Unit Balance Patch (Mod)

[Zegangani]

The April Patch from last Year made quite some changes to Units in Civ VI, and the addition of the 3 new Units weren't the only reason for that. Even before NFP, Units in Civ VI were, although OK, far from being balanced, especially the balance between the different Unit Classes. But Balance isn't the only Issue, the Unit Upgrade Paths to modern Era Units is more than just Immersion breaking, it also puts those modern Units in same Classes as earlier Units, where they obviously don't fit in, and therfore create some strange scenarios when modern Era Units and earlier ones meet and fight each other, or even just between modern Units. But did the changes from the April 2021 Patch fix any of those Issues? are the Units now better balanced than before or is it more or less the same as before? how about the general Combat/Warfare in Civ VI, do you think it is fine as it is or does it feel off (even when ignoring AI)? And how is Unit Management overall?

IMHO, Warfare in Civ VI is Okeyish for the most part, but only if you're more into Empire management and peaceful Gameplay. I'm admittedly one of those Guys, and, although many things about Units and warfare still annoy me, I honestly never was that annoyed by Unit Combat, mostly because I never mastered it in the first place, but while working on 4XP and looking more closely into Unit Combat/Warfare in the Game, I realized that Units and Combat in Civ 6 are really unbalanced and unelegant, and they actually need a big Patch dedicated only to them in order to improve Military Units in any significant way.

I suppose most of People already have come to the conclusion that we won't see any more patches to Civ 6 from Firaxis (maybe exept a small BugFix patch or something, but not balance patches), so the only alternative are Mods. And we have plenty of Mods in the Workshop that add new Units to the Game and Mods that change all sorts of things about them, but I couldn't find a Mod that attempts to balance the Units in the Game in any significant way. You're mostly left with choosing multiple mods each trying to fix something in its own way, but using them all at once doesn't really fix anything, and may worsen the situation even more.

Anyway, since I already wanted to change many things about Units in the Game and add some other Military Features to it, I think a balance mod is necessary for those things to have any significant effect/impact, so I decided to work on a big Unit Balance Mod that tries to solve all the issues associated with (Military) Units/Warfare in the Game. But for that I need your help.

I have seen lots of Threads/Discussions about Unit Balance in Civ6, all the Issues associated with that and 1UPT...etc, but there wasn't much talk about that past April patch 2021 (apart from general ideas and suggestions about new units and how Civ7 should handle Units(1UPT/UCPT/limited Stacks...)), so I don't know how the majority of the People feel and think about Units in Civ VI now. So I wanted to know what your Experiences are with Units/Combat/Warfare after NFP, and all the Issues that still annoy you, things like:
- general Unit Balance (without Promotions/Abilities...etc. under consideration, but Combat/Movement/Cost...etc)
- the different Unit Classes and their Pros/Cons (Including Promotions)
- Class vs Class (the Rock/Paper/Scissor system)
- Strategic Combat
- Upgrades
- City Combat / Siege
- Naval Units/ Naval Warfare
- Air Units / Air Warfare
- Late Game Units
- Corps/Armies
- Unit Managent (1UPT management, Maintenance...)
- AI
- Bugs
- ...

A lot can be done to Units in Civ6 with Modding, and I have lots of Ideas on how to improve certain things, but instead of making small fixes here and there and fixing A while not considering the effects of B on that, I want to make One big Unit Balance Patch Mod that tackles most if not all the Issues associated with Units and warfare, including things like Stacks, Armies, 1UPT, CS Balance and even supply/attrition (and mod support). And I want to include all of that in one Mod, so that everythings should work as a whole, while still leaving options to customize the changes. So if you want to help me with that, then please tell me in the comments your thoughts and opinions about Units and warfare in Civ 6 and all the Issues you have with them, anythings from AI not using AA Units or deploying Fighters to Units that are weaker than they should be. Thanks!

PS: I know, I know... I was teasing 4XP since quite some time now, but I admit, it is a much bigger Project than I previously thought, and truth is, when I started this Project I had much more free time than I do now, and so things are taking me much more Time to get done than I expected. Nonetheless, I'm still working on it and I'm regularly making Progress. I still want to finish this and I will, but since I put so much work and effort into it, I want to take the necessary Time to make it good (There are plenty of things in 4XP that I think you'll like/enjoy, so please be patient with me).

