range of 6, cause 2 was ridiculous for a cruise missile. To make things a little more realistic, I made it a tactical missile so submarines can carry it.

CIV SPECIFIC UNITS a-d-m [original stats] (b-r-f [original stats])
-Musketeer 3-5-2 [3-4-1]
Musketeers were the third worst special unit before, so I increased their movement to make them much better. Didn't I see the Musketeers riding horses in the movies? I upgraded the a-d to match the Musket Man.
-Cossack 8-5-3 [6-4-3]
Just wanted to keep him the same as the Cavalry, but added +1 defence. Unfortunately he remains pretty crappy as a special unit.
-Panzer 18-10-3 [16-8-3]
Matches the Tank tweak.
-Man-O-War 5-3-4 [3-2-4] (6-1-2 [3-1-2] )
The absolute worst special unit before, I suped it up big time to eliminate the problem of getting Ironclads 4-4-4 (4-1-2), before you even get a chance to use the Man-O-War.
-F-15 8-4-0 [8-4-0] (6-6*-2 [4-6*-2] )
There wasn't much to do with this really, it was the second worst unit before, but because the Man-O-War is much better now, the F-15 sadly becomes the absolute worst.

*for aircraft, this denotes the operational range instead of the bombardment range, which is really zero according to Firaxis.

Those units that I did not include, remain unchanged, accept for all the archer types (archer, bowman, longbowman) in which I added a zone of control.

Here are a few additional unit ideas I have, but sadly can not create due to my confusion on how to effectively do so:

-I heard someone on the forum mention that the English special unit should be the longbowman. I think it's a great idea. In turn, the normal longbowman should be changed to a crossbowman, and retain its stats, while the English longbowman should get be 5-1-1 or maybe even 6-1-1.
-I was playing around with the idea that the American special unit should be the paratrooper, while the normal one should be removed altogether. That would actually make helicopters a little more useful. Or perhaps make a navy seal or a ranger unit for the Americans. I don't know what you would call it, but maybe even give them a unit that can use the amphibious assault and the paradrop ability. Or maybe the F-15 should be changed to a spy plane and give it an insane range, but no attack, defence, or bombardment, all it would do is perform recon missions.
-An attack helicopter would be nice. It would be an air unit that can actually kill ground units instead of bombarding them. Speaking of helicopers, it would so sweet if u could load a helicopter on to an aircraft carrier and at the same time, have a foot soldier loaded on the helicopter.

Heres a summery of all the changes I made just so it can be seen more easily in its entirety.

a-d-m (b-r-f)

MUSKET MAN 3-5-1
MUSKETEER 3-5-2
RIFLEMAN 4-8-1
INFANTRY 8-12-2 zone
MARINE 12-10-1 amphibious, zone
PARATROOPER 10-12-1 paradrop, zone
CAVALRY 8-4-3 zone
TANK 18-10-2 zone, blitz
MECH. INFANTRY 14-20-3 zone
MODERN ARMOR 28-18-3 zone, blitz
RADAR ARTILLERY 0-0-2 (16-2-2)
TRANSPORT 1-4-6 carry 8
FRIGATE 3-3-4 (4-1-2)
CARRIER 1-14-6 carry 4 aircraft, radar
DESTROYER 12-8-10 (6-1-2)
AEGIS CRUISER 18-14-8 (8-2-2) sonar, radar
BATTLESHIP 30-24-6 (12-2-2)
SUBMARINE 14-2-4 sonar
NUCLEAR SUB 18-4-5 carry 2 tactical missiles, sonar
JET FIGHTER 8-4-0 (4-6*-2)
CRUISE MISSILE 0-0-1 (18-6-3) tactical missile
MUSKETEER 3-5-2
COSSACK 8-5-3 zone
PANZER 18-10-3 zone, blitz
MAN-O-WAR 5-3-4 (6-1-2)
F-15 8-4-0 (6-6*-2) precision bombing

All archer units recieve a zone of contol
 
Check out the LWC mod in the Completed Mods fourm on this site. It takes your good values even one better. Check them out.
 
What would interest me most for now is the cruise missile,so by giving it "tactical nuke",one can carry it on a nuc sub and actually fire it from the sea too,without it exploding like a nuclear device?

