Unit Tweaks/ additions

[Colonel]

I know this can easily be modded but these are some minor tweaks to existing units I would like to see.

First off increase the range of the Stealth bomber to infinite(worldwide) and also increase its cost to reflect this new advantage. Adds realism while adding a balance feature.

For our other aircraft I suggest implementing a tanker unit and order it to orbit in area X which is X tiles wide\long. Thereby enhanceing the range of any unit that can reach that area. These of course could get shot down, but theoretically if you had total air superiority over the world you could launch strikes any way with out a need for carriers or a base of some sort.

Naval units, to start the battleship should have increased range for bombardment. say three tiles in any direction. Cruisers two, destroyers 1. For all three you should have the ability to load missiles onto ships. With that there needs to be a specific missile unit devolped for the ships something that can cause decent damage but still be relatively inexpensive.
more to come

 

[Naokaukodem]

I liked the way bombardements was managed in Civ3. I wish I see them back in Civ5. But multiple bombardements should be possible from 1 unit. 1 bombardement means 1 movement point. Battleships could bombard a city/stack numerous times in 1 turn. Or at least, please, give the ability to battleships and other naval units to bombard like bombers in Civ4. Plus, yes, the ability to bombard from a distance, so that we could go more or less deep into a territory.

That would definitely make naval warfare more important other than simply protect our sea ressources.

Also, we should be able to raze a city by air. Bombers would disminish the population in cities, until 0 where the city get razed.

Plus, there should be a kind of production bonus from modern cities. Indeed, beside modern tanks and mobile infantry, we need to build also air and sea units, so that there's not so much room left for buildings. Maybe a bonus given by the era we have reached. Modern era should maybe give one hammer on sea tiles, and one hammer on cottages tiles. (2 with the good civic)

 

[Camikaze]

I've got a few tweaks I would like to see:

1. All siege units: Should be able to bombard units, in the same manner that they bombard city defences.
2. All siege units: Should be attached to melee/gunpowder units, in the same manner that GGs are attached to units currently. The unti it is attaached to could use its turn to either bombard defences of the enemy, but any direct combat comprise of the strength of the original unit, with an additional artllery support bonus.
3. All siege units: Should be able to receive defensive bonuses, and be able to be attached to cities, to act as city defence weapons. This would mean that they cannot move, but you can use them to bombard enemies in the tile outside of your city.
4. Battleship: Should be more vulnerable to air units. Perhaps they could have a 50% attack bonus against battleships. Also, should be more vulnerable to submarines. This would reflect their real life obsolescence.
5. Aircraft Carrier: Should be improved in order to make them the most powerful naval unit, reflecting real life. I don't know how.
6. Jet Fighters: Should be split into two generations of jet fighters. Second and fifth generation jet fighters, perhaps. Fifth generation would be more expensive, but would have greater range, more stealth, etc. Also, perhaps these should be split further to have better bomber capabilities, through the creation of a jet-bomber. This would fill the void between bomber and stealth bomber.
7. Stealth Bomber: Should be made much more expensive and much more powerful.
8. Mechanized Infantry: Should be split into APC units and Armored Fighting Vehicle units. The first would be cheaper, but less powerful.
9. Marine: Should be much more attack based units, instead of semi-defensive units, as they are now. Perhaps they should be given the ability to have City Attack promotions, or something.

That's all I can think of, at the moment.

 

[Argetnyx]

I liked the way bombardements was managed in Civ3. I wish I see them back in Civ5

Oh, yes. Thank you.

Battleships could bombard a city/stack numerous times in 1 turn

Not a good idea. The AIs would KILL you.

All siege units: Should be able to bombard units, in the same manner that they bombard city defences

Duh.

All siege units: Should be able to receive defensive bonuses, and be able to be attached to cities, to act as city defence weapons. This would mean that they cannot move, but you can use them to bombard enemies in the tile outside of your city.

Seige units should not have any defense AT ALL, this will force players to guard them with other units, thus accomplishing your idea of attaching them to other units.

Battleship: Should be more vulnerable to air units. Perhaps they could have a 50% attack bonus against battleships. Also, should be more vulnerable to submarines. This would reflect their real life obsolescence.

Attack? You mean bombard, right? They should NOT be more vulnerable to subs, since I can't think of ANY battleships being sunk by a sub in WWII.

Aircraft Carrier: Should be improved in order to make them the most powerful naval unit, reflecting real life. I don't know how.

