Some new units, suggestions!

[skywalker]

Originally posted by tctatheel7
i really liked the guerilla fighters taking to the hills if you conquered a city in civ II. i wish they would add that in conquests.

ditto here. Much better than this amorphous "unrest".

 

[EddyG17]

CadetEmperor, thats the answer, we need more ages therefore more tech meanig more of every thing, but i still think my idea is the best

 

[tctatheel7]

i think mercenaries would really be the most useful unit for them to add. they could have hidden nationality, so you can use them to go into a limited war with your opponents, but without declering war, so your peeps don't get mad Of cousre, they would have to be fairly weak, so you dont use them for all your conflicts. think of them as privateers on land. also, the french could have their foreign legion replace this, and be their NEW unique unit (i've always thought musketeers are crap)

 

[G-Force Junkie]

EddyG17, which idea are you referring to? Is it the one where you have a tech to get a unit and you restudy the tech to get more advanced versions like you study flight to get recon planes, then you study it again to get fighters and bombers and so on. Is that the idea you where referring to? How many times could you study a tech before it would max out?

 

[TVA22]

I think carriers would be a much better unit if they took a hint from RoN, when you build a carrier, you automatically have planes, and you just choose for the carrier to attack a far-off target, and your planes fly out and do it, then whenever they get shot down, you have to take your carrier into port or something, and the planes regenerate like hit points. That one change would make the AI capable of using carriers effectively, and make it a lot more fun too... Well, there's always civ4.

 

[EddyG17]

let's say you study tanks and you get light tanks, again and you get medium tanks again heavy tanks or just tank I , Tank II and Tank III, up to 3 no more or maybe 5, we don't want Tank XXX

 

[Cube]

Here's an idea I had for a unit. How about Demolition Experts. Stats like warriors, maybe a little better movement, but they also have the bonus ability of "set explosives". What this would do is basically be like bombarding improvements with air or naval units, except it has 100% chance to destroy the improvement. However, there is a down side. There would always be a small chance (5-10%) that the unit would die in the explosion.

I'd also like to see more units like the privateer. Mostly some land units. This way you could clean out some guys in your way of expanding, but not have to declare war on anyone.

 

[Xen]

its na interesting idea, but should be made both more diffacult, and more risky, like 75% for both success of mission, and death...

 

[tctatheel7]

cube, how about a commando unit, that can do that, plus it's invisible

 

[LouLong]

We need an eighteenth century rifleman with tricorn hat and maybe a Napoleonic one. From musketman to rifleman seems to be like too big a leap.

 

[casual_moose]

we need a privateer land unit

 

[Winston]

I think civ 3 should include the diplomat, spy, caravan, and frieght units from civ 2 and I know some people will say that civ 3 already has a trade and espionage system that renders these units obsolete and unnecessary, but I disagree.
Firstly, I think the civ 3 espionage system is rubbish compared to the civ 2 espionage system cos all of the spy missions are way too expensive and some are too difficult (to date I have never successfully conducted a sting operation against an enemy spy and I would be interested to hear from anyone that has successfully achieved this nigh on impossible mission). Spy units could allow more scope for espionage by being invisible, anonimous units that could conduct terrorist type missions e.g. assasinating key figures, blowing up buildings etc.
Secondly, the existing trade system is too limited because it only represents trade from nation to nation and you can only trade a limited number of goods and if the other nations dont like you its virtually impossible to reach a trade agreement. If the caravans and frieght were reintroduced then this would be more realistic because it would represent trade from city to city and it would allow trade to take place even if a civ doesnt have surplus luxuries/strategic resources which is realistic because cities have always been able to trade something (doesnt have to be natural resources- could be processed goods - and these goods could change through the eras). The route the caravan/frieght took (ie from city A to city B) could be represented as a trade route that would need to be protected by military forces during war.
Note caravans, spys etc dont have to replace the existing systems - they could be in addition.
Of course I doubt Firaxis will make these changes as it might involve too much effort with rewriting the programmes but its just a suggestion

 

[StabbingNirvana]

yea. you should be able to make certain variety of goods like say you have dyes or whatever. an example is youll be able to main stained glass (or if thats the wrong word, those colorful glass things). there should be like ... 10 of each for each resource or something. some of you might think im stupid for saying this, but hey, i live in a stupid world ...