If so,very nice. :)
 
Originally posted by Dirk Aurel
What would interest me most for now is the cruise missile,so by giving it "tactical nuke",one can carry it on a nuc sub and actually fire it from the sea too,without it exploding like a nuclear device?

If so,very nice. :)

Thats exactly what I did. In the editor, theres two things that make a tactical nuke, selecting tactical missile, and selecting nuclear, there is no "tactical nuke flag" Cruise missles can be carried by submarines by selecting tactical missile.
 
All you're doing, DoctorB, is pumping up units. I cannot see this having a positive affect on gameplay. Don't you think the designers had reasons for the ADM values they gave units?

I know this is an unpopular opinion in these forums but I don't like mods. Why buy a game if you're going to pervert to suit your own demands? Are you a better designer than Sid Meier and Firaxis? I don't think so.
 
Jingle,

But he IS a consumer.
He bought the game, as did I.

Sid gave us an editor for what? Decoration?
It is 1-800-DOCTORB's right to edit the game flow,
which he has done quite well.

PS
I am a games designer, and I feel, yes I could implement
the game ideas better in some places...
Like artillery and aircraft being unable to destroy things? Sure.

And if you put the firaxian designers on such a high pedestal,
why did these guys not give us a decent set of maps or
a world map with real starting places?
Lucky those evil mod-makers where able to fix that...

The editor is a good way to repair the skewed balance of the
game.

LONG LIVE THE MOD MEN!
:lol:
 
Originally posted by Jinglehopper
All you're doing, DoctorB, is pumping up units. I cannot see this having a positive affect on gameplay. Don't you think the designers had reasons for the ADM values they gave units?

I know this is an unpopular opinion in these forums but I don't like mods. Why buy a game if you're going to pervert to suit your own demands? Are you a better designer than Sid Meier and Firaxis? I don't think so.

Your exactly right, Jinglehopper, all I'm doing is pumping up units, I'm not saying you must change your game also. This isn't a mod that I'm going to distribute or anything, it's just the result of a few random ideas I had over time that I want feedback on. I'm not trying to say I'm a better game designer than the Firaxis team, and I'm sure they had very good reasons for making the ADM and BRF the way they were for the sake of balance. If I wanted to claim to be a better game designer, I would go ahead and edit every single aspect of the game, which I won't do, all I care about is making the unit statistics a little more historically accurate, and at the same time, try and keep a good balance.
 
I just found it interesting that the first ten or so changes you listed all stemmed from pumping up the Musketman because "they're pretty weak." To offset that, you had to change the rifleman, infantry, mech. infantry, calvary, tank and modern armor. Why? It was balanced already.

And if you are basing your changes on "historical accuracy" we are going to be here for a while. First, Civ3 is a game which is an abstraction of war and can be compared to chess. Is anybody complaining that the knight L-shaped movement on a chess board isn't historically accurate? I can hear them now. "While it's true medieval knights typically used a flanking motion during war, chess was based on more ancient strategies in which a charge of mounted knights was primarily used to break up enemy infantry. Therefore, the knight should move three spaces forward but keep their ability to jump over it's own pieces."

My point is: no game can be historically accurate. It's all about gameplay, what makes the game fun. And, without putting Firaxis on a pedestal, I think Civ3 is a fun game.

To CurtSibling- I said I don't like mods and no I won't change my version of the game. I don't care if anyone else does. The only thing that bothers me is that too many times on these forums people have been discussing strategy, saying how they hate it when the AI does so and so. Then some modman replies, "Just change it in the editor so they can't do so and so. Problem solved." That to me is perverting what Firaxis had in mind.

And I find it refreshing that air power is limited in Civ3. I was used to destroying everyone as soon as I got airplanes in SMAC and Civ2. Civ3 forced me to change my strategy. It's the new challenges in the game that makes it great.
 
Originally posted by Jinglehopper
I just found it interesting that the first ten or so changes you listed all stemmed from pumping up the Musketman because "they're pretty weak." To offset that, you had to change the rifleman, infantry, mech. infantry, calvary, tank and modern armor. Why? It was balanced already.

And if you are basing your changes on "historical accuracy" we are going to be here for a while. First, Civ3 is a game which is an abstraction of war and can be compared to chess. Is anybody complaining that the knight L-shaped movement on a chess board isn't historically accurate? I can hear them now. "While it's true medieval knights typically used a flanking motion during war, chess was based on more ancient strategies in which a charge of mounted knights was primarily used to break up enemy infantry. Therefore, the knight should move three spaces forward but keep their ability to jump over it's own pieces."

