Gallean88
Squid Gynaecologist
Honestly, I really want to see hoplites and such replaced by peltasts as the greek unique unit.
Units you would like to see...
- Thread starter Danielos
- Start date
globalempire
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 70
Ancient Age
Warrior
Archer
Horseman
Classical Age
Swordsman
Axeman
Spearman
Horse Archer
Catapault
Spy
Inquisitor/Missionary
Medeival Age
Pikeman
Knight
Musketman
Trebuchet
Militia
Crossbowman
Longbowman
Man-At-Arms
Renaissance Age
Rifleman
Grenadier
Dragoon
Cannon
Hussar
Industrial Age
Infantry
Cavalry
Tank
Partisan
AT-Gun
AA-Gun
Zepplin
Fighter
Bomber
Fighter Bomber
Artillery
Nuclear Bomber
Modern Era
Modern Infantry
APC
Humvee
Modern Armour
Modern Artillery
SAM
Transport Chopper
Gunship
Attack Heli
Jet Fighter
Stealth Bomber
Spy Sattelite
Biological Warfare Missile
ICBM
Cruise Missile
Future Age 1 (BTW idk what to call it)
These are only some of the possible units
Net Modern Infantry
Clone Soldier
Cyborg
Hovercraft Gunship
Robotic Soldier
Automaton
Automated Tank
Sub-Orbital Cannon
Any others you would like to add
Warrior
Archer
Horseman
Classical Age
Swordsman
Axeman
Spearman
Horse Archer
Catapault
Spy
Inquisitor/Missionary
Medeival Age
Pikeman
Knight
Musketman
Trebuchet
Militia
Crossbowman
Longbowman
Man-At-Arms
Renaissance Age
Rifleman
Grenadier
Dragoon
Cannon
Hussar
Industrial Age
Infantry
Cavalry
Tank
Partisan
AT-Gun
AA-Gun
Zepplin
Fighter
Bomber
Fighter Bomber
Artillery
Nuclear Bomber
Modern Era
Modern Infantry
APC
Humvee
Modern Armour
Modern Artillery
SAM
Transport Chopper
Gunship
Attack Heli
Jet Fighter
Stealth Bomber
Spy Sattelite
Biological Warfare Missile
ICBM
Cruise Missile
Future Age 1 (BTW idk what to call it)
These are only some of the possible units
Net Modern Infantry
Clone Soldier
Cyborg
Hovercraft Gunship
Robotic Soldier
Automaton
Automated Tank
Sub-Orbital Cannon
Any others you would like to add
Ahriman
Tyrant
Dragoons and medieval mounted infantry [strategic mobility, but fight as infantry]. Particularly with limited numbers of horses available, this then becomes a nice strategic unit choice; mount your infantry for extra mobility, but then have one less horse available for heavy cavalry.
Skirmisher units and later irregulars, like javelin (velites, peltasts), sling, early rifles (18th century), modern special forces.
Dreadnoughts; it'd be good to see an extra naval layer between 1860s ironclads and WW2 destroyers/cruisers/battleships.
Bombards. Something between trebuchets and napoleonic field cannon.
Skirmisher units and later irregulars, like javelin (velites, peltasts), sling, early rifles (18th century), modern special forces.
Dreadnoughts; it'd be good to see an extra naval layer between 1860s ironclads and WW2 destroyers/cruisers/battleships.
Bombards. Something between trebuchets and napoleonic field cannon.
Infantry#14
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,601
Civilian Units like Village Leader, Mayor, Governor.
They should work like specialist inside city and provide small bonuses to the city, but should be to move from city to city.
They should work like specialist inside city and provide small bonuses to the city, but should be to move from city to city.
Disgustipated
Deity
As a former navy guy, I'd like to see more naval units. I realize that too many units is more cumbersome and more micromanagement, but I feel it spices up the modern age. You don't want to go too far as the game is more than just the modern age. But...
Civ4 had submarines but not modern ballistic submarines (they had attack submarines). I'd like to see both. They need to beef up submarines to make them more viable. I feel submarines in every single civ game have been largely useless. The exception being able to carry missiles such as tactical nukes. That's important. If it were civ4 I'd say give them the ability to choose their target in a stack. But since civ5 doesn't have stacks, I'm not sure. But I feel even the existence of a submarine in an area around an enemy city should reduce 1 trade route. Note: this should be a passive ability the submarine still should be able to fight regular units and block a trade route at the same time. Submarines should be able to withdraw from combat without taking any damage whatsoever (say 15% chance depending on the type of ship attacking it)
destroyers. The upgrade path seems to be fubar'd in BTS. Iirc stealth destroyers can't see subs. In fact, stealth destroyers seemed useless to me in BTS. Have these upgrade to modern destroyers or fast frigates. Basically this would be a cheaper version of missile cruisers. Have them be able to carry one cruise missile, see subs, have small chance to intercept aircraft.
