I wasn't happy with the feel of military combat at various points in our mod, and other people have complained about various aspects as well. After some work, I now have a working version of a thorough overhaul of the military system. This is a special sneak peek. You'll get your chance to beta test this in a new test version of the mod "soon".

While planning this redesign, I realized that I was creating documents which would be very useful for the README which will one day accompany our mod. I cleaned some of this up and threw it into a PDF document which I attach here. In case others outside this mod have any interest in ever finding this thread, I also include the introduction in plain text for search engines.

Redesign Philosophy

This revamping of the units for RFC Europe aims to provide a historically accurate and reasonably balanced set of units from 500-1800. The starting point was the units available in BTS and the Charlemange mod, supplemented by other user-generated art.

The major design change has been to introduce new unit categories, while eliminating the unused categories in BTS (Armor, Helicopter, Aircraft). Melee has been expanded into Light and Heavy Infantry, while Mounted has been expanded into Light and Heavy Cavalry. Light and Heavy refers primarily to the type of degree of armor worn by the unit rather than their tactical role. This allows for proper treatment of armor-piercing weapons and more diversity of upgrade paths.

There are four eras of combat represented, and each has a broad narrative.


Early Middle Ages: Lightly armored infantry dominate early, but with technological advances, cavalry come to rule the battlefields.
High Middle Ages: The development of crossbows and more advanced pole-arms threaten the superiority of armored cavalry, but with the development of plate armor, knights and men-at-arms regain the upper hand.
Late Middle Ages: Gunpowder starts off weak on the battlefield, useful only in siege, but its evolution alongside the longbow and the creation of truly effective pike formations bring to an end the era of cavalry and ushers in the era of infantry dominance.
Renaissance: The “pike and shot” era sees the gradual rise of gunpowder in all areas of the battlefield. Cavalry gain effective guns and cannon become tactically useful, leading to the classic mixed armies of the Napoleonic era.


Status:
(1/25/09)
A test version is running in RFC Europe.
Play-testing has thus far been limited to the early middle ages.
I have redesigned some art, but have a few more changes to do.
Strategy and Pedia texts are extremely limited.
Some UUs may want to be reconsidered. We have a lot of heavy cavalry UUs.

Credits:
Borrowed ideas/art mainly from -- Total Realism, The European Middle Ages Mod, the download database at Civfanatics, Whitefire's suggestions.
References: Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World (http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Techniques-Early-Modern-World/dp/0312348193), Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Techniques-Medieval-World-Equipment/dp/0312348207/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c), The Worlds of Medieval Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Medieval-Europe-Clifford-Backman/dp/0195121694)

I wasn't happy with the feel of military combat at various points in our mod, and other people have complained about various aspects as well. After some work, I now have a working version of a thorough overhaul of the military system. This is a special sneak peek. You'll get your chance to beta test this in a new test version of the mod "soon".

While planning this redesign, I realized that I was creating documents which would be very useful for the README which will one day accompany our mod. I cleaned some of this up and threw it into a PDF document which I attach here. In case others outside this mod have any interest in ever finding this thread, I also include the introduction in plain text for search engines.

Redesign Philosophy

This revamping of the units for RFC Europe aims to provide a historically accurate and reasonably balanced set of units from 500-1800. The starting point was the units available in BTS and the Charlemange mod, supplemented by other user-generated art.

The major design change has been to introduce new unit categories, while eliminating the unused categories in BTS (Armor, Helicopter, Aircraft). Melee has been expanded into Light and Heavy Infantry, while Mounted has been expanded into Light and Heavy Cavalry. Light and Heavy refers primarily to the type of degree of armor worn by the unit rather than their tactical role. This allows for proper treatment of armor-piercing weapons and more diversity of upgrade paths.

There are four eras of combat represented, and each has a broad narrative.


Early Middle Ages: Lightly armored infantry dominate early, but with technological advances, cavalry come to rule the battlefields.
High Middle Ages: The development of crossbows and more advanced pole-arms threaten the superiority of armored cavalry, but with the development of plate armor, knights and men-at-arms regain the upper hand.
Late Middle Ages: Gunpowder starts off weak on the battlefield, useful only in siege, but its evolution alongside the longbow and the creation of truly effective pike formations bring to an end the era of cavalry and ushers in the era of infantry dominance.
Renaissance: The “pike and shot” era sees the gradual rise of gunpowder in all areas of the battlefield. Cavalry gain effective guns and cannon become tactically useful, leading to the classic mixed armies of the Napoleonic era.


Status:
(1/25/09)
A test version is running in RFC Europe.
Play-testing has thus far been limited to the early middle ages.
I have redesigned some art, but have a few more changes to do.
Strategy and Pedia texts are extremely limited.
Some UUs may want to be reconsidered. We have a lot of heavy cavalry UUs.

Credits:
Borrowed ideas/art mainly from -- Total Realism, The European Middle Ages Mod, the download database at Civfanatics, Whitefire's suggestions.
References: Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World (http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Techniques-Early-Modern-World/dp/0312348193), Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Techniques-Medieval-World-Equipment/dp/0312348207/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c), The Worlds of Medieval Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Medieval-Europe-Clifford-Backman/dp/0195121694)

Sounds promising. We could conceivably redefine a few of our heavy cav UUs as light cav - while some are clearly shock troops, others are more ambiguous.

We may also consider different UUs, if things don't really fit as is.

Good work, sedna. Though I've got a couple of questions and suggestions.