My point is: no game can be historically accurate. It's all about gameplay, what makes the game fun. And, without putting Firaxis on a pedestal, I think Civ3 is a fun game.

To CurtSibling- I said I don't like mods and no I won't change my version of the game. I don't care if anyone else does. The only thing that bothers me is that too many times on these forums people have been discussing strategy, saying how they hate it when the AI does so and so. Then some modman replies, "Just change it in the editor so they can't do so and so. Problem solved." That to me is perverting what Firaxis had in mind.

And I find it refreshing that air power is limited in Civ3. I was used to destroying everyone as soon as I got airplanes in SMAC and Civ2. Civ3 forced me to change my strategy. It's the new challenges in the game that makes it great.

I totally agree with alot of your arguments, but my argument is simple. I'm not trying to change the game for anybody else, but myself. I'm doing this cause I enjoy it and I just wanted feedback to see how else I can edit things to my liking based on that feedback. My tweaking has in no way, shape, or form, made everything historically accurate, nor will I succeed, it's impossibe with only 6 sets of statistics to play around with. I simply maintain that I'm trying to make it a "little" more historically accurate then it was.
 
I totally respect that you were making changes for yourself. I guess you got a little more feedback than you were expecting, sorry about that. To be honest, I was saving that one up for a while and your post just let it all out.

I have to admit, even though I don't like mods, I do like reading about them. The range of changes people have made is immense, have you checked out the LWC readme?

One thing I would change in the game: Giving France a more respectable color. I just hate playing with a pink army.

GREG
 
We all know the Units in Civ III are rather lame. We need more of them and with more historical accuracy.

Tanks. I removed blitz, which is historically correct. Panzers would have them and Modern Armor also.

Man-O-War. Make it come earlier, and give it blitz with a ZOC. Also, Longbowmen should indeed be a UU for the English. Everyone else upgrades to crossbowman. Whether or not that (2 UU's for the English) causes crashing dangers I'm not sure (had a few with the LWC mod after I edited it).

Cossacks. Upgrade to tanks, otherwise it is a BIG hit on the Russians.

F-15 is all but useless as a UU. Americans need another.

Paratroops were relatively weak lacking heavy weapons. They would drop and hold ground.

Too many units in Civ III have airlift capability - even elephants!! Change that. Workers and leaders should have it.

Armies. I gave them a '4' transport, 2 MPs, unload, and a ZOC. Otherwise they are not worth it. Whether that will work I don't know; it might be hard-coded.

Musketeers and musketmen should indeed be stronger. The former did not ride horses into battle.

Naval units are especially terrible: frigates should be much stronger, and ironclads a lot stronger than frigates. Submarines are a waste because they (and privateers) in reality did not attack warships; they attacked commerce and trade shipping, but Civ III does not reflect that.

Anyway, we need a real patch that correctly reflects historical Units. We need a lot more with beter values and functions.
 
How far can the editor go? Can the American special unit be changed to a pumped up Marine? I think balance would be that all UU's be land units. Maybe the Brits can get an improved infantry like the B.E.F.
 
"All you're doing, DoctorB, is pumping up units. I cannot see this having a positive affect on gameplay. Don't you think the designers had reasons for the ADM values they gave units?"

He is pumping up non-ancient units, and is pumping up modern units more. This makes combat better (less of the occurences in my sig, except the stealth bomer one, which cant be fixed). ANd the designers had very good reasons for their ADM values. It was to make the AI seem better, because if units were realistic as they were in civ2 the AI would be sunk (hellllpppp, how do i beat the human my swordsmen wont beat his mech inf anymore :eek: ) BTW doctor your modded stats are very close to my mod :goodjob:

I know this is an unpopular opinion in these forums but I don't like mods. Why buy a game if you're going to pervert to suit your own demands? Are you a better designer than Sid Meier and Firaxis? I don't think so."

One question: why do you care? If you dont like it, dont download it and dont install it. Who are you to say that we shouldnt mod because you think it "perverts the game"? No one is forcing you to mar your wonderful copy of civ3 with any awful, perverting mods, so dont install any.