 

[aieeegrunt]

I am fairly warlike and I have yet to build anti-cavalry on purpose

I think the most anti-cav I ever had was when I built the Zeus thing out of desperation for era score (there is another dumb mechanic that needs addressing).

 

[Zegangani]

I am fairly warlike and I have yet to build anti-cavalry on purpose

This is one of the major things that I want to fix in the Mod, and I have some Ideas an how to do that. Some of them are:
- making Cavalry Units unable to ignore the ZOC of Anti-Cav Units. And reduce or remove the CS Bonus against Anti-Cavalry Units from the Cavalry Class Promotions.
- Anti-Cav less vulnerable to Ranged Units (like when adjacent to Melee Units).
- more Combat Strength from Flanking.
- reduced Cost.

 

[aieeegrunt]

This is one of the major things that I want to fix in the Mod, and I have some Ideas an how to do that. Some of them are:
- making Cavalry Units unable to ignore the ZOC of Anti-Cav Units. And reduce or remove the CS Bonus against Anti-Cavalry Units from the Cavalry Class Promotions.
- Anti-Cav less vulnerable to Ranged Units (like when adjacent to Melee Units).
- more Combat Strength from Flanking.
- reduced Cost.

I think the real problem is that there basically isn’t a need for them

Melee basically covers the foot soldier role, slower, usually cheaper, better in close terrain or assaulting cities

Cavalry are faster, usually more expensive, better in open terrain but bad anywhere else

Anti-cav are better at being attacked by cavalry. That’s it. You are much better off having a melee unit backed by range; the melee is far more useful. If the cav doesnt attack you the anti-cav is pointless.

If you could stack one unit of each class in a hex I’d actually build anti-cav.

 

[Tech Osen]

The only thing that anti-cav has going for them is that they never require resources. Coincidentally, that saved my last game when I got boxed into a corner with just my capital. Conquered my way out with archers and spearman. Though that one vampire was very instrumental.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The only thing that anti-cav has going for them is that they never require resources. Coincidentally, that saved my last game when I got boxed into a corner with just my capital. Conquered my way out with archers and spearman. Though that one vampire was very instrumental.

Probably the reason Pike And Shot exists. Although it’s on a stupid part of the tech tree

 

[Zegangani]

I think the real problem is that there basically isn’t a need for them

Melee basically covers the foot soldier role, slower, usually cheaper, better in close terrain or assaulting cities

That's true. But as @Tech Osen said, Anti-Cav are useful because they don't require a stretegic resource like melee Units do. So they currently play 2 roles: a substitute to melee Units when you don't have (enough of) the strategic resource needed, and as a (poorly) counter to Cavalry Units.

So IMO, Anti-Cav should have slightly less strength than Melee Units and also be cheaper to build (those Pikes are much cheaper to build and the units much faster to train than Swordsmen are).

Though, other Unit Classes also need to be balanced. Light Cavalry Units are stronger than they need to be, as well as Heavy Cavalry a bit, but those need less Movement points IMO. Cavalry Units should mainly be a support Unit that causes Fear and disorder in the Enemy's Lines. And Ranged Units are also too powerful, and need a nerf. Your main force should always be Melee Units, and other Unit classes should just support the melee on a strategic level (flanking, first strike, siege...etc).

If you could stack one unit of each class in a hex I’d actually build anti-cav.

Now that you mention that, the mod that will include the Unit Balance changes will also come with other optional things:
- Unit Class per Tile: I found a mod that makes some AI behavior changes to help it make a better use of this feature, and apparently succefully. I will look further into that, but also make other changes to make it less an advantage of human Player against the AI (like with some penalties (to human Player Units only) when fighting in stacks against an AI Unit).
- Improved Corps/Armies: I think Firaxis didn't utilize this Feature enough, which I believe is the best way to have stacks of the same Unit type. And combined with the the Feature above (different Unit Classes per Tile), it would be a simple yet effective way to solve the SoD vs CoD Issue as well as the other drawbacks of 1UPT (like moving many units).
- Fix the weird Unit Classes of Late Game: Tanks shouldn't be a Heavy-Cav Unit, and having Melee Units have a chance against Helicopters that are Light Cavalry also doesn't make sense. I think Late Game Ranged Units don't make sense, so combining them with the Melee Units (and/or Anti-Tank?) is the best solution IMO.
- Strategic Combat: more combat modifiers, especially map related + making it as a the way to defeat AI Units (I will add some AI advantages over human Player Units other than plain Bonuses, which will be removed, so the human Player needs to make a Plan and be strategic in order to have a chance).
- Unit Supply: will mainly affect the human Player and to a lesser degree AI.
- Attrition: same as Supplies.