1. The early mtd. units include horse archers, lancers and mtd. infantry. Could we not also have a separate light cav unit that melees with swords? And how would the UUs like the Arab, Bulgarian and Cordoban fit in? Would they remain as they are now?
2. I'm not sure about your suggested timelines for unit upgrades. Shouldn't musketmen upgrade to line infantry a lot later like at least 1700? Same with other units which upgrade to L.I. Line Infantry should come very, very late in the game IMO.
3. I think the upgrading of sword-bearing units is under-powered. Having men-at-arms being obsoleted by swiss pikemen is weak and historically innaccurate. It was suggested by Whitefire that we add a strong melee unit for city attack. I suggest the Champion Swordsman who upgrades from the man-at-arms and is replaced by Line Infantry. That way our mixed arms units could comprise of musketmen, swiss pikemen and heavy swordsmen. Pretty much the standard mix of European foot armies until at least 1700.

BTW There are a lot of files, map revisions and fixes waiting for coding. Along with your revamped units, could you and 3Miro get all this stuff included in the next test version pretty soon?

One suggestion: Crossbows have an time period (800-1100) where they are absolutely powerful. Let's see: 50% vs melee units, in a time span the enemy usually has melee units. We could either make them later avaliable, reduce their strength to 6, or give a unit 50% vs archery units.

An other list you may find useful (most important medieval battles)
Battle of Tours, 730 AD (learnt it as battle of Poitiers at school, nevertheless): Arabian cavalry is beaten by French army of melee and archery.
Battle of Hastings, 1066 AD: Norse mixed army mostly melee, but some cavalry and crossbows as well beats Angle melee army.
Battle of Bannockburn, 14th century: English light melee army is beaten to Scottish pikes.
Battle of Crecy, 1347 AD: French knights lose out to English longbows.

Source: www.medieval-castles.org/index.php?cat=65

Any thoughts??

1. The early mtd. units include horse archers, lancers and mtd. infantry. Could we not also have a separate light cav unit that melees with swords? And how would the UUs like the Arab, Bulgarian and Cordoban fit in? Would they remain as they are now?


There's an awfully long period in which Horse Archers are the only light cavalry. What would be an appropriate light cavalry unit with a sword? A squire? Currently I have Arab/Cordoban UUs as Light Cavalry replacing the Lancer (i.e. a heavy unit is replaced by a light one for promotion purposes -- their strength is not lessened) and the Bulgarian konnick still replaces Horse Archer.


2. I'm not sure about your suggested timelines for unit upgrades. Shouldn't musketmen upgrade to line infantry a lot later like at least 1700? Same with other units which upgrade to L.I. Line Infantry should come very, very late in the game IMO.


I agree. The trouble is that from a gameplay perspective a unit which arrives right at the end of the game is useless. That's why I pushed L.I. up.


3. I think the upgrading of sword-bearing units is under-powered. Having men-at-arms being obsoleted by swiss pikemen is weak and historically innaccurate. It was suggested by Whitefire that we add a strong melee unit for city attack. I suggest the Champion Swordsman who upgrades from the man-at-arms and is replaced by Line Infantry. That way our mixed arms units could comprise of musketmen, swiss pikemen and heavy swordsmen. Pretty much the standard mix of European foot armies until at least 1700.

This is a good idea, I'll do it.


BTW There are a lot of files, map revisions and fixes waiting for coding. Along with your revamped units, could you and 3Miro get all this stuff included in the next test version pretty soon?


New units won't be in the next test version just yet. 3Miro is (I think) working on making the colonial projects work -- this is a big job so it might be a while, but it's important to get the last of the UHVs working at all.

One suggestion: Crossbows have an time period (800-1100) where they are absolutely powerful. Let's see: 50% vs melee units, in a time span the enemy usually has melee units. We could either make them later avaliable, reduce their strength to 6, or give a unit 50% vs archery units.


I think I've taken care of this in the document I posted. First generation is 5 + 50% versus heavy (both infantry and cavalry). Second generation is only 6 + 50% versus heavy. In fact I may have weakened the second generation too much -- I'll have to test.


An other list you may find useful (most important medieval battles)
Battle of Tours, 730 AD (learnt it as battle of Poitiers at school, nevertheless): Arabian cavalry is beaten by French army of melee and archery.
Battle of Hastings, 1066 AD: Norse mixed army mostly melee, but some cavalry and crossbows as well beats Angle melee army.
Battle of Bannockburn, 14th century: English light melee army is beaten to Scottish pikes.
Battle of Crecy, 1347 AD: French knights lose out to English longbows.


A useful list.
Tours: In our mode, if the Franks were to fight the Cordobans at this time, the Franks would have plenty of cheap spear-men (str 4 + 50% vs cavalry) and archers and the Cordobans would have their berber-cavalry. It would be a pretty even match. Although the infantry won, the Franks increased their cavalry force significantly after this battle, perhaps they were impressed?
Hastings: The Norman cavalry played a critical role here. Their feigned retreat (a difficult tactical maneuver) broke open the English shield line and probably won the battle. At this stage in our game, it would be Armored Lancers (appropriate according to the Bayeux Tapestry) still fighting the light infantry troops, and the Lancers would win.
Bannockburn: Not well captured in our mod are the pre-Swiss pikemen (though note the Scots were badly beaten at Falkirk shortly before with similar units)
Crecy: The Longbow is now a very powerful unit against armor, but also insanely expensive (reflecting the long training required). The English Longbow UU will probably cost less.

Sounds great!

I'd be glad to test it all once it gets to the beta stage.

@sedna: Checked the file. Very good job. That's a ''there is no unbeaten unit for any long period'' situation. The Crossbow second gen could indeed be stronger as to counter knights, since the first unit to have the upper hand vs Knights appears a bit late.

Sounds better than the previous system, but out of curiosity, are spearmen in the early-high period getting +100% boosts vs knights and heavy cavalry? If that is true, please change it slighty because the average infantry formation at the time couldnt stand up to a real heavy cavalry charge. In addition, cavalry long spears (kontos) were longer than the average infantry spear. Spearmen should be more of a 'catch all' unit, excellent vs nothing, average vs everything. Lastly, cavalry should almost always win in a battle. Most of the battle accounts that are well known are only well known because they either had political importance or knightly cavalry didnt suceed. In almost every other battle, it was heavy cavalry that ruled the battlefield. Infantry should be useful in storming cities or to make up the numbers, but the prefered unit in most situations should be knightly cavalry.
Spearmen shouldnt get a bonus vs horse archers, horse archers were a mainly anti-heavy infantry unit as most other troops would beat them. (Heavy cavalry too, but that is already represented in withdrawal bonus's.)

