Ahriman
Tyrant
Sounds like revisionism to me. The Russians launched the first satellites (Sputnik) because they were technologically more advanced. Its not like the US had the technology and just decided not to use it for some political reason.
Units you would like to see...
- Thread starter Danielos
- Start date
Sounds like revisionism to me. The Russians launched the first satellites (Sputnik) because they were technologically more advanced. Its not like the US had the technology and just decided not to use it for some political reason.
SemperFi2382
Mitten Marauder
In addition the US supplied them with Stinger Missiles to fight the Russians with.
Something as to why I suggested a land based version of the Privateer. Foreign funded insurgency or rebellions to further your own political goals. Even if it's to harass another Civ to slow down it's progress or hinder it's war efforts against a friendly Civ.
globalempire
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 70
well wea re alpretty much clear on what we want.
we all just keep repeating the same things. well in the Modern and pre modern eras.
Now we need to talk about the More futuristic eras.
teh future eras in my opinion should be Atomic Era, Synthetic Era and Genetic Era
Not neccesarily in that order
we all just keep repeating the same things. well in the Modern and pre modern eras.
Now we need to talk about the More futuristic eras.
teh future eras in my opinion should be Atomic Era, Synthetic Era and Genetic Era
Not neccesarily in that order
Could be fun seeing more unique units for each Civ. Like if you play as the Native Indians, you would have indian archers, indian spearmen and so on...
Some more variety in animals would also be a nice addition. Like polar bears on snow terrain, lions on savannah and bears in forests. Could also be cool with attacking whales/sharks when transporting troops over sea. Although this might ruin the whole concept of transporting units over sea.
Unique units for barbarians could also be nice feature. I hate seeing barbarians having exactly the same type of troops as your own Civ. Sometimes i get confused whether they are barbarins or not, because some Civs have the same colour as them.
Some more variety in animals would also be a nice addition. Like polar bears on snow terrain, lions on savannah and bears in forests. Could also be cool with attacking whales/sharks when transporting troops over sea. Although this might ruin the whole concept of transporting units over sea.
Unique units for barbarians could also be nice feature. I hate seeing barbarians having exactly the same type of troops as your own Civ. Sometimes i get confused whether they are barbarins or not, because some Civs have the same colour as them.
Personally, I would love that. I'd even go as far as to ask for units to look different for every civ, but that might be a bit too much. Anyhoo, a more diverse look of units among factions would be an enormous plus.
As for future eras and corresponding units, i'm against it. I don't know how it will be if included in vanilla civ, but the mods that had them tended to get a bit science-fiction-y.
I know that history has little to do with civ-like games, though it's the base of those game, so I will give my point about it :
1 - Bombers should have much less impact on the field. If we look back WWII, there were almost useless but on bridges and civil population. (For exemple LeHavre was fully destroy by bombers, though not a single division of nazi was really armed).
2 - In civ1/2/4 : how did Gengis Khan, Cyrus and so on (arabs, turks,... ) conquired their empire without any decent horse archer?
3 - Why chivalery is unable to take a city? To be accurate, knight were the second and decisive assault wave.
4 - pikewall was the main force of many civilizations (grecs of course, but also germans, mesopotamian city states, gauls, scots, switzerland, medieval militia...). Only roman legion and some light units were sometimes shortly better (and more for logistics reason than for tactics reason btw).
5 - between 17th and late 19th, hand weapons didn't changed that much (except for sweden and prussia). Only the way to use them changed a lot (line infantry for instance). I advice to keep those steps : arquebusiers (rifle without bayonnette) to rifleman (american civil war, prussia/french war 1870).
6 - there is no sapper! Historicaly plainly false. They should be replaced with catapults later in the game, when catapults add the ability to bombard units.
7 - If we look at rennaissance european nations or mediteranean antic nations, navy has not only a huge war role, it has a huge financial role.
8 - Terrorism has no role to play (casus belly at most). Resitance has : wwII european resistance, afghanistan resistance (against both english, russian and american imperialism), colonial resistances against mother nations, last years libanon, etc.
Now from a game point of view I agree that it would reduce fun as only 3 or 4 kinds of units were heavely used in historical time, with huge used of cheap militias and various pikewalls...
1 - Bombers should have much less impact on the field. If we look back WWII, there were almost useless but on bridges and civil population. (For exemple LeHavre was fully destroy by bombers, though not a single division of nazi was really armed).