The main goal with all of that is, better Unit management, better Unit Combat, less AI blank bonuses on higher difficulties but more of simple rules to AI and more of strategically demanding things from the human Player. The result should be neither an easy AI to defeat, nor a difficult AI (due to free bonuses) that is hard to defeat where it gets to the point where it's unenjoyable, but an engaging Warfare that requires the human Player to be more strategic on how to manage its Units, outside and inside Battles.

 

[CoconutTank]

Probably the reason Pike And Shot exists. Although it’s on a stupid part of the tech tree

Perhaps, but they're in a great place for Babylon Fielding P&S as Babylon is the only time I've dedicated production to an anti-cav, otherwise I agree that I don't normally give them any attention.

Bigger flanking bonus definitely sounds very nice, I'd like to see that.

I'd also want ranged units to require strategic resources, but also allow players to extract smaller intakes of strategic resources. Maybe something like:
Barracks (and unique equivalents) gives 1 iron per turn
Stables (and unique equivalents) gives 1 horse per turn
Armory (and unique equivalents) gives 1 niter per turn
Some new tier 2 encampment building could give 1 coal per turn
Military academy (and unique equivalents) gives 1 oil per turn
Some new tier 3 encampment building could give 1 aluminum per turn

I think it was discussed in a previous thread that it'd be great for city strikes to either be much weaker or be removed altogether. Then Victor's middle title could be to either increase city strike strength or enable city strikes, depending on what is changed for city strikes.

I'd like to see other ways of being able to put a city under siege as well. One idea would be that Military Engineers put adjacent enemy cities under siege. I guess a city taking any amount of siege damage should technically be under siege for a turn as well.

I also really like Supply Convoys b/c of their +1 movement aura and healing aura. If their effects could be introduced at some point earlier than Combustion, that could help a lot with mobilizing units while also being a less explicit logistics requirement.

 

[Zegangani]

I think it was discussed in a previous thread that it'd be great for city strikes to either be much weaker or be removed altogether. Then Victor's middle title could be to either increase city strike strength or enable city strikes, depending on what is changed for city strikes.

Exactly. There are 2 Issues with City Strike/strength I think, one being that the strength is based on your strongest Ranged Unit (which doesn't make sense and isn't even balanced) and the other is the too long range of it, and both make Conquest harder and also punishing for AI (except when defending).

I have 2 Ideas on how to solve that:
- make the strength/range based on something else, maybe garrisoned Unit, a new Building in the CC/Encampment, your Population and/or policies/Civics.
- remove the Range strike completely and replace city defense with Militia Units that fight for their City. Each Time you defeat a Militia Unit in its City, the City Defenses will suffer Damage, and if you defeat all the Units in a City, including the professional army and Militia, the City will automatically be conquered or have 0 defense strength so you just need a melee Unit to officially conquer it. (I'm already working on this Feature, just need more work and testing)

I'd like to see other ways of being able to put a city under siege as well. One idea would be that Military Engineers put adjacent enemy cities under siege. I guess a city taking any amount of siege damage should technically be under siege for a turn as well.

We don't have much modding possibilities regarding Siege, but I was thinking of making Cities under Siege more willing to surrender the longer the besieging takes place (for faster conquest, especially in late game - perhaps also based on City Loyalty).

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

the different Unit Classes and their Pros/Cons (Including Promotions)

Scouts don't have much purpose past the beginning of the game. Once the "scouting" is done they are too weak and killed off to easily by city shots when I'm trying to use them to pillage. If scouts had a strong defensive bonus against ranged - like +12 strong - I think they would stay useful the whole game.

Chariots should have Animal Husbandry as required tech. They cost enough more that the decision on what to build still would require thought.

 

[aieeegrunt]

That's true. But as @Tech Osen said, Anti-Cav are useful because they don't require a stretegic resource like melee Units do. So they currently play 2 roles: a substitute to melee Units when you don't have (enough of) the strategic resource needed, and as a (poorly) counter to Cavalry Units.