Sounds better than the previous system, but out of curiosity, are spearmen in the early-high period getting +100% boosts vs knights and heavy cavalry? ... Spearmen should be more of a 'catch all' unit, excellent vs nothing, average vs everything. Lastly, cavalry should almost always win in a battle...
Spearmen shouldnt get a bonus vs horse archers, horse archers were a mainly anti-heavy infantry unit as most other troops would beat them. (Heavy cavalry too, but that is already represented in withdrawal bonus's.)

Spearmen in the high middle ages are represented by a guy with a hooked pole-arm (I call it a guisarme, but don't actually have a great art model for that specific weapon). They get only a +50% versus cavalry -- so not as much of a hard counter as in the regular game to preserve the dominance of heavy cavalry. Currently early spearmen are light infantry rather than heavy -- the guisarmier could definitely lose the bonus versus the horse archer.

There's an awfully long period in which Horse Archers are the only light cavalry. What would be an appropriate light cavalry unit with a sword? A squire? Currently I have Arab/Cordoban UUs as Light Cavalry replacing the Lancer (i.e. a heavy unit is replaced by a light one for promotion purposes -- their strength is not lessened) and the Bulgarian konnick still replaces Horse Archer.


What about 'skirmisher' or 'raider'? Both of those terms suggest a light unit that's meant more as a weak, quick strike, flanking variety of cavalry rather than one designed for heavy combat.


I agree. The trouble is that from a gameplay perspective a unit which arrives right at the end of the game is useless. That's why I pushed L.I. up.


What about breaking infantry into an early line infantry unit, and then a Napoleonic Infantry unit at the end of the game (sort of the modern armor of our mod)? We could also consider renaming line infantry as 'Regular Infantry' or 'Regimented Infantry', as a potential distinction between early and late.



As far as jessiecat's Champion Swordsman idea goes - I agree that a unit with that role is necessary, and am fully in support of the idea. The name strikes me as kind of awkward, though.

What we're basically describing is a knight on foot, right? We can describe this unit one of two ways, as I see it - either as 'Foot Knight', which sounds kind of silly, or simply as 'Knight', renaming our current heavy cavalry, shock troop 'knight' as 'Mounted Knight'. This potentially creates some confusion in that most people will see 'knight' on the menu and think they're getting the mounted version, but if they both become available with the same tech, that problem is averted somewhat.

What do people think?

I'd just keep it as Champion. It eliminates both confusions entirely and there isn't much need for another name.

Sedna, I'd say your system looks pretty good on paper. If I were you, I'd make well sure that it worked before attempting to add more things to it. Keep it simple; Champion swordsmen, maybe, but fix values after play testing rather than making the task more daunting for yourself while planning.

Best of luck

Good advice, kravixon.

Another possibility for naming (this is not purely semantic, it influences our artwork somewhat) is to go by the name of the sword type. Problem is, these are some clumsy names to transform in the Civ standard (which is name-describing the guy carrying the weapon: spearman, crossbowman, etc.):

Early: Spatha-descended sword. Short with no hilt. Viking sword? Shortsword?
--> The Charlemange light sword carries something like this.
Middle: "Arming sword" or "Knight's Sword"? Neither term is elegant.
--> The heavy swordsman in Charlemange carries one of these one-handed swords and a shield.
Late: Longsword or Broadsword. Either is a fine name and sounds good.
--> There's a find two-handed "foot knight" in plate that will fit for the art

Good advice, kravixon.

Another possibility for naming (this is not purely semantic, it influences our artwork somewhat) is to go by the name of the sword type. Problem is, these are some clumsy names to transform in the Civ standard (which is name-describing the guy carrying the weapon: spearman, crossbowman, etc.):

Early: Spatha-descended sword. Short with no hilt. Viking sword? Shortsword?
--> The Charlemange light sword carries something like this.
Middle: "Arming sword" or "Knight's Sword"? Neither term is elegant.
--> The heavy swordsman in Charlemange carries one of these one-handed swords and a shield.
Late: Longsword or Broadsword. Either is a fine name and sounds good.
--> There's a find two-handed "foot knight" in plate that will fit for the art

I agree with kravixon as well. Your system is fine as you propose though I'd tend to keep the present strengths of our units as they are. In fact I'd be OK with not having another light cavalry unit as that function is pretty much covered by the mtd. infantry anyway. Either way is OK with me.
As far as the sword units go, lets keep it as simple as we can. Swordsman >>> Light Swordsman >>>Heavy Sworsman is fine with me and we do have the art for all three. If we want alternative art for the heavy swordsman we could use the Hospitaller art that we are using for the Portugese UU.
Or how about using the Explorer art which depicts a 16th.C swordsman in helmet and breastplate. Much like the Spanish Rodeleros who accompanied Tercio units. Most of Cortez's army in Mexico was comprised of these. We'd only have to add a target shield, up its strength to 8 or more and restrict its movement to 1. But I think it would look pretty good.

EDIT This Norman swordsman is another possibility.

What about 'skirmisher' or 'raider'? Both of those terms suggest a light unit that's meant more as a weak, quick strike, flanking variety of cavalry rather than one designed for heavy combat.

Very good idea IMO. I don't know though, in what extent is the raider unit in Crossroads of World mod suitable.

Very good idea IMO. I don't know though, in what extent is the raider unit in Crossroads of World mod suitable.