The reason that they are currently the most powerful is that they carry aircraft. On their own, they are worthless.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Not a good idea. The AIs would KILL you.

Not necessarily. (depends on how you play in fact)

 

[Argetnyx]

No, it really doesn't. The AIs would use that to their advantage and bombard any attack untill they are all either destroyed or in needing of life insurance.

 

[Naokaukodem]

No, it really doesn't. The AIs would use that to their advantage and bombard any attack untill they are all either destroyed or in needing of life insurance.

Oh because you couldn't defend maybe? Just build an armada to kill them off.

 

[Argetnyx]

Depending on how many MP's they have, the battleships can spread destruction over all military formations within their range. Building an armada is hard enough, but having them in the right place at the right time is even harder. If you use the 'blitz' option for battleships, even a single one that gets through will cause destruction beyond realistic proportions.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Depending on how many MP's they have, the battleships can spread destruction over all military formations within their range. Building an armada is hard enough, but having them in the right place at the right time is even harder. If you use the 'blitz' option for battleships, even a single one that gets through will cause destruction beyond realistic proportions.

then you have to build more ships, and more bombers.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Depending on how many MP's they have, the battleships can spread destruction over all military formations within their range. Building an armada is hard enough, but having them in the right place at the right time is even harder. If you use the 'blitz' option for battleships, even a single one that gets through will cause destruction beyond realistic proportions.

Turning that back on the AI would allow you to 1-shot every coastal city is has on the very turn you declare. Anything that wasn't on the high seas would be screwed. Anything that was wouldn't have much backup to actually land troops.

I agree it's a bad idea though. I already do something like this with nukes on occasion, but with battleships it would be so ridiculously easy.

 

[Argetnyx]

I tried giving Destroyers the ability to attack multiple times in Civ3 before, it was a bad mistake.

 

[rysmiel]

No, it really doesn't. The AIs would use that to their advantage and bombard any attack untill they are all either destroyed or in needing of life insurance.

I'd like that, actually; it would be exactly the level at which the game needs more of a challenge.

Though if you let the AI get to a point of having battleships without being well enough equipped to take them out before they get within bombard range, you should maybe go down a level until you get better at the game.

 

[Argetnyx]

I think by 'battleships', Camikaze meant 'warships'. It would not be realistic either, a warship able to bombard many times, but only able to attack once?

 

[rysmiel]

I think by 'battleships', Camikaze meant 'warships'. It would not be realistic either, a warship able to bombard many times, but only able to attack once?

Realism is secondary. Good gameplay is primary.

I'm entirely in favour of warships and tanks all having blitz by default. particularly if firepower and hit points are adjusted appropriately as technology advances.

 

[Argetnyx]

The thing that seperates Civ from just about any other game is the realism included. With civ4, the designers were purposefully trying to make Civ just like any other game to get more players. In my opinion, they should not have done this. Many people agree with me, but they are sadly not in the creation team. Realism is primary for the survival of Civ as a unique game, a thing the designers forgot when they were making civ4. Saying gameplay is secondary seems too harsh, but you can only go so far untill you start entering the mainstream.

I am in favour of keeping tanks with default blitz. The only way I would allow blitz to be default on a warship is if they can attack multiple times, but not bombard more than once.

 

[rysmiel]

The thing that seperates Civ from just about any other game is the realism included.

I strongly disagree here.

The thing that has given the Civ series enduring success and replayability is abstraction at somewhere near the perfect level for ideal gameplay. There are any number of notions floating around that people do a lot of work on for more "realistic" Civ-type games, some of which I will happily concede are a great deal more realistic - look at the "Wimsey's economic model" thread for a great example - which do not appeal to me because I do not immediately see how they translate to better gameplay.

There's only so much realism a game can take. A fully realistic representation of managing an invasion on the scale of D-Day would probably not be playable out by a single human player within a human lifetime, no ?

With civ4, the designers were purposefully trying to make Civ just like any other game to get more players. In my opinion, they should not have done this

I have no idea whether this was actually a concern or not, though I do not much like the results of many of the decisions made in that redesign; I do think much of Civ 4's flaws comes from too high a priority on things that will work well in multiplayer; a vocal community but not that large a one.

Saying gameplay is secondary seems too harsh, but you can only go so far untill you start entering the mainstream.

How are you defining "entering the mainstream" ? Civ titles are bestsellers, I don't think we can really justify thinking of it as being a fringe game.

