Unit promotions..?

[Loppan Torkel]

What's your opinion of it? Should it be kept in the same form as in civ4?

I think it could be good, but it wasn't in civ4. They seem to avoid generic modifiers in other aspects though so it might get better this time. There's also less units and those that are built will last longer...

It sounds like the player won't have as much info as before about the numbers behind the mechanics... Should the promotions of the enemy be kept from the player, unless it is retrieved through espionage?

 

[pi-r8]

It's a good idea, but they need to rework it quite a bit from the way it was in Civ 4. The main thing that bugged me was the diminished returns it offered- a 2 xp unit had a nice edge over a 0 xp unit that was otherwise equal, but a 20 xp unit had almost the same odds of winning there as the 2 xp unit did (usually). It was also kind of weird that, with large stacks and large defender bonuses, the combat promotions were almost always the best ones.

 

[Shurdus]

It's a good idea, but they need to rework it quite a bit from the way it was in Civ 4. The main thing that bugged me was the diminished returns it offered- a 2 xp unit had a nice edge over a 0 xp unit that was otherwise equal, but a 20 xp unit had almost the same odds of winning there as the 2 xp unit did (usually). It was also kind of weird that, with large stacks and large defender bonuses, the combat promotions were almost always the best ones.

When pickgin from one promotion then yes you are probably right. When pumping out 10xp units drill and several others became a real and solid alternative. It was not as generic as you make it sound.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I absolutely *LOVED* the CivIV promotion system. That's not to say it couldn't be *better*, but I really don't think they need to change too much!

Aussie.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I thought that the Civ IV promotion system was awesome. I can see it needing some re-balancing in light of 1UPT, though. Combat and Drill type promotions would seem to be more useful for front line troops since your units are going to be attacking and defending; City Raider and Garrison type promotions would become extremely situational; etc. . .

 

[Woodreaux]

I love Civ IV promo system, except the max of 10XP rollover on upgrading. I know they had nerf upgrading to some extent, but I think something less annoying could have used.

 

[Thyrwyn]

t sounds like they have seen the light with regards to "nerfing upgrading". From what we have heard, upgrading will be the norm - they expect, and even want your units to stick around. They want you to feel attached to your units since they will cost more to produce, maintain, and replace. Also, they apparently will not disappear after losing a single fight.

 

[Thormodr]

I really liked the upgrade system in cIV. I hope they have something at least as good for ciV.

 

[crudman69]

civ 4 promotion system is fine
although if they changed it to 'set in stone' promotions based on unit type (eg: C&C games ie: more powerful weapons with unique animations) then that would also be fine.

It sounds like the player won't have as much info as before about the numbers behind the mechanics... Should the promotions of the enemy be kept from the player, unless it is retrieved through espionage?

i don't believe viewing enemy promotions is all that crucial to anything

i've never actually taken note of what promotion they have considering you can get the % chance of winning by holding the mouse of the unit. this takes every bonus into account saving you from loading up a spreadsheet and filling it with numbers.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

i don't believe viewing enemy promotions is all that crucial to anything

i've never actually taken note of what promotion they have considering you can get the % chance of winning by holding the mouse of the unit. this takes every bonus into account saving you from loading up a spreadsheet and filling it with numbers.

Would it be a good idea to give the player the % chance of winning the battle without the modifiers? Consider a spearman fortified in a forest - meeting a basic spearman unit with your modern day cavalry in a neutral tile would give you a 85% of winning the battle, but now it's an old and probably promoted unit that is fortified and with terrain bonus... should all this modifying info be calculated by the computer and showed, or should some or all modifiers of it be hidden from the player, to be guessed and learnt over time? Perhaps there's an archer behind the spearman that you don't see that will decrease your chance of winning. If not including that modifier, it seems more consistent to just give the base chance of winning a generic battle between the units.

If they make it like this, intelligence reports would have an increased importance in the game. Perhaps you could pay to try and scout the surrounding area for ambushing units or infiltrate the spearman to find out promotions or the overall strength.

Perhaps there could be a random modifier to the terrain bonus also. If there's a base defense bonus in a forest tile of 50%, there could be a 20"%-units" randomness to the tile bonus. Just to hinder players from using spreadsheets. If you want the exact information, you need to spend some cash in intelligence for that tile and unit...

 

[PieceOfMind]

Actually on the whole I found the Civ4 promotion system disappointing. I don't feel it added all that much to gameplay but most of all it made information about units much less visible to the player. Assessing a stack of units becomes much more complicated when heaps of the units have different promotions and levels.

Also, with specialised units comes micromanagement of those units.

I prefer the old system where there were just one or two levels of "veterancy" (sorry, I think I made that word up! )

You can still have combined arms tactics and strategic gameplay without promotions.

Having said all that, I think the fact Civ5 will come with a 1UPT rule means we're likely to see some form of promotion system again as it would fit well with the higher emphasis on individual units. In Civ4 the problem was that brute force (sheer number of units) was still the main determinant of battle outcomes anyway and promotions were just complicating fluff.

 

[Wolle68]

I really liked the upgrade system in cIV. I hope they have something at least as good for ciV.

I fully expect the upgrade system to work even better when we have fewer units that stick around longer.

 

[Perfxion]

My idea:

Make the promotions graphically change a unit. Kind of in the way of Civ Rev but now makes it easier to see what unit is promoted to what line.

For example. You have a rifleman, then promote them medic, you see the red cross on their sleeve and back to know that thats the medic unit. You have a infrantry unit, and give him an Anti-air promotion, he turns into a SAM unit. Give him ambush, and he turns into a anti-armor unit.

 

[Shurdus]

What would changing the unit accomplish? I can see them getting a fancy hat or something as being funny and it would get the message across, but giving them bazooka's and such is pushing it. Just showing the bonus icons when mousing over the unit would pretty much serve the exact same purpose.

 

[Ahriman]

The Civ4 promotion system is awesome for modability. You can build a whole RPG-style set of improvements using nested promotion prerequisites.
Also, so much you can do through adding promotions *other* than through gaining levels. Think of all the FFH and its modmod type stuff.
Like Enchanted Blade promotion, or extra promotions if archers are in a city with walls. Or "diseased" promotions. Or Sandrider promotion in Dune Wars.