I agree with that, but the raider unit from the Crossroads mod may not be suitable. We need some light cavalry unit that melees with a sword. Maybe something like this one on the lower right of the picture.

sedna: it sound good and a lot of work. When you have a more complete version of it you may want to post the next test version yourself. I will post just a .dll file that fixes some of the Papal issues. The XML schema would take me some time, it is harder than to just code a new tag (as I did in the Hungarian UB).

PS: make sure const.py is in sync especially with the Prosecutor unit and unit class. Also starting units in Rhyes and Fall.py

@3Miro. Sounds like a plan, I didn't want to produce two parallel branches. I will have a testable version of this ready to go by the end of the day. Is your new .dll close to finished?

Sounds good, i would stay away from calling a unit 'Champion'. It makes it sound too much like FfH and fantasy. foot or dismounted knight works fine.

EDIT: Its most likely my personal pet peeve, but I dont like it when unit upgrades go light->heavy. Most of the units represented here were the more upper class warriors who would wear armour. If anything they might wear more armour because in the dark ages there was a greater emphasis on single combat.

Sounds good, i would stay away from calling a unit 'Champion'. It makes it sound too much like FfH and fantasy. foot or dismounted knight works fine.



This was essentially my thinking. I realize it's a semantic distinction, but I think it's an important one. I can understand the argument against changing the current horse unit to 'mounted knight', but I don't think that 'champion swordsman' accurately describes that unit. The name just makes me think "exceptionally talented guy with a sword", rather than "heavier swordsman".

Semantics do matter. I'm going to go with "Foot Knight" for now unless someone else comes up with a compelling name.

On the one hand I agree that the light->heavy upgrade is a little unfortunate. Essentially we have all light infantry early, then all heavy, and then light (pikemen) again. This does allow a nice way of keeping counter-units period specific, but makes for this rather odd situation. Of course, since the light spearmen are no-resources-required, we'll probably see them throughout (due to barbs, indies and isolated cities). I could see re-classifying some of the early infantry as heavy and some of the later middle age infantry as light at some later date, but not just yet.

Now that you have (or could have) the new unit structure, what do people think about promotions for the new unit classes? Here's where the light/heavy breakdown by armor rather than function complicates matters, at least for infantry. For cavalry, light cavalry function as light cavalry, and heavy as heavy, so it definitely makes sense that these cavalry will have slightly different promotion options.

Here are my thoughts right now:

The basic structure will remain.

Gunpowder units will get city raider.

Ambush (used to be +versus armor) will now be + versus heavy cavalry.

I like the skirmisher promotion from Tsentom1 http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7692014#post7692014, but other than that don't want to get carried away with new promotions. This will be available to light cavalry (and maybe light infantry?). This can be used as a "gateway" into later promotions for these units.

Hey Jessiecat,

Excuse me for responding in a different thread.

I like the progression of grades esp. of swordsmen and spearmen. Though I wonder if the pre-gunpowder units have been weakened too much. I think that 4/7/10 for swordsmen and 6/8/10 for the spearman upgrades would be better. The strongest swordsman should not be weaker than a pikeman, I think.
And what happened to the swiss pikeman? Shouldn't that be a further upgrade so it can be used in formation with musketmen? Maybe strength 12. Same with the Landsknecht?
Also the Hungarian UU (9/3) seems unbalanced with the Armored Lancer (11/2) its supposed to replace. Maybe should both be strength 10.

I'm not sure I completely understand your strength recommendation. I assume you actually mean 4/7/10 for spearmen and 6/8/10 for swords?

Swiss Pikemen were renamed to just Pikemen. At strength 10 they are on par with muskets (strength 11), and should be used with them to defend off cavalry (knights are strength 13). Foot knights should be weaker than the pike formations these guys now represent.

The Hungarian Huszar is weaker than the Armored Lancer, principally because it is light cavalry. I couldn't find many great light cavalry in medieval history, so where I did I used it. The mobility (and lack of the heavy cavalry crossbow/pike counters) here is designed to offset the strength. Try it out and see if you agree that it's useful. I do see I have the tech prereq for it wrong though. I'll have to fix that.

Hey Jessiecat,

Excuse me for responding in a different thread.



I'm not sure I completely understand your strength recommendation. I assume you actually mean 4/7/10 for spearmen and 6/8/10 for swords?

Swiss Pikemen were renamed to just Pikemen. At strength 10 they are on par with muskets (strength 11), and should be used with them to defend off cavalry (knights are strength 13). Foot knights should be weaker than the pike formations these guys now represent.

The Hungarian Huszar is weaker than the Armored Lancer, principally because it is light cavalry. I couldn't find many great light cavalry in medieval history, so where I did I used it. The mobility (and lack of the heavy cavalry crossbow/pike counters) here is designed to offset the strength. Try it out and see if you agree that it's useful. I do see I have the tech prereq for it wrong though. I'll have to fix that.


Sorry. I responded in the wrong thread. Yes I meant as you say. I just meant strengthening the 2nd. step in each case. I still think the swiss pikeman should be further pike development, stronger but more expensive. I see what you mean about the Hungarian UU its just that making it weaker than what it replaces seems strange to me. A UU should be at least as strong I think. Overall though, the rest seems fine.

1. Where is pinch (+25% vs. gunpowder) went to? I don't see it anymore.

2. Knight are more expensive. (From 100:hammers: to 120:hammers:), but all the UU of it aren't. (Paladin, Winged Hussar, Boyar and Keshik) They are still 100 :hammers:.

1. Where is pinch (+25% vs. gunpowder) went to? I don't see it anymore.

2. Knight are more expensive. (From 100:hammers: to 120:hammers:), but all the UU of it aren't. (Paladin, Winged Hussar, Boyar and Keshik) They are still 100 :hammers:.

Good points. I accidentally deleted pinch, and forgot to upgrade the other knight expenses.