So IMO, Anti-Cav should have slightly less strength than Melee Units and also be cheaper to build (those Pikes are much cheaper to build and the units much faster to train than Swordsmen are).

Though, other Unit Classes also need to be balanced. Light Cavalry Units are stronger than they need to be, as well as Heavy Cavalry a bit, but those need less Movement points IMO. Cavalry Units should mainly be a support Unit that causes Fear and disorder in the Enemy's Lines. And Ranged Units are also too powerful, and need a nerf. Your main force should always be Melee Units, and other Unit classes should just support the melee on a strategic level (flanking, first strike, siege...etc).

Now that you mention that, the mod that will include the Unit Balance changes will also come with other optional things:
- Unit Class per Tile: I found a mod that makes some AI behavior changes to help it make a better use of this feature, and apparently succefully. I will look further into that, but also make other changes to make it less an advantage of human Player against the AI (like with some penalties (to human Player Units only) when fighting in stacks against an AI Unit).
- Improved Corps/Armies: I think Firaxis didn't utilize this Feature enough, which I believe is the best way to have stacks of the same Unit type. And combined with the the Feature above (different Unit Classes per Tile), it would be a simple yet effective way to solve the SoD vs CoD Issue as well as the other drawbacks of 1UPT (like moving many units).
- Fix the weird Unit Classes of Late Game: Tanks shouldn't be a Heavy-Cav Unit, and having Melee Units have a chance against Helicopters that are Light Cavalry also doesn't make sense. I think Late Game Ranged Units don't make sense, so combining them with the Melee Units (and/or Anti-Tank?) is the best solution IMO.
- Strategic Combat: more combat modifiers, especially map related + making it as a the way to defeat AI Units (I will add some AI advantages over human Player Units other than plain Bonuses, which will be removed, so the human Player needs to make a Plan and be strategic in order to have a chance).
- Unit Supply: will mainly affect the human Player and to a lesser degree AI.
- Attrition: same as Supplies.

The main goal with all of that is, better Unit management, better Unit Combat, less AI blank bonuses on higher difficulties but more of simple rules to AI and more of strategically demanding things from the human Player. The result should be neither an easy AI to defeat, nor a difficult AI (due to free bonuses) that is hard to defeat where it gets to the point where it's unenjoyable, but an engaging Warfare that requires the human Player to be more strategic on how to manage its Units, outside and inside Battles.

I am a big fan of Occam’s razor when it comes to game design. Back in the old consim days you had to be because you had cardboard processors

If you have to invent more mechanics to justify a mechanic you really need to ask yourself if that mechanic really needs to be there, and that is exactly where the anti-cav unit is.

Looking down the other end of the design telescope having a competely artificial distinction between units that are functionally basically identical feels…extremely artificial and gamey. The difference between “swordsman” (foot guy who pokes you with a pointy object) and a “spearman” (foot guy who pokes you with a pointy object), especially at the strategic level is pretty irrelevant.

The Romans would have been greatly amused at this distinction, given how important the pilum was to them.

I can see differentiating between foot units and mounted units in move allowances because of Civ6’s “play the map” thing (even though at the level of a civ map their actual mobility would be identical).

Cavalry should NOT have any sort of combat bonus vs foot. This is yet another mechanic that exists solely to justify the anti-cav class. Where cavalry really becomes important is in pursuit of a broken enemy, protecting or raiding supply lines etc. Cavalry being the only units with a ZOC and having higher move allowances better reflects the traits of this class. If anything they should have LOWER combat strenght than equivelant melee units, given that you can fit a lot more men per a given length of front than men plus horses.

Ranged units are far too strong in this game. What really makes it broken is the ridiculous range, which allows you to both keep your range units out of the front lines and lets you easily focus fire and outright delete enemies.

Until the invention of the ring bayonet that allowed musketmen to also be effective in melee, how much of your front to give to ranged units and how much have held by melee units was an endless conundrum (look at Agincourt). Till missiles ranged units should have a range of one. If you don’t pair them with a melee unit, you deserve to have them spiked

The above by the way is one of the many reasons why getting rid of strict 1UPT would improve combat so much.

Perhaps, but they're in a great place for Babylon Fielding P&S as Babylon is the only time I've dedicated production to an anti-cav, otherwise I agree that I don't normally give them any attention.