2 - In civ1/2/4 : how did Gengis Khan, Cyrus and so on (arabs, turks,... ) conquired their empire without any decent horse archer?
3 - Why chivalery is unable to take a city? To be accurate, knight were the second and decisive assault wave.
4 - pikewall was the main force of many civilizations (grecs of course, but also germans, mesopotamian city states, gauls, scots, switzerland, medieval militia...). Only roman legion and some light units were sometimes shortly better (and more for logistics reason than for tactics reason btw).
5 - between 17th and late 19th, hand weapons didn't changed that much (except for sweden and prussia). Only the way to use them changed a lot (line infantry for instance). I advice to keep those steps : arquebusiers (rifle without bayonnette) to rifleman (american civil war, prussia/french war 1870).
6 - there is no sapper! Historicaly plainly false. They should be replaced with catapults later in the game, when catapults add the ability to bombard units.
7 - If we look at rennaissance european nations or mediteranean antic nations, navy has not only a huge war role, it has a huge financial role.
8 - Terrorism has no role to play (casus belly at most). Resitance has : wwII european resistance, afghanistan resistance (against both english, russian and american imperialism), colonial resistances against mother nations, last years libanon, etc.
Now from a game point of view I agree that it would reduce fun as only 3 or 4 kinds of units were heavely used in historical time, with huge used of cheap militias and various pikewalls...
EmpireOfCats
Death to Giant Robots
Seconded. That still bothers me every single time.
plasmacannon
Emperor
delete
plasmacannon
Emperor
"Submarines that have ranged torpedo attacks (like how archers can fire from a few hexes away). This could make naval battle more exciting, as maybe you'll need some destroyers around (instead of just having a stack of battleships) to prevent these attacks."
I like this.
Also, Modern submarines (And get the image right this time).
Sciguy001
CiV Great Scientist (duh)
Uh that would be way too many units for game play.
plasmacannon
Emperor
It makes up for the GAPs in the research tree.
For example, why is it that as soon as we research horseback riding we get a Horse Archer unit?
If we don't have the Wheel, shouldn't we have a Horse rider with a spear?
Sappers are no where to be found in Civ1-4, yet are used throughout history to bring down walls.
Alexander the Great and Rome used Ballistas.
Bombards are basically cannons that ignore walls, normal cannons should have to destroy them first.
Where is the guy with the 2 Handed Sword? That Claymore came from somewhere.
There are no pistol men, only one type of helicopter? Geesh, there is a difference between a Huey used in the 1960s and an Apache attack helicopter.
Machine Guns did evolve. In Civ4, we use the only one created. There is a difference in the Gatling gun used in the civil war, and a WW2 machine Gun, and a Modern 50 Cal LMG.
And FlameThrowers were used.
Now, Repeating CrossBowmen and Compound Bowman were just used to fill in the blanks.
The cavalryPistol could be "CowBoys" for the American Unique Unit.
I forgot to add Towers! Back in Civ 2, I created a speed 0 unit, 2 attack, 3 def, Guard Tower in the Bridge building catagory.
I also had to add Arrows. I modded the version of the cruise missle with to range of 1 with a low attack value.
For example, why is it that as soon as we research horseback riding we get a Horse Archer unit?
If we don't have the Wheel, shouldn't we have a Horse rider with a spear?
Sappers are no where to be found in Civ1-4, yet are used throughout history to bring down walls.
Alexander the Great and Rome used Ballistas.
Bombards are basically cannons that ignore walls, normal cannons should have to destroy them first.
Where is the guy with the 2 Handed Sword? That Claymore came from somewhere.
There are no pistol men, only one type of helicopter? Geesh, there is a difference between a Huey used in the 1960s and an Apache attack helicopter.
Machine Guns did evolve. In Civ4, we use the only one created. There is a difference in the Gatling gun used in the civil war, and a WW2 machine Gun, and a Modern 50 Cal LMG.
And FlameThrowers were used.
Now, Repeating CrossBowmen and Compound Bowman were just used to fill in the blanks.
The cavalryPistol could be "CowBoys" for the American Unique Unit.
I forgot to add Towers! Back in Civ 2, I created a speed 0 unit, 2 attack, 3 def, Guard Tower in the Bridge building catagory.