Quoting from 3Miro in another thread:

- the unit mechanics need balancing. The Horse Archers are overpowered. The two extra first strikes give them unfair advantage against any other early unit (incidentally, the Bulgarian Konnik does not receive first strikes). The spearman (that are supposed to counter Horse Archers) get only + 25%, which means that they get to 4 + 1 vs 6 on open ground, in other words the odds are for the Horse Archers. Which means that a player with spearman can only defend his own cities (barely) against a significant number of HA. A possible solution would be to increase the Spearman bonus.
- similar disbalance exists for the second level of pikes vs heavy horseman. The ratio is something like 6 + 3 vs 11.
- the only defense is to use heavy cavalry vs heavy cavalry, in which case the human is in a disadvantageous position since the AI pumps units much faster.


I certainly did want cavalry of each era to dominate over infantry, for historical accuracy. Of course, that shouldn't come at the expense of gameplay. But I feel that in normal civ, where you have strong counters to cavalry, smart humans always eschew cavalry. My desired model was cheap/relatively-weak counters to cavalry. So while an individual spearman may not be sufficient defend a city, if shouldn't be too expensive to rise a good number of them.

That's the theory, of course. In practice, you're probably right. I'll consider some tweaks as you suggest.

If it takes 2 spearman to stop a horse archer and you get 2 HA spawning next to your borders every 3 - 5 turns, you need to have both Bulgarian cities spawning spearman just to fend off the Barbs (that is defend improvements and workers as well as cities). HA can just walk straight into a city guarded by an Archer, no chance for the archer or whatsoever.

I checked the civilclopedia and I found some more Units that haven't the right amount of :hammers:.
English Longbowman, konnik, ghazi, berber cavalry and berserker have too little :hammers:.
The Zapsomething Cossack (Kievan) and the huszar have also less :hammers: but I think that is one of their bonus'.
The "Blitz" promotion is also gone. Did you also deleted that accidentally?

Thanks for the report on UU costs. Blitz was normally available only to armor I think. I could add it to cavalry though (perhaps with a different name).

And ships. I love it when I destroy others Caravels and Carrack (and a few Cogges) with my privateers. With Blitz they can destroy even more:lol:.

Thinking out loud about the current military system.

Problems with the current system:

Too few light cavalry. This means horse archers come too early and are too powerful at the beginning and too weak at the end.

No good distinction between light/heavy infantry. Current system is odd mix of armor and tactical role.

At any given time, vanilla civ has 7 units available: Archer (archer, longbow), horse (chariot, horse archer, knight), polearm (spear, pike), melee (sword, mace), anti-melee (ax, crossbow), siege, recon. With any more, it becomes hard to make distinctions or chose what to build. We currently have: light cavalry, heavy cavarly, archer, polearm, sword, anti-melee-melee, siege, extra (mounted inf., longbows, arquebusiers), recon. 9 is too many. "A designer knows he has achieved perfection..."

Proposed corrections:

Light cavalry will be pillagers and explorers/sentries. We will eliminate recon. Light cavalry will be weaker than just about any other unit comparable unit, but with high withdraw, extra speed, and flank attacks against siege, will still have a useful role. Western europe eschewed light cavalry during the high middle ages, so we will use mounted infantry art as a "mounted seargent" for the "light" cavalry in the west during this time and horse archer in the east/south.

Polearm is worthy of its own distinct class which will allow promotions to counter them and simplify things conceptually.

Arbalest will just upgrade to longbows, eliminating the last extra unit.

That gets us to 7.

Further cuts could come from combining the axe/sword/maceman/heavy-sword lines. This would be appropriately done like: Axe > Sword > Heavy Sword > Maceman. Eliminate all that anti-melee stuff and just make these guys stronger than polearms and with some bonus versus polearms. Then our classic RPS is:

Heavy Cavalry > Melee > Polearm

Light Cavalry, as explained, would typically fare poorly against any of these in direct combat.

Archer is a distinct class and good city defender. Melee (and possibly polearm) are the only unit categories to get city attacker, and melee would be the preference.

Armor piercing units should work only against their own era (i.e. specify targets for crossbows, longbows, axe, maceman). Alternatively, if we make the guisarmier unit a little less armored looking, then we can give an anti-heavy-cavalry and anti-melee bonus to the armor-piercing guys.

Peasant levies. We have introduced early conscription to simulate peasant levies. These units could be another class line (especially if we can we make them not-buildable?), but would have to be another class if we give anti-melee bonus. Another option is to levy from the polearm line (as it currently partly works). Conscription is not important later on in our period (re-appearing only with Napoleon), so feudal levies should become useless after gunpowder starts to show up.

Just a quick question -- where are the Camel Archers? Why don't Arabia start with the mix of hourse and camel archers? Saladin used them... Very nice flavor touch, desert movement could be really good for the huge Africa we have in the mod. One could just tune stats to make it light cavalery+desert bonus (strength 5 I guess).

Just a quick question -- where are the Camel Archers? Why don't Arabia start with the mix of hourse and camel archers? Saladin used them... Very nice flavor touch, desert movement could be really good for the huge Africa we have in the mod. One could just tune stats to make it light cavalery+desert bonus (strength 5 I guess).

People felt they were cheesy/not important enough in history to be a UU. I didn't actually agree, but bowed to the wishes of the people. Maybe they will make a return as barbs some day.

People felt they were cheesy/not important enough in history to be a UU. I didn't actually agree, but bowed to the wishes of the people. Maybe they will make a return as barbs some day.

I would agree they would be appropriate as barbs esp. in the western areas of N. Africa. Elsewhere, the mainstay of early Arab armies was light cavalry and infrantrymen who rode camels to a battle where they dismounted and fought in lines of spearmen backed by foot archers and swordsmen. Even the cavalrymen rode camels over long distances but switched to their favourite war horse for battle. I have never heard of camel archers being important in any Arab army, let alone Saladin's. Horse archers, like the Seljuks and Turcomans, of course. But never camels, except as baggage train or transport.

