prisoner of hss
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 12
in civ 3, stupid units that the AI will keep through the ages for some reasons will still fight your much stronger units. in civ 4, i hope they run away or something
Please fix the AI using obsolete units!
- Thread starter prisoner of hss
- Start date
I would very much prefer if they just threw themselves at you and lose. I don't think the AI ever disband units. So all those units would just be standing around doing nothing (read: wasting RAM) or even worse, walking around for no particular reason. Why not throw them at you as sacrifice?
farting bob
ThEy MaDe Me Do iT.
I find it useful that they dont disband or upgrade much. You end up with loads of anmcient units which can mean a free promotion. Of course, it means you get scary amounts of units in a SoD, and it slows down the PC.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
The AI does upgrade its units in Civ3, if it has the moola.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
In the recent gamespor article it says that they made the multiplayer first before doing the AI, which meant that they could learn how humans would play then base the AI on that. So I would imagine that the AI will upgrade units.
For anyone who hasn't seen it... http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civilizationiv/preview_6129411.html
Page 3 -
For anyone who hasn't seen it... http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civilizationiv/preview_6129411.html
Page 3 -
Polietileno
Sleep Is For The Weak
Not only make the obsolet unit update, but also make the AI put a good fight, like making a decent amphibius atack or using support units in a atack and stop pillaging every tile that they put a foot on. I'm laughing because today the drop 2 swordsman and 1 horseman, while I send 5 horsemen, 3 pikemans and 5 MI to fight them. And the use of Artillery too.
JavalTigar
Overlord of the West
on top of all this, ALL units must be able to upgrade. I have done this with every mod I have made. That way when you build a new city in the late industrial age, explorers are not even a option. pirates upgrade to u-boats, all sail ships upgrade to transports. It cleared up the queue quite nicely.
I disagree with all units being able to upgrade. Some paths are dead ends. It forces the player to make harder choices. Do I want to invest in a Swordsman, the premier offensive unit of the Ancient Age, knowing that its life, like the mayfly, is as brief as it is glorious? Or do I stick to the weaker, but future-proof Archer? I like that you can't upgrade Cavalry to Tanks.
To ease upgrading, cities with Barracks ought to be able to upgrade units through use of shields/hammers. If you have Feudalism and a Spearman unit is in a city with a Barracks, the city's build queue should include "Upgrade Spearman to Pikeman." This would make it easier for the perpetually impoverished AIs to upgrade their units.
Of course, you can also pay for the upgrade with cash like in Civ3, but through the mechanism of a accelerating production rather than its own unique thing. In governments with slave labor, this would allow you to use the whip to upgrade units.
Leonardo's Workshop would function the same way as it does now, except instead of reducing gold cost (directly), it would reduce the number of shields/hammers, which also reduces the amount of gold necessary if you choose to rush it.
To ease upgrading, cities with Barracks ought to be able to upgrade units through use of shields/hammers. If you have Feudalism and a Spearman unit is in a city with a Barracks, the city's build queue should include "Upgrade Spearman to Pikeman." This would make it easier for the perpetually impoverished AIs to upgrade their units.
Of course, you can also pay for the upgrade with cash like in Civ3, but through the mechanism of a accelerating production rather than its own unique thing. In governments with slave labor, this would allow you to use the whip to upgrade units.
Leonardo's Workshop would function the same way as it does now, except instead of reducing gold cost (directly), it would reduce the number of shields/hammers, which also reduces the amount of gold necessary if you choose to rush it.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Swordsmen vs Archers is a weird example, because their upgrade paths merge at Guerilla.apatheist said:
It would be preferable if Cav upgraded to something vaguely useful (but not too powerful) in the Modern age, like how Medievals and Longbowmen upgrade to Guerilla in the Industrial, but otherwise I think the upgrade paths in C3C are quite good.
The AI does sometimes disband units, but apparently only when absolutely starved for cash.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
But IRL the horse mounted soldier faded away. The foot soldier picked up new arms.
A poor choice in the design of C3C.The Last Conformist said:Swordsmen vs Archers is a weird example, because their upgrade paths merge at Guerilla.
I was happy with having having Swordsmen (pre C3C) and Medieval Infantry and Longbowmen not be able to upgrade at all. Ditto for Cavalry. If nothing else, think of realism. How do the skills transfer? If you're a Spearman, I can see you easily learning how to use a pike instead. If you're firing Cannon, I can see you easily learning how to fire Artillery. I don't see how knowing how to fight with a sword prepares you to be a Guerrilla, or how riding a horse prepares you for driving a tank. They're too different.The Last Conformist said:
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
In countries where the army wasn't rebuilt from scratch during some point during the first half of the last cenury, most cavalry units were converted into infantry, mechanized, or motorized units. Some American ones were turned into airborne units - "air cavalry".warpstorm said:
Raggamuffin
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 244
apatheist said:
Excellent suggestion! Call Firaxis, establish a march to their HQs and for the love of God if nothing else works someone mod this into the game! I want it.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Of PTW, actually.apatheist said:
How does fighting with a pike prepare you for fighting with a musket? How does being an infantryman prepare you for driving an APC?
Every unit has to be replaced every generation anyway. Instead of training up a new crop of sword-fighters, flail-wielders, or longbowmen, you train them to pull the triggers of AK-47s instead.
Roland Johansen
Deity
apatheist said:
Every realism argument is counterable in civ. This one is very easy. I've built the swordsman in say 500BC, upgraded it to medieval infantry in 500 AD and upgraded it further to guerilla in 1800 AD. The upgrade to medieval infantry is ok for you, but the one to guerilla not, because you are assuming that this unit represents the same body of men all the time. That is pretty unrealistic in itself. Therefore I envision units as a group of men that i trained at some time. The upkeep allows the men to be replaced and the new men to be trained (and pays their salary and such stuff). At some time, my empire has discovered new ways of fighting and I pay some extra money to allow the new men that are going to be trained the new material that is needed and the new training (facility) that is needed.
To make civ remotely realistic, you'll have to look at the game at a very abstract level and even then, there are some things left that I can't explain. For instance, why can a unit in the ancient age only move 100 kilometers (one terrain square) in 50 years. I can't really explain that (maybe to symbolize the supply and management problems in those times). But, although the game is somewhat unrealistic at some points, it does offer some great gameplay.
I think, it would enhance gameplay if there exists a continuous upgrade chain because it would be easier for the AI and because it removes some micromanagement for the player. If you have to disband (with some return in shields) a large part of your army and then rebuild it, it takes far more mouse clicks then one 'upgrade all' mouse click. Also, disbanding and rebuilding is not that different from upgrading. Who says that those aren't the same soldiers?
Janos
Prince
apatheist said:
Brilliant idea. I would welcome this wholeheartedly into the game! This is an issue which needs fixing, in my opinion, and one which is important for longevity and emersion. Good thinking.
rickb
Warlord
Gameplay totally trumps everything in this case, and I don't find it terribly unrealistic either. It's not like it's the same group of guys for 4000 years. The units you build just represent your army at any given time. A horse/mech inf unit is your mobile force, pikeman/rifleman your defensive units, etc. Upgrading a unit is just you spending money to modernize your army to the latest tech. If you don't want to waste the gold then use time+shields, it's the exact same tradeoff as rush building an improvement, and I don't see anyone complaining about that.