Sure, there are different trends and preferences among computer gamers, and one can;t satisfy all of them with a dingle game. This is why I am keen that the people who want short easy games with supposedly-good graphics where they don't have to think about managing every detail should get a PC port of Civ Rev asap, and Civ 5 should focus specifically more on people who want greater strategic depth and detail to their games.

I am in favour of keeping tanks with default blitz. The only way I would allow blitz to be default on a warship is if they can attack multiple times, but not bombard more than once.

And as I have said, I disagree with you. Tanks (past your inital WWI-equivalent instantiation) and modern warships should have multiple attacks or multiple bombards, because it increases the disparity between tech levels, and therefore benefits those who focus in science and build a small highly-advanced empire against people who focus on expansion and build a large empire, which is I think a rebalancing the game as a whole has needed from the beginning.

 

[Argetnyx]

There's only so much realism a game can take. A fully realistic representation of managing an invasion on the scale of D-Day would probably not be playable out by a single human player within a human lifetime, no ?

It can be done on Civ standards, because most of the details of the invasion were tactical, whict civ doesn't represent.

How are you defining "entering the mainstream" ? Civ titles are bestsellers, I don't think we can really justify thinking of it as being a fringe game.

Sure, there are different trends and preferences among computer gamers, and one can;t satisfy all of them with a dingle game. This is why I am keen that the people who want short easy games with supposedly-good graphics where they don't have to think about managing every detail should get a PC port of Civ Rev asap, and Civ 5 should focus specifically more on people who want greater strategic depth and detail to their games.

Mainstream, as in like any other game. As you said, Civ5 should focus on strategic detail, not tactical.

And as I have said, I disagree with you. Tanks (past your inital WWI-equivalent instantiation) and modern warships should have multiple attacks or multiple bombards, because it increases the disparity between tech levels, and therefore benefits those who focus in science and build a small highly-advanced empire against people who focus on expansion and build a large empire, which is I think a rebalancing the game as a whole has needed from the beginning.

This would be very annoying if you were not a player who goes all-out for science. I am against.

 

[Camikaze]

Seige units should not have any defense AT ALL, this will force players to guard them with other units, thus accomplishing your idea of attaching them to other units.

Well, yeah, I meant more that they should be able to work in an overall defensive capability, so as that when a unit with a siege unit attached is in a city, for example, every time that city is attacked until the unit is defeated, the siege unit will inflict some collateral damage on the attacking group/stack/unit.

Attack? You mean bombard, right? They should NOT be more vulnerable to subs, since I can't think of ANY battleships being sunk by a sub in WWII.

I mean the aircraft should have an attack bonus against battleships. Also, to add to this, aircraft should be able to completely sink ships, and completely destroy all units, for that matter (given the correct application of firepower). And with subs, I'm thinking more post-WWII. If any battleships still existed to a large extent, they would be very susceptible to submarines.

The reason that they are currently the most powerful is that they carry aircraft. On their own, they are worthless.

So let them carry more aircraft, or bombers, or something. 3 jet fighters doesn't really do all that much, unless you're up against three or less units, with no intercept abilities.

 

[Argetnyx]

I mean the aircraft should have an attack bonus against battleships. Also, to add to this, aircraft should be able to completely sink ships, and completely destroy all units, for that matter (given the correct application of firepower). And with subs, I'm thinking more post-WWII. If any battleships still existed to a large extent, they would be very susceptible to submarines.

Aircraft should be given a bonus against any ship. They already can sink ships and destroy units, right? It was not the threat of submarines that cancelled the battleship, but the threat of aircraft and missiles.

So let them carry more aircraft, or bombers, or something. 3 jet fighters doesn't really do all that much, unless you're up against three or less units, with no intercept abilities.

The cargo capacity of a carrier (at least in Civ3) is already fine how it is. What should happen is: Just like artillery units on land do, air units on a carrier should be able to take a 'potshot' at any attacking ship. This will make the carrier much more efficient.

 

[rysmiel]

This would be very annoying if you were not a player who goes all-out for science. I am against.

All out for science should not be essential, but failing to put the effort into science should be a major problem.

If you're not a player who goes all out for science, sure there should be other options. Spread like heck, swarm with low-cost relatively primitive units is one. Focus on culture and be so goshdarn awesome that primitive enemy units pretty much always defect once they've been on your ground is another. Focus on your economy and have the ability to bribe half an invading army so it turns on the other half is yet another.

The way to stop horizontal growth being the essential component of all strategies is not to continue clunkily handicapping horizontal growth, it's to boost what vertical growth actually does for you.