I have never heard of camel archers being important in any Arab army, let alone Saladin's.

Yes, Barb Camels would look more appropriate. Maybe I just got used to them in vanila Civ and RFC to symbolize the Doom from the Desert. However Saladin still used them at least one can read about it in historical fiction "The Book of Saladin": It was a remarkable sight. The 10000 horsemen were followed by archers on camels, and then by the long line of foot-soldiers. ;)

Yes, Barb Camels would look more appropriate. Maybe I just got used to them in vanila Civ and RFC to symbolize the Doom from the Desert. However Saladin still used them at least one can read about it in historical fiction "The Book of Saladin": It was a remarkable sight. The 10000 horsemen were followed by archers on camels, and then by the long line of foot-soldiers. ;)


Sorry. I don't know the book. I would not claim they were never used but they were far more suitable for desert skirmishes, esp. in the Arabian desert and the Western Sahara where horses lose their speed advantage in sand. I'd be happy seeing them in a Berber army like if we have Cordoba respawn as the Marinid or Saadi dynasties in Morocco after 1500AD.:)

The real issue for me with units so far is the defensive bonuses for cavalry (light or heavy). Fortified on the forested hill my Cathapract (Combat I) was able to kill 5 Seljuk (Barbarian) Lancers. Vanila Civ and RFC have it very nicely. You have to use combined arms strategy there. On the other hand I really support high withdrawal rate for light cavalry. Just make sure please it never gets to 100% even with Warlord Tactics promotion (+30%) :D.

Speaking of tactics, I would suggest begging the HOTK staff to borrow their legions system. There you'll have tactics.

Re: Cavalry. I think I agree that cavalry defensive bonus should all be removed -- an oversight on my part. What happens if withdrawal is over 100%? Currently, the highest withdrawl is 40%, only available on light cavalry. +10% from Flanking 1, +20% from Flanking 2, +30% from Tactics gives 100% withdraw chance, which is excellent, but I'm not sure it's game breaking. Light cavalry tend to be weak, and you have to spend a great general to get one of these units, which can still be killed if attacked. Technically guerilla 3 gives +50%, but that's not available to any cavalry (No, I lie, it is currently available on the Ghazi, that'll have to go).

Re: Legions. I confess I haven't played HOTK. I've looked at the description of legions and it seems... complicated. We're trying to limit the number of dramatically new rules players need to learn. However, I should probably try it before I knock it. If it really makes battles more nuanced AND the AI is able to deal with it effectively...

A word of caution about taking away Guerrilla 3 from the Ghazi, or any other strength from a Unique Unit. Most UUs were chosen to be unique, historically representative and significally stronger than what they replace. If UUs are going to end up with no real advantages then their uniqueness becomes pretty pointless, doesn't it?

A word of caution about taking away Guerrilla 3 from the Ghazi, or any other strength from a Unique Unit. Most UUs were chosen to be unique, historically reresentative and significally stronger than what they replace. If UUs are going to end up with no real advantages then their uniqueness becomes pretty pointless, doesn't it?

A fair point to keep in mind. Ideally I would create a desert-raider promotion for these guys.

I don't think you need to take guerrilla 3 away as over 100% would be redundant for withdrawal so there no real advantage to that, besides you need to invest a huge amount of experience into a ghazi to get all flanking promotions the great leader promotion and guerrilla 3 and it wouldn't do anything anyways

A word of caution about taking away Guerrilla 3 from the Ghazi, or any other strength from a Unique Unit. Most UUs were chosen to be unique, historically representative and significally stronger than what they replace. If UUs are going to end up with no real advantages then their uniqueness becomes pretty pointless, doesn't it?


The Ghazi can't reach the 100% withdraw change. It only starts with Guerrilla 1 but can't be promoted with Guerrilla 2 or 3. It has standard 20%. +10% +20% for the withdraw bonusses and +30% for the General promotion and that gives a total of 80%.

The only ones are the one with 40%. They can reach (in theory) 100% with the bonus. But I've tested it with WB and even when a Berber cavalry (with a total of 160% withdraw change) has just >99.9%. So it never get to or above 100%.

What do the people think about supply trains and no medic promotions for the ordinary units? My favorite unit in Charlemagne. I think it makes it very realistic, AI seems to use them well in Charlemagne, I don't think they use tweaked AI in that scenario. We could even give Medic II and Medic III promotion for the train -- Generals most of the time sit where the train is and direct the battle (only few fight themselves). Destroying the train could bring money -- lots of times warriors would not pursue the defeated enemy just being too busy looting the train :).

Question: Is the UU for the Kievan really supposed to be only 18? That's worse than the unit it replaces, the Cuirrasier, which is a 20. I know it has one extra move point and costs a little less, and was just wondering if this was an intentional difference or an oversight.

more OT: I like the changes to the units, things really do make a lot more sense when choosing what to build and the streamlining of units is really much better. Good work!

What do the people think about supply trains and no medic promotions for the ordinary units? My favorite unit in Charlemagne. I think it makes it very realistic, AI seems to use them well in Charlemagne, I don't think they use tweaked AI in that scenario. We could even give Medic II and Medic III promotion for the train -- Generals most of the time sit where the train is and direct the battle (only few fight themselves). Destroying the train could bring money -- lots of times warriors would not pursue the defeated enemy just being too busy looting the train :).


I like the idea. But does the Cordoban UP needs to be changed then? Or it stays and they don't need supply trains with their UP.

Question: Is the UU for the Kievan really supposed to be only 18? That's worse than the unit it replaces, the Cuirrasier, which is a 20. I know it has one extra move point and costs a little less, and was just wondering if this was an intentional difference or an oversight.

more OT: I like the changes to the units, things really do make a lot more sense when choosing what to build and the streamlining of units is really much better. Good work!

