 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Elensar
|
|
 |
|
Warlord
|
Jan 2007
time: 04:08
| |
|
|
Other than, as a Civil War specialist (I can't say expert), being extremely leery over a "light cavalry" unit (as distinct from a normal cavalry unit) in this era, looks fairly good.
A couple other things I'd change.
One: Make infantry better on the defense, cavalry worse on the attack (than it is now). Cavalry made good raiders (Helllllllo pillaging in Civ terms), not usually so good in a stand up fights. Similarly, tweak artillery to more historical stats (I'd make horse artillery a more mobile form of light artillery, and set both at, if Infantry is 5/5, 5/3 with higher firepower. Maybe 5/4. I'm leery about making it offensively effective, but I don't want to make it useless.) Sharpshooters similarly need to be changed to reflect this. Zouaves, I'm not sure there was any significant difference in performance between them and regular infantry. I've no idea about mounted infantry. The best example I can think of it on the Union side was a crack well armed brigade, so its atypical for that alone.
Note: Heavy artillery should be left as is, assuming you mean heavy artillery in the field (such as the siege train McClellan used at Yorktown).
Two: Marines, under no circumstances whatsoever, should be more effective than regular infantry.
This is not to bash the current record of the USMC. But the Corps in the Civil War A) played a minimal role and B) was absolutely tiny. Making Marines elite units is all kinds of crazy, however awesome it may be now.
I'm not sure what the purpose of a "Color sergeant" unit is (looking at the stats). Perhaps this will be revealed with playtesting.
I don't mean to sound like an arrogant and insufferable know-it-all, but as someone more familar with the ACW than many people, I would venture to say most, I'm uncomfortable with things being wildly different than the real war.
Pity there's no way to make the AI use it properly, but I'd like to suggest giving artillery modest stats but the ability to carry "missiles". This would make having artillery highly useful, but artillery on its own would be butchered (as it should be).
Now there's a thought.
Supply train unit. Can carry missiles. Artillery would only be able to have say, two at a time (per unit), a supply train unit would be able to carry say, four. When killed, defender loses gold (have to replace those supplies) and attacker gains gold. Gold being renamed to (thousands of) dollars.
Okay, this is becoming a long post. But I suggest you don't try to get every tech and event in pre-testing (just so that we can see what we do with what's available.)
Hope to see it soon.
|
|
| |
|
|
typhoon
|
|
|
|
Warlord
of Bollocks
|
Jan 2003
time: 04:08
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elensar
Pity there's no way to make the AI use it properly, but I'd like to suggest giving artillery modest stats but the ability to carry "missiles". This would make having artillery highly useful, but artillery on its own would be butchered (as it should be).
Now there's a thought.
Supply train unit. Can carry missiles. Artillery would only be able to have say, two at a time (per unit), a supply train unit would be able to carry say, four. When killed, defender loses gold (have to replace those supplies) and attacker gains gold. Gold being renamed to (thousands of) dollars.
|
I don't mean to sound like an arrogant and insufferable know-it-all, but as someone more familar with Civ 2 than many people, I would venture to say that you can't flag land units to carry missiles.
Last edited by typhoon on 22-06-2008 at 07:31
|
|
| |
|
|
Settler
|
Feb 2004
time: 04:08
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elensar
Other than, as a Civil War specialist (I can't say expert), being extremely leery over a "light cavalry" unit (as distinct from a normal cavalry unit) in this era, looks fairly good.
|
Cavalry in the Civil war is always a delicate matter. basically, there are only two different types, irregardless of naming conventions, but simply based on tactical role: "Cavalry" (dragoons) which fought on horseback but more often dismounted. they were armed with sabres and firearms. and mounted infantry (often still called cavalry), which only fought dismounted and had no sabres. of course there were also oddities like the 6th pennsylvania cav which had initally lances until '63.
|
|
| |
|
|
Elensar
|
|
|
|
Warlord
|
Jan 2007
time: 04:08
| |
|
|
I'm not sure about cavalry (dragoons) fighting dismounted more, but as the war dragged on, yes.
Mounted infantry...is infantry with a higher movement rate, in my opinion. That's it. Much more expensive (horses and the rest make a cavalry regiment enormously more expensive than an infantry one, and you don't save that much here) so far as Civ goes I would say.
Freak units like the 6th Pennsylvania (freaks only as long for the lances, a crack unit and well disciplined after all ) might be worth representing for say, the People's General Civil War thing...but they were, so far as I know, unique, or nearly so.
So I cannot say its particularly "delicate" unless you want to find a way to make mounted infantry being mounted troops rather than mobile foot troops.
That's my impression, at least, others may disagree.
|
|
| |
|
|
civ2units
|
|
 |
|
Prince
|
Nov 2004
time: 04:08
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elensar
Other than, as a Civil War specialist (I can't say expert), being extremely leery over a "light cavalry" unit (as distinct from a normal cavalry unit) in this era, looks fairly good. |
It´s good to see that you are a Civilwar specialist. It would be great, if you can help me making this scenario realistic.
quote:
A couple other things I'd change.
One: Make infantry better on the defense, cavalry worse on the attack (than it is now). Cavalry made good raiders (Helllllllo pillaging in Civ terms), not usually so good in a stand up fights. Similarly, tweak artillery to more historical stats (I'd make horse artillery a more mobile form of light artillery, and set both at, if Infantry is 5/5, 5/3 with higher firepower. Maybe 5/4. I'm leery about making it offensively effective, but I don't want to make it useless.) Sharpshooters similarly need to be changed to reflect this. Zouaves, I'm not sure there was any significant difference in performance between them and regular infantry. I've no idea about mounted infantry. The best example I can think of it on the Union side was a crack well armed brigade, so its atypical for that alone. |
I will make a new stats for the main troops. I think the Zouaves were only coloured soldiers without any special skills. I didn´t find anything usefull about them until now.
Did the voluneer regiments play a main role during the war? I thought about to give especially the Southern states many of them via event. Of course, they are not so strong like their regular Infantry pendants.
quote:
Note: Heavy artillery should be left as is, assuming you mean heavy artillery in the field (such as the siege train McClellan used at Yorktown). |
< | |
|
|
) and beginning my American Civilwar scenario. It will be like my AWI scenario. 
) but I can´t upload it. There is no button.
