|
|
|
Impeached by a patch
Last Seen:
2 days ago @ 10:14 AM
Posts: 2,208
Visits: 4,030
|
|
BTS did an admirable job in adding more units to the game, units that were not only historically relevant but also added something to the game which was not there before. The cuirassier being a good example, making the step from plate-armoured knights to modern cavalry with rifled carbines less steep.
Does Civ4 still lack units? I'm not talking about introducing every kind of unit that existed anywhere, but ones which actually change the game rather than being clones of / easily represented by the existing ones.
A particular unit I would like to see would be an early medieval knight - not the guys in full plate armour we are used to, but more of the Norman model in full mail hauberk and with an unarmoured horse. After all, the ascent of heavy shock cavalry as the dominant force on the battlefield was a major military paradigm shift which marked the transition from the Ancient Age to the Early Middle Age.
So, how about
Early Knight
Strength 8, movement 2, mounted
Tech requirements: Feudalism, Metal Casting
Resource requirements: Iron, Horses
Concerning the time at which it becomes available, I think it would be just about as powerful as is historically appropriate without becoming the universal unit. Mind you, the elephant which becomes available earlier to those who get it isn't unbalanced either. Spearmen would still be on par with them, everyone at the same tech level would get longbowmen to defend cities from them.
Additionally, the crossbowman could, in addition to its current abilities, get a +50% against early knights. After all, the crossbow was pretty much the bane of mail-armoured knights, partly prompting the development of plate armour.
Another unit I think would be relevant would be the Dreadnought, to fill the gap between the ironclad and the WW2-era ships in the game (destroyer, battleship). The destroyer shouldn't even become available until the battleship, as the former was solely intended to support the latter in picket and anti-submarine duties.
So, what I think would be appropriate would be to move both the destroyer and the battleship onto the place in the tech tree where the battleship is at present, and replace the current position of the destroyer with:
Dreadnought
Strength 20, movement 6, ship
Tech requirements: Combustion
Resource requirements: Iron, (Oil or Coal)
|
--
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Make my day
Last Seen:
Today @ 7:00 AM
Posts: 3,260
Visits: 5,539
|
|
|
I never perceived a hole in the game as far as the Early Knight is concerned, though it would be a welcome addition. What puzzles me is why Longbows do not have an anti-knight bonus as it was they more than the much slower reloading (and later-developing) crossbow that were the bane of massed ranks of knights. Perhaps crossbows should have the anti-knight bonus and longbows be more effective against the Early Knight? As for the Dreadnought, you know I agree with you there. There really is a glaring gap in the naval unit rosta covering the historical period from about 1865 (pre-dreadnought) to the late 1920's which should be covered by steam turbine ships powered by coal or oil which are ocean-going. Crikey, there were some hellish powerful ships involved in the battle of Jutland, for example, and yet these are not represented in the game at all. Coal burning ships traversed the oceans for decades before oil powered destroyers came along. I think you got the specs about right too Oh yeah, had a thought... another unit that is conspicuous by its absence is the military engineer. These guys have been around since pre-Roman times right up until the present day, yet there is no equivalent unit in civ. The ME unit should be able to build roads and bridges in enemy territory or difficult "uncrossable" terrain, tunnel under walls to collapse them, repair siege weapons, build temporary battlefield fortifications, blow stuff up when they get hold of gunpowder (sappers) and defend themselves strongly if attacked. I have always felt it so false that you can't (in general) use enemy roads (what, they drive on the wrong side or something?) but perhaps with a Military Engineer with you roads could be "converted" for your use. Think of the tactical possibilities of ME's.... they'd be wonderful.
|
--
Mood: surface ripple?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
Last Seen:
Today @ 11:55 AM
Posts: 5,638
Visits: 7,020
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piscata Rosea 4 4 5
Last Seen:
Today @ 8:33 AM
Posts: 3,298
Visits: 8,262
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make my day
Last Seen:
Today @ 7:00 AM
Posts: 3,260
Visits: 5,539
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piscata Rosea 4 4 5
Last Seen:
Today @ 8:33 AM
Posts: 3,298
Visits: 8,262
|
|
|
|
|
|
WE WILL DESTROY YOU
Last Seen:
3/11/2010 10:53 AM
Posts: 6,812
Visits: 31,300
|
|
|
|
|
|
Veteran Warlord
 
Last Seen:
1/4/2009 7:49 PM
Posts: 237
Visits: 531
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impeached by a patch
Last Seen:
2 days ago @ 10:14 AM
Posts: 2,208
Visits: 4,030
|
|
|
tones (4/14/2008)
I never perceived a hole in the game as far as the Early Knight is concerned, though it would be a welcome addition. What puzzles me is why Longbows do not have an anti-knight bonus as it was they more than the much slower reloading(and later-developing) crossbow that were the bane of massed ranks of knights. Perhaps crossbows should have the anti-knight bonus and longbows be more effective against the Early Knight?
What is objectionable in the unit design of Civ4 is that, rather than cavalry as would be appropriate, infantry dominate the early middle ages. When the knight arrives in the late middle ages, the pikeman is right there to counter it, Engineering usually even researched before Guilds. Whereas in real history, knights ruled supremely on the battlefield until the pike arrived in the late middle ages to put an end to that.
Actually, I think the longbowman is pretty well-represented as it is. Only the English had longbowmen of sufficient professionality to make for an effective anti-knight weapon. While a bow is reloaded a lot faster than a crossbow, it is a lot harder to hit anything with it, let alone penetrate armour effectively. A longbowman with +100% against mounted units would make for an appropriate English UU, but ordinary longbowmen of other civs shouldn't be particularly good against knights.
I would rather give the crossbowman the bonus against the early knight. For a while during the high middle ages, the crossbow was a feared weapon due to its ability to effectively penetrate chainmail as well as its simplicity of use - just point and shoot! However, the adaptation of plate armour in the 1300s restored the prominent position of the knight, which is why the crossbowman should not get a bonus against the late knight. What destroyed knighthood was pike and shot.
But as pikemen developed rather specifically to be a counter to knights, they should not arrive as early in the tech tree as they do. Rather, I would like to see the introduction of a tech named "Infantry Drill", which would represent the resurgence of professional regular infantry during the late middle ages and the renaissance. It would have Civil Service as a prerequisite. Pikemen would only require Infantry Drill in the way of tech to be built, whereas Musketmen would require both Infantry Drill and Gunpowder. All later infantry units would, obviously, require Infantry Drill too.
|
--
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Impeached by a patch
Last Seen:
2 days ago @ 10:14 AM
Posts: 2,208
Visits: 4,030
|
|
|
|
|