More like an intentional oversight... that is, I didn't really re-examine all the UUs, especially for the later game. It's a lot more time-consuming to test the late game units to see if they work well together. Another piece of the puzzle is... Kiev is "supposed" to be dead/under Moscow's control by the time Cuirassiers come about, so maybe this UU isn't a good one for them to have.

Glad you like the new units so far. Let me know if you run into other oddities or have suggestions for improvement.

More like an intentional oversight... that is, I didn't really re-examine all the UUs, especially for the later game. It's a lot more time-consuming to test the late game units to see if they work well together. Another piece of the puzzle is... Kiev is "supposed" to be dead/under Moscow's control by the time Cuirassiers come about, so maybe this UU isn't a good one for them to have.

Glad you like the new units so far. Let me know if you run into other oddities or have suggestions for improvement.

I've found the same with the Kievan Rus. If you're going for the UHV you'll never be able to use the Cossack UU. It'd be much better to have an early UU able to provide some opposition to the Mongol hordes. my choice would be the "Druzhina" heavy cavalry which could replace the Armoured Lancer and rated at 10/2 or 11/2. Not quite as strong as the Keshik but similiar to the Cataphract. Luckily the database seems to have just the appropriate unit, as seen in the foreground of this picture.

I've found the same with the Kievan Rus. If you're going for the UHV you'll never be able to use the Cossack UU. It'd be much better to have an early UU able to provide some opposition to the Mongol hordes. my choice would be the "Druzhina" heavy cavalry which could replace the Armoured Lancer and rated at 10/2 or 11/2. Not quite as strong as the Keshik but similiar to the Cataphract. Luckily the database seems to have just the appropriate unit, as seen in the foreground of this picture.

Sounds like a good idea to me, I was just thinking that as I read the responce... I finished before ever getting to UU, I just was looking at in the wikipedia cuz I wanted to know what it was since I never saw it. Helping with the Mongols would be sweet, though I did personally get Knights right before the invasion. Killed 64 of those dratted Keshiks...

I like the idea giving Kievan Rus a new UU. But which of those three you have in mind?

I like the idea giving Kievan Rus a new UU. But which of those three you have in mind?

The heavy cav one in the bottom of the picture, as I've said.

I like the idea giving Kievan Rus a new UU. But which of those three you have in mind?

The heavy cav one in the bottom of the picture, as I've said.

@sedna. What do you think of the idea?

The heavy cav one in the bottom of the picture, as I've said.

Those look exactly the same as the Moscowian Boyars.

Those look exactly the same as the Moscowian Boyars.

If so, there might be another we can use.

I approve of changing the Kievan unit to a Druzhina. In my opinion we could use the current Boyar art for it if we could find something a bit more appropriate for the Boyar. I suggest you all go to this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7997575&postcount=18 and provide friendly encouragement to zenspiderz to make an awesome bow+sword Boyar-type unit.

I approve of changing the Kievan unit to a Druzhina. In my opinion we could use the current Boyar art for it if we could find something a bit more appropriate for the Boyar. I suggest you all go to this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7997575&postcount=18 and provide friendly encouragement to zenspiderz to make an awesome bow+sword Boyar-type unit.

Maybe we could do that now, and leave the present art for the Boyar as a placeholder until we get something better?

As an part of the ongoing military redesign can I reopen the issue of culturally flavoured units? As we have now introduced new Scottish and Welsh barbs (really nice stuff, Sedna) I'd like to again suggest new art for the Arab and Cordoban units. I particularly like the design for the Arabian knight figure in the first screenshot (center-right).
The art below should provide enough scope for making them more attractive and historical, I think.

I think this is a good idea, particularly for the Arab civs. I haven't looked at how to properly use the art-style tags to properly/easily add in flavored units, but it shouldn't be too hard...

I think this is a good idea, particularly for the Arab civs. I haven't looked at how to properly use the art-style tags to properly/easily add in flavored units, but it shouldn't be too hard...

I guess it must be like when you added in the UUs like the Ghazi and the Berber cavalry. Just inserting each one to replace the existing unit? I don't know.:confused:

I guess it must be like when you added in the UUs like the Ghazi and the Berber cavalry. Just inserting each one to replace the existing unit? I don't know.:confused:

No, the UUs are distinct units. There is a pretty simple way to specify different art for the same unit -- so the Arab swordsman is not a separate unit, he just looks different.

Draggin' out an old thread to talk about boats.

The worst problems with the old system (The trimene and the odd Galleas-which-replaces-Cog) have been fixed. Note that these are only ship types, and do not include ethnic art.

Along the bottom, the progression of cargo/transport ships:
Galley -> Cog -> Holk -> Galleon

Along the top, the warships:
War Galley -> Gun Galley (Galleas) -> Carrack -> Frigate

The Caravel and privateer are special ships: (explorer + limited cargo ships) and (pirate) respectively.

@Sedna17

That looks fine to me. I have one request though. Can we not have Privateers for the Barbary pirates in the Med? It looks pretty stupid. I propose they start with the war galley and upgrade to the Xebec. If it works out we could extend it to the Muslim civs later when we're doing diff. ethnic art. How about that?:)

I've just found the perfect art for the Barbary Xebec to replace the Privateer. We can have them spawn only from Tunis and Algiers, couldn't we?

See post 81

That looks fine to me. I have one request though. Can we not have Privateers for the Barbary pirates in the Med? It looks pretty stupid. I propose they start with the war galley and upgrade to the Xebec. If it works out we could extend it to the Muslim civs later when we're doing diff. ethnic art. How about that?:)

Yeah, that's fine.

Nice, I didn't know there were so many good art samples to choose from! :)

What's a holk, though? I can only get results for a town in the Netherlands and a guy named Heinrich Holk. If it's another Northern Europe based ship like the Cog, I ask if we can maybe keep them limited to those civs in the North like England, the Norse, etc., and have the galley as the single transport vessel of the Mediterranean? I would like to suggest giving the Norse a Longboat UU, which would have higher movement or something.