 

[Vietcong]

Originally posted by TVA22
I think carriers would be a much better unit if they took a hint from RoN, when you build a carrier, you automatically have planes, and you just choose for the carrier to attack a far-off target, and your planes fly out and do it, then whenever they get shot down, you have to take your carrier into port or something, and the planes regenerate like hit points. That one change would make the AI capable of using carriers effectively, and make it a lot more fun too... Well, there's always civ4.

u fool, plaines dont come with the ships, u have to billed them spereatly on land! and ron sucks

 

[Black Waltz]

I kinow! How about UFO's and Mech Warriros too! Maybe they could have 10000/20000/50!!!!!!11111

*coughs as he avoids the drips of sarcasm*

 

[Alexei]

I would like to have two distinct artillery units for the 1900-1950 period... I find that a range of two for the current unit is unrealistic, 155mm used in WWII and more generally most batteries used for combat action had quite limited range (<10nm). So I would reduce the range of artillery to 1.
On the other hand, I would like to have a heavy artillery unit (Grosse Bertha...) with a range of 2 but which would only be able to move on railroads (as it was actually the case). It would make sense, this unit would represent RR 180mm and above batteries, lots of them were developped before WWII. This heavy artillery unit could also be used more efficiently as coastal defense (as it was in reality) and would have lethal sea bombing flag. What do you think ?

 

[Winston]

@ StabbingNirvana, I dont see why cities should only trade goods based upon luxuries, bonuses, and strategic resources - trade could also be linked to technology advances, basic terrain tiles, and city characteristics. Cities could trade progressively more hi tec goods in the later eras and this could make previous trades obsolete (e.g. a city could trade candlewax in the early eras but then the trade would become unnecessary by the late middle ages/ industrial period) and create new trades e.g. a city could start exporting cars. If a city has forests in its sphere of influence then it should be able to export timber to cities that dont have forests, similarly cities near hills/mountains should be able to trade stone and coastal cities should be able to sell fish to inland cities etc. Different types of cities should be able to export different things e.g: cities with high culture should be able to export paintings, tapestries, books, sculptures etc - cities with high production should be able to export machine tools, toys (a generic term for any small metal good of high value e.g. buttons, buckles, cutlery, jewellery etc), ship parts, textiles, glass etc - cities with a high science rate could export scientific instruments, clocks, chemicals etc - cities with high food could export hides, dairy produce, meat, wool, candlewax, beer, spirits, fruit, grain etc. There are plenty of other things that could be included and the trade system could either be kept simple or it could be made very detailed (I personally think the more detailed the better). If firaxis reintroduced merchant type units and included only a few tradable goods in addition to natural resources I would still be very pleased - probably not even going to be considered until civ 4 though

 

[StabbingNirvana]

when i first saw for the first time the high priced game known as civ3, i thought it was going to be like that. at first i was satisfied, but now im a'dissatisfied. well, im really not but they COULD make the diplomacy stuff better. and if they dont, im sueing for my soon to be around $100 dollars spent on this game (ptw and conquests will make it that much). they are adding more resources and stuff which would be good for trade, but it just wont be the same

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by CadetEmperor


The solution is simple my friend, we add techs.

I agree 100%. I address that in my late game tech thread.

 

[general_kill]

I think a fortress should have more abilities:

Fortress health and unit health. If units are stacked on/in a fortress they should have join health if they are the same type. Because they are all fortifying in the same fortress. And the fortress should have its own health, so when it is being bombarded it can collapse.

Zone of control for a fortress would be nice too. just being in the 1 tile radius of the fortress will drain 1 health. Even if you have a fast unit to cut through part of the radius, for every tile it pass through will have a 100% of taking 1 health. this will make your enemy fear the mighty fortress and make them go around rather than through it. Like the maginot line in france, it forced the germans to go around it and attack the north rather than right through it.

More defensive bonus. I think the current bonus is 50%? 100% with fortify. Thats just too unrealistic, 300% would be more like it. If fortress gave 100% defensive bonus the D-Day landing at normandy the allies had a kill to death ration of 2:1 (I know i know, the kind of conditions and units were different in that landing was different but you get the point). i.e. 100 real life infantries in a fortified in a high rise apartment building will take little casualties from 100 units attacking it in open plains. The plains would be such a killing zone.

Attack FROM the fortress meaning if you attack a unit near the fortress you stay in the fortress if you win the battle. And when you attack FROM the fortress you gain defensive bonus too. So you attack with 4 points and when the counter attack you gain defensive bonus from bunker.

Addon SAM batteries. You can build a SAM battery ontop of the fortress so that the bunker can have a chance to blow out bombers that pass through the zone of control or attacks the fortress. And if a fighter is using air supreme, it will always have a small chance of being shot down. SAM can be built without a fortress but need a unit inside to use it,