I also had to add Arrows. I modded the version of the cruise missle with to range of 1 with a low attack value.
paradigmx
Say yes to Steam
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 205
Aircraft and Naval units, more types and roles, and make it actually matter! I want to be relying on my strategic bombers to disrupt enemy production, and I want my tactical bombers to disrupt enemy supply lines, I want my fighters to scramble at the first sign of an enemy bomb run. and my Close air support to take out enemy tanks. I want 2 kinds of Helis, attack and transport, I want my Air Calvary! Unarmed Spy planes that have an almost unlimited range, AWACs and sub-hunters are also major parts of a successful campaign. During Cold war era I want Strategic Nuclear bombers that are in the air at all hours of the day, Let me use Fueling aircraft to extend the range or duration of flights. I want WW2 era aircraft to fly circles around WW1 era craft, and likewise for cold war era and modern aircraft.
As for Navy, I want Trireme warfare to make sense, and more opportunity to use it. During the age of sail there should be more styles of ships, I want fast and light ships, slow but strong ships, and supply convoys. I want to make backroom deals with privateers(you shouldn't have to build privateers, they should just exist, waiting for a sack of money). I want Ironclads to actually have some kind of use. During modern times, the specific roles of each type of ship needs to be pronounced and the loss of a battleship or an Aircraft carrier needs to be a huge blow to your navy, not just 1 or 2 in a stack of 10.
I want modern land warfare to be completely different from traditional warfare, special forces and tactical strike teams need to be implemented, nobody lines an army up on the borders anymore, countries are torn apart from the inside out. I want artillery strikes that hit from a dozen hexs away and engineers building bridges behind enemy lines while infantry defends them, I want those same engineers to blow up the bridge when we are forced to retreat to slow our pursuers. Speaking of bridges, I want them to be essential to warfare, armored units shouldn't be able to cross a river with no bridge.
It sounds like I want a wargame I know, I also want the peaceful diplomacy game, but there are many less units that would apply to that style, most non-military units fall under just a few basic types; workers, settlers, spys, and maybe 1 or 2 others, anything more just becomes tedious. Besides, You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word, Spock taught me that.
As for Navy, I want Trireme warfare to make sense, and more opportunity to use it. During the age of sail there should be more styles of ships, I want fast and light ships, slow but strong ships, and supply convoys. I want to make backroom deals with privateers(you shouldn't have to build privateers, they should just exist, waiting for a sack of money). I want Ironclads to actually have some kind of use. During modern times, the specific roles of each type of ship needs to be pronounced and the loss of a battleship or an Aircraft carrier needs to be a huge blow to your navy, not just 1 or 2 in a stack of 10.
I want modern land warfare to be completely different from traditional warfare, special forces and tactical strike teams need to be implemented, nobody lines an army up on the borders anymore, countries are torn apart from the inside out. I want artillery strikes that hit from a dozen hexs away and engineers building bridges behind enemy lines while infantry defends them, I want those same engineers to blow up the bridge when we are forced to retreat to slow our pursuers. Speaking of bridges, I want them to be essential to warfare, armored units shouldn't be able to cross a river with no bridge.
It sounds like I want a wargame I know, I also want the peaceful diplomacy game, but there are many less units that would apply to that style, most non-military units fall under just a few basic types; workers, settlers, spys, and maybe 1 or 2 others, anything more just becomes tedious. Besides, You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word, Spock taught me that.
Sciguy001
CiV Great Scientist (duh)
BB gun warrior
Chewie
Chieftain
I'm not too fussed about adding more new units, but I would like to see more balance in the units you get from military-oriented techs. At the moment, the medieval/renassaince period is dominated by economic techs and the race to liberalism, where you can get away with just using the stock-standard troops of the time (muskets and then rifles). It's too expensive to get techs that enable knights, curassiers, cavalry etc.
Would like to see either the military techs cheaper, or the units that they enable to be more powerful. Make it a real game-changer whether you go for economic or military techs. This would also mean that choosing to go down the military tech path would mean units would not become obsolete so quickly.
Would like to see either the military techs cheaper, or the units that they enable to be more powerful. Make it a real game-changer whether you go for economic or military techs. This would also mean that choosing to go down the military tech path would mean units would not become obsolete so quickly.
Betonov
Chieftain
the oposing unit doenst get killed or wounded, just cant move for two turns because they still cant believe they were atacked with BB guns
Maybe also a paintball gun unit, the atacked enemy changes into very bright green or red colors
But seriously, I'd like to se the dismounted cavalry, movement points of cavalry and fights like infantry, all the defence bonuses. For swift movement into enemy teritory to claim an undefended hill and then holding it to harras the enemy
Similar threads
- Locked