What's a holk, though? I can only get results for a town in the Netherlands and a guy named Heinrich Holk. If it's another Northern Europe based ship like the Cog, I ask if we can maybe keep them limited to those civs in the North like England, the Norse, etc., and have the galley as the single transport vessel of the Mediterranean?


The holk was also called a hulk (http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/florilegium/popdef14.html). Here is is representing a later stage of sailed transport ship -- these were very common in the Mediterranean as well, the oared galley being most important for maneuverability in fighting.


I would like to suggest giving the Norse a Longboat UU, which would have higher movement or something.

No. We have one UU per civ only. The Norse unique power gives all their boats a movement advantage (because the ocean squares are half-cost).

Oh ok :)

No. We have one UU per civ only. The Norse unique power gives all their boats a movement advantage (because the ocean squares are half-cost).

Is it just me or a bug, but I don't have double speed on ocean.

I like it, especially the addition of holk.

As for the whole cog debate, would simply switching cog's/hulk's sails to lateen for med civs (through unit art styles) satisfy everyone's needs for historical accuracy? No rule changes whatsoever. You can read about Venetian cogs, which were just lateen roundships.

Is it just me or a bug, but I don't have double speed on ocean.

It's not just you. I'm not sure that we implemented that as planned.

It's not just you. I'm not sure that we implemented that as planned.

It's "all naval units can enter ocean tiles", not double movement on ocean tiles. It was never intended to be double movement anyway, as far as I know. So it's not a bug, is it?

It's "all naval units can enter ocean tiles", not double movement on ocean tiles. It was never intended to be double movement anyway, as far as I know. So it's not a bug, is it?

We're not just talking about the Norse. In standard RFC, ocean tiles cost 1/2 movement - the same was supposed to hold true for RFCEurope, or at least, it's listed that way in the opening credits and possibly the civilopedia.

I'm fine either way, but if we aren't changing it, we should change the text.

We're not just talking about the Norse. In standard RFC, ocean tiles cost 1/2 movement - the same was supposed to hold true for RFCEurope, or at least, it's listed that way in the opening credits and possibly the civilopedia.

I'm fine either way, but if we aren't changing it, we should change the text.

Double movement was in C++ and I probably either disabled that or was messed up in the introduction of the new terrains. I will take care of it.

Double movement was in C++ and I probably either disabled that or was messed up in the introduction of the new terrains. I will take care of it.

If you're changing the C++ for terrains, can you make moorland slightly more useable by allowing cottages to be built there? I think the original idea was to have it equivalent to plains that couldn't be irrigated for extra food, rather than the almost-desert we currently have.

If you're changing the C++ for terrains, can you make moorland slightly more useable by allowing cottages to be built there? I think the original idea was to have it equivalent to plains that couldn't be irrigated for extra food, rather than the almost-desert we currently have.

That is in XML not C++. Anyway, I will take care of it.

The Norse unique power gives all their boats a movement advantage (because the ocean squares are half-cost).

The misconception was about what the Norse UP was, wasn't it? Movement costs is a separate issue I believe.:D

Now ship move twice as fast over ocean tiles.

@sedna17: I tried to make cottages available over moorland, but I don't seem to get it. I tried adding TERRAIN_MOORLAND in the Improvement <TerrainMakesValid> tags, but it is appearently not enough. Do you know what is going on there?

Now ship move twice as fast over ocean tiles.

@sedna17: I tried to make cottages available over moorland, but I don't seem to get it. I tried adding TERRAIN_MOORLAND in the Improvement <TerrainMakesValid> tags, but it is appearently not enough. Do you know what is going on there?

I think I know how to fix it.

I think I know how to fix it.

A couple of quick questions, maybe a bit O/T.

I see there's 22 revisions in the repository at our sourceforge site. I take it they're still not included in Alpha7 which still shows 29/08/2008, 15.31 as the latest version for download. Right? So they'll be added for Alpha8 then, I guess?

I've got a lot of text files, some of which haven't been posted here yet. How much time do I have left to get them in on time so they'll be included in Alpha8?

A couple of quick questions, maybe a bit O/T.

I see there's 22 revisions in the repository at our sourceforge site. I take it they're still not included in Alpha7 which still shows 29/08/2008, 15.31 as the latest version for download. Right? So they'll be added for Alpha8 then, I guess?

I've got a lot of text files, some of which haven't been posted here yet. How much time do I have left to get them in on time so they'll be included in Alpha8?

Yeah, the idea is that individual people contribute little revisions and then we bundle them up once there's been "enough" changes. People don't want to have to immediately update for every little change and it's impossible to debug if everyone's using a slightly different version.

@Sedna17
I've just found the perfect art for the Barbary Xebec to replace the Privateer. The black version looks really good, I think. We can have them spawn only from Tunis and Algiers, couldn't we?

@Sedna17
I've just found the perfect art for the Barbary Xebec to replace the Privateer. The black version looks really good, I think. We can have them spawn only from Tunis and Algiers, couldn't we?

Indeed. I actually made just that comment in the thread presenting the new ships. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8466532&postcount=2

@Sedna17
I've just found the perfect art for the Barbary Xebec to replace the Privateer. The black version looks really good, I think. We can have them spawn only from Tunis and Algiers, couldn't we?

I really hope that these can replace the rigged 7 str. privateers that spawn before 1400.

I don't know if anyone has asked this before but will this work with Regular RFC and if not, once it is done could you make a similar thing for normal RFC?

I don't know if anyone has asked this before but will this work with Regular RFC and if not, once it is done could you make a similar thing for normal RFC?

This will not work with Regular RFC without someone investing a fair amount of time to integrate it. I also doubt that there are sufficient turns in the middle ages in RFC for it to play well if you did insert these new units.