embryodead
Caliph
I have often thought about something like this. i played a board game once where you had a general unit which gained experience. A higher level general could field larger armies. Perhaps something like this could be implemented. limiting units based on resources is not a good idea as it wouldn't allow you any options to increase the limit once all the resources available were used up. One based on general units, or somehow tied to the idea of supply lines might be better as then it would give you more options.
So if you had a general unit he could get promotions like cavalry tactics, melee tactics etc, which would allow you to increase the number of regiments of each type you could control.
Perhaps different civs's starting generals would have different starting promotions which would vary the way each civ s millitary was built.
Well, lets say the limits/regiments idea is down. In a way, the promotion thing is already represented by traits/UPs, such of those of Seljuks. It can be pushed further, although the GG idea sounds technically complicated. I don't know, all those detailed combat ideas sound like a good thing for TW, not Civ (see below).
Another broken aspect of the military in civ is the use of archers, which civ 5 attempted to fix by allowing you to attack from a distance (which I don't like). However, in real warfare archers were used for much more then just guarding cities.
Archers' role on offense is support, and you can't have that in Civ4, other than for guarding stacks (a drilled Marksman is nice as well, but only if you run out of other units...). Now, don't take this comment as rude - for real warfare, play Total War series. When it comes to combat, I'll take TW over Civ any day. Civ4 combat is simple unit vs. unit, win-lose system with a lot of modifiers, and you need actual battles to give specific units their histrical role. Civ5 scale is smaller, allowing support, but there's no battles still.
Also, every time I see a catapult defending against a horse warrior i cringe. I have always thought that you should have to attach melee units to siege units to work as guards and an unguarded siege unit should not have any defence (like a worker)
It's possible but it's a lot of coding with only benefit being realism, which isn't the point of Civ again (siege engines should be constructed on the site of the siege, not in cities 300 kilometers away etc.).
The graphics thing is a common complaint and Firaxis once fixed that in Civ3 by adding crew to siege units. That I can do easily, actually - it would look the same way the Timurid Siege Engineer does, i.e. 1 Catapult/Trebuchet + 1 plain crewman. Does that sound good?
also, I am curious why you changed the name of the mamluk UU? Is it because of what happens when you google Toassin?
No, though I laughed at this one I simply borrowed the unit from Broken Crescent Ayyubid roster, which was a mistake. Toassins were some ethnic subgroup, probably of imported Turkic or Caucasian stock, trained by Saladin as mamluk soldiers. The later Mamluks that ruled Egypt were mostly native Arabs and Turks.