ANd IIRC Sid Meier didnt really contribute much to civ3 other than his name, and if he did, then he let a lot of glaring and obvious flaws get into the game.

edit: fixed smiley (the : in eek and the ) made a :)
 
Originally posted by Jinglehopper


And if you are basing your changes on "historical accuracy" we are going to be here for a while. First, Civ3 is a game which is an abstraction of war and can be compared to chess. Is anybody complaining that the knight L-shaped movement on a chess board isn't historically accurate? I can hear them now. "While it's true medieval knights typically used a flanking motion during war, chess was based on more ancient strategies in which a charge of mounted knights was primarily used to break up enemy infantry. Therefore, the knight should move three spaces forward but keep their ability to jump over it's own pieces."

My point is: no game can be historically accurate. It's all about gameplay, what makes the game fun. And, without putting Firaxis on a pedestal, I think Civ3 is a fun game.


I could care less about the argument of this thread, but your chess analogy is a classic. :lol:
 
He is pumping up non-ancient units, and is pumping up modern units more. This makes combat better (less of the occurences in my sig, except the stealth bomer one, which cant be fixed). ANd the designers had very good reasons for their ADM values. It was to make the AI seem better, because if units were realistic as they were in civ2 the AI would be sunk

What? Civ2 was more realistic? I don't remember that. See above chess argument.

The main problem that I have with mods is that it changes the nature of the game. The game that all of us are discussing on these forums was created by Firaxis. When people like me (and I hope there are a few out there) go on these forums to read about other people's strategies or ideas, it's frustrating that so many posts revert to the "Just change it" mentality.

I prefer working out the problems posed by the game logically. If your tanks is getting beaten by spearman too often, make sure you attack with more than one tank. It's okay if you lose a couple of battles, no Civ's army is completely invincible no matter what the technology (isn't that more "realistic"?). And if that doesn't work, use Bombers to soften up units and then attack with land/sea units, as opposed to complaining that they can't destroy anything.

Plus, by having every different person having a different mod with their own ADM values, governments and unique units, there is no common ground to discuss the game. And the multiplayer that everyone is clamoring about will be impossible.

One question: why do you care? If you dont like it, dont download it and dont install it. Who are you to say that we shouldnt mod because you think it "perverts the game"? No one is forcing you to mar your wonderful copy of civ3 with any awful, perverting mods, so dont install any.

As my previous post states, Simwiz, I really don't care what anyone does with their copy and I won't install it on my computer. I was just sharing my 2 cents and I didn't mean to sound accusatory. Besides, I knew I was going to get some opposition.


And Thanks for the shout out, ChiefPaco.
 
I'll give you two examples of where Civ II WAS more realistic.

Bombers could sink warships. In Civ III they can't even sink transports! Knights (and Crusaders) were not over-rated. In Civ III, the knight unit is too strong primarily because of its strong defense rating. This creates game-play and realism problems. How?

In Civ III large stacks of knights can quickly attack across your borders. They are strong enough to be potent offensively. . . and also strong enough defensively to withstand many counterattacks. This is not historical, and it makes knights too strong.

SOLUTION: Change the value of knights to 5.2.2. It may not be necessary to increase their cost. This will mean that they will be much more vulnerable to enemy counterattacks - '2' units with damage are very vulnerable. So, knights, even if a '5' on attack, will have to travel with such as cheaper pikemen and catapults or cannon in support, which is historical. Thus, knights are slowed down and become overall less destructive when invading.

Why would cavalry be 6.3 but knights 4.3? Makes no sense. Knights have too high defense value in Civ III.

I would also slightly increase the strength of musketmen, and increase a little more that of riflemen. In otherwords, certain units should defeat others up to 90% of the time, such as an ironclad attacking a privateer. This means increasing the value difference
between them: frigates could go to '5', MOW to a '6', ironclads an '8'. Privateers could be a '3'. Without such changes I have seen too many ironclads sunk in combat with frigates.

War Elephants? Much to strong a defense value. Should be a 4.1. And lower their shield cost a bit. Elephants were terrible on the defensive.

In otherwords, adjust combat rates and values so that certain units almost never could defeat others: horsemen should almost never defeat a fortified musketman even on grassland, for instance.

BTW, I also increase the bombard striength of catapults and cannon. That too is historical, makes them worth building, and, when you increase the values of musketmen and riflemen makes it necessary to use them to soften them up before attacking.

Oh yes, musketeers I had a point higher in attack and defense compared to musketmen.
 
Top Bottom