modern transports similar to LHA's etc. These should have some air defense capability and not be completely vulnerable to air attacks. Don't give them as much defense as aegis cruisers of course.
mines and minesweeper ships. Mine seem largely abscent from both water and land in civ games. Poorer nations should be able to mine their harbors to damage ships. This could allow civs with less tech to wound the better ships enough to allow their lesser ships to finish off the wounded ships. Minesweepers of course would spot and disable mines.
battleships need major reworking. They are too powerful. These should have a vulnerability to air attack. I feel civ5 is screwing up by making these things be able to bombard 5 squares. I'm tired of battleships dominating civ games... Bombardment should be made largely useless after the advent of cruise missiles. The best way to fix that I suppose is to really buff up cruise missiles.
carriers: I mentioned this before. But carriers should be able to "see" at least 6 hexes away, preferrably 10 hexes away without specifically having to do a recon mission. This would help carriers overcome the battleship problem (battleships hanging around after the year 2000 etc.) This would allow ample time for your planes to sink the battleships. Yes planes should be able to sink ships. I'd have 2 classes of carriers. Early carriers and supercarriers. Early ones would carry 2 air units, super carriers would carry 3.
Aegis/missile cruiser: High aircraft intercept chance, spot submarines carries 4 missiles. Can intercept any air mission conducted within 2 or 3 hexes of the cruiser (depending on map size).
There should be nuclear versions of every ship listed above. Higher shield cost in exchange for more movement (say 2 hexes). I doubt they want to make the game more Alpha Centauri-ish, but I'd like to see it. Nuclear reactor technology necessary of course (this tech should come after nuclear fission tech)
I'd l like to second the post above. Dreadnaughts to bridge the gap between mid/late 1800's tech and ww2 tech.
I won't go into future units too much. It is a historical game afterall
Civ4 had submarines but not modern ballistic submarines (they had attack submarines). I'd like to see both. They need to beef up submarines to make them more viable. I feel submarines in every single civ game have been largely useless. The exception being able to carry missiles such as tactical nukes. That's important. If it were civ4 I'd say give them the ability to choose their target in a stack. But since civ5 doesn't have stacks, I'm not sure. But I feel even the existence of a submarine in an area around an enemy city should reduce 1 trade route. Note: this should be a passive ability the submarine still should be able to fight regular units and block a trade route at the same time. Submarines should be able to withdraw from combat without taking any damage whatsoever (say 15% chance depending on the type of ship attacking it)
destroyers. The upgrade path seems to be fubar'd in BTS. Iirc stealth destroyers can't see subs. In fact, stealth destroyers seemed useless to me in BTS. Have these upgrade to modern destroyers or fast frigates. Basically this would be a cheaper version of missile cruisers. Have them be able to carry one cruise missile, see subs, have small chance to intercept aircraft.
modern transports similar to LHA's etc. These should have some air defense capability and not be completely vulnerable to air attacks. Don't give them as much defense as aegis cruisers of course.
mines and minesweeper ships. Mine seem largely abscent from both water and land in civ games. Poorer nations should be able to mine their harbors to damage ships. This could allow civs with less tech to wound the better ships enough to allow their lesser ships to finish off the wounded ships. Minesweepers of course would spot and disable mines.
battleships need major reworking. They are too powerful. These should have a vulnerability to air attack. I feel civ5 is screwing up by making these things be able to bombard 5 squares. I'm tired of battleships dominating civ games... Bombardment should be made largely useless after the advent of cruise missiles. The best way to fix that I suppose is to really buff up cruise missiles.
carriers: I mentioned this before. But carriers should be able to "see" at least 6 hexes away, preferrably 10 hexes away without specifically having to do a recon mission. This would help carriers overcome the battleship problem (battleships hanging around after the year 2000 etc.) This would allow ample time for your planes to sink the battleships. Yes planes should be able to sink ships. I'd have 2 classes of carriers. Early carriers and supercarriers. Early ones would carry 2 air units, super carriers would carry 3.
Aegis/missile cruiser: High aircraft intercept chance, spot submarines carries 4 missiles. Can intercept any air mission conducted within 2 or 3 hexes of the cruiser (depending on map size).
There should be nuclear versions of every ship listed above. Higher shield cost in exchange for more movement (say 2 hexes). I doubt they want to make the game more Alpha Centauri-ish, but I'd like to see it. Nuclear reactor technology necessary of course (this tech should come after nuclear fission tech)
I'd l like to second the post above. Dreadnaughts to bridge the gap between mid/late 1800's tech and ww2 tech.
I won't go into future units too much. It is a historical game afterall
Ahriman
Tyrant
A humvee is too specific; its a part of a Mechanized Infantry division.
A panzer is just a German tank.
A panzer is just a German tank.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
As Ahriman said - more coal/steam based naval units. In Civ IV the jump to oil provided a much too significant advantage.
Stefanskantine
Angry Partisan
More naval units. Civ 4 upped the number of units on land giving us more strategic options and counter units. But naval combat is still basically just a "sheer number of units" zerg.
Geek113377
Human (Usually)
some sort of tactical missile that can target and destroy buildings in a city (not just the city itself). they would not affect units.
onepool
Chieftain
Trade carts, AoE III style
SemperFi2382
Mitten Marauder
Privateers (Like Civ 3 with a chance to capture unit, but make it so it ACTUALLY captures it. Not make a new Privateer)
Rebels (Acted Like Privateers but on land, but chance to make captured workers)
Of course, people would think that (the Rebels) would be too abused in a land fight, but honestly if you see them in your territory, you should have the resources to deal with them (even if a peaceful civ).
Also, make them update with the time period with a chance of discovering their true identity upon destruction. So, you kill some rebels and find out they were sponsored by so and so. Which, could lead to some diplomatic unpleasantries or even break out into war.
Personally, I'd like to see these units because of the realism. Rebellions funded by one nation to help fight another etc.
Rebels (Acted Like Privateers but on land, but chance to make captured workers)
Of course, people would think that (the Rebels) would be too abused in a land fight, but honestly if you see them in your territory, you should have the resources to deal with them (even if a peaceful civ).
Also, make them update with the time period with a chance of discovering their true identity upon destruction. So, you kill some rebels and find out they were sponsored by so and so. Which, could lead to some diplomatic unpleasantries or even break out into war.
Personally, I'd like to see these units because of the realism. Rebellions funded by one nation to help fight another etc.
I would like to see arquebusiers/gunpowder as the first gunpowder infantry used for ranged attack. 'Pike and Shot' was the dominant form of infantry warfare from 1520-1648. Musketmen/fusiliers/musketeers should be the successor unit outdating both pike and the early gunpowder units.
All gunpowder units have ranged attack? I'm thinking this would make modern combat somewhat boring. Variety is the spice of life and all units with ranged attackes makes for less interesting differences between units. I think the invention and adoption of the bayonet marks when firearm equipped units replace melee units. To smooth this admittedly awkward transition the new bayonet units can have high ranged defenses making the old ranged units unable to hurt them (or only scratch them) and horse artillery or field artillery will be the new ranged units.
Speaking of which, I'd like siege artillery differentiated from field artillery. Catapults and such should be useful in sieges (defense and attack) but not as useful as archers in the field. For gunpowder artillery the distinction should carry until maybe WWII times as siege artillery played an important part in some WWI battles.
All gunpowder units have ranged attack? I'm thinking this would make modern combat somewhat boring. Variety is the spice of life and all units with ranged attackes makes for less interesting differences between units. I think the invention and adoption of the bayonet marks when firearm equipped units replace melee units. To smooth this admittedly awkward transition the new bayonet units can have high ranged defenses making the old ranged units unable to hurt them (or only scratch them) and horse artillery or field artillery will be the new ranged units.
Speaking of which, I'd like siege artillery differentiated from field artillery. Catapults and such should be useful in sieges (defense and attack) but not as useful as archers in the field. For gunpowder artillery the distinction should carry until maybe WWII times as siege artillery played an important part in some WWI battles.
Ergo Sum
Prince
Bear cavalry. So awesome. Bear troops. Genetically engineered bear super-commandos.
so awesome.
Also Ostrich troops.
so awesome.
Also Ostrich troops.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Some more Renaissance depth is definitely needed. This is the biggest hole in Civ4. You move from medieval pikemen and knights and trebuchets straight to late 17th century muskets and then to 18th/19th century cannon and grenadiers and 19th century riflemen.
Even Curaissers were only an afterthought in BTS.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
It would be nice to enjoy each era longer and the use of the era's units longer.
We are already past the modern era and into the "genetic" era. We are already cloning; replacing human organs and tissue; and experimenting with robotic/machine replacements.
Satalites would be a unique twist. Being able to "see" (yours at first and then the AI's with the right tech research and the ability to use rockets to take them out) them as you zoomed out for a "global" view.
We are already past the modern era and into the "genetic" era. We are already cloning; replacing human organs and tissue; and experimenting with robotic/machine replacements.
Satalites would be a unique twist. Being able to "see" (yours at first and then the AI's with the right tech research and the ability to use rockets to take them out) them as you zoomed out for a "global" view.
Satellites would be tricky to implement. I read the other day that Eisenhower deliberately let the USSR launch the first satellite so the sovereignty issue of overflying other countries could be broken by them and the USA could claim the moral high ground.