Bigger flanking bonus definitely sounds very nice, I'd like to see that.

I'd also want ranged units to require strategic resources, but also allow players to extract smaller intakes of strategic resources. Maybe something like:
Barracks (and unique equivalents) gives 1 iron per turn
Stables (and unique equivalents) gives 1 horse per turn
Armory (and unique equivalents) gives 1 niter per turn
Some new tier 2 encampment building could give 1 coal per turn
Military academy (and unique equivalents) gives 1 oil per turn
Some new tier 3 encampment building could give 1 aluminum per turn

I think it was discussed in a previous thread that it'd be great for city strikes to either be much weaker or be removed altogether. Then Victor's middle title could be to either increase city strike strength or enable city strikes, depending on what is changed for city strikes.

I'd like to see other ways of being able to put a city under siege as well. One idea would be that Military Engineers put adjacent enemy cities under siege. I guess a city taking any amount of siege damage should technically be under siege for a turn as well.

I also really like Supply Convoys b/c of their +1 movement aura and healing aura. If their effects could be introduced at some point earlier than Combustion, that could help a lot with mobilizing units while also being a less explicit logistics requirement.

Gaaaaah (directed at fireaxis not you) Baggage Trains/Supply convoys should be buildable when you have wheel + animal husbandry and they should be the only source of healing outside of friendly turf other than pillage. So much of military strategy up till railroads revolved around them.

The Parthians managed to inflict a worse defeat than Carrhae on a larger Roman Army than Crassus had without directly fighting them when Antony allowed his baggage train to get captured, and the Parthians basically let supply attrition destroy his army.

City strikes are both a broken mechanic and have zero basis in anything real. Really needs to go. I imagine this was another piling Mechanics on Mechanics thing to address ranged units being too strong, which goes right back to strict 1UPT

Scouts don't have much purpose past the beginning of the game. Once the "scouting" is done they are too weak and killed off to easily by city shots when I'm trying to use them to pillage. If scouts had a strong defensive bonus against ranged - like +12 strong - I think they would stay useful the whole game.

Chariots should have Animal Husbandry as required tech. They cost enough more that the decision on what to build still would require thought.

Here is an easy and historical way to make scouts relevant. You know that “battle preview” thing before initiating combat that tells you the odds and stuff?

You only get it if the attacking stack has a scout and the defending stack doesnt. Scouts can only be attacked by other scouts unless they are alone in the hex. Scouts attack other scouts and fight it out seperately before any combat happens.

Suddenly having good scouting and recon is critical as it was historically

 

[Leyrann]

Looking down the other end of the design telescope having a competely artificial distinction between units that are functionally basically identical feels…extremely artificial and gamey. The difference between “swordsman” (foot guy who pokes you with a pointy object) and a “spearman” (foot guy who pokes you with a pointy object), especially at the strategic level is pretty irrelevant.

The Romans would have been greatly amused at this distinction, given how important the pilum was to them.

I'm not sure if I agree, considering the importance of pike formations throughout much of history, such as Greek and Persian armies in classical times and medieval armies later on. And as far as I understand it, swords were relegated to a back-up weapon by medieval times. Not an expert though.

The above by the way is one of the many reasons why getting rid of strict 1UPT would improve combat so much.

I can see arguments for not having strict 1UPT, but I wouldn't want to go back to unlimited units per tile. I guess having two or three per tile could strike a balance where you have to figure out the optimal composition for every tile. With formations you could even move them as one.

Here is an easy and historical way to make scouts relevant. You know that “battle preview” thing before initiating combat that tells you the odds and stuff?

You only get it if the attacking stack has a scout and the defending stack doesnt. Scouts can only be attacked by other scouts unless they are alone in the hex. Scouts attack other scouts and fight it out seperately before any combat happens.

Suddenly having good scouting and recon is critical as it was historically

I like this idea, but I'm worried it might feel very gimmicky.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I'm not sure if I agree, considering the importance of pike formations throughout much of history, such as Greek and Persian armies in classical times and medieval armies later on. And as far as I understand it, swords were relegated to a back-up weapon by medieval times. Not an expert though.

I’m not saying pikes shouldn’t exist. I’m saying maybe the anti cav class shouldn’t

I kind of head cannoned “medieval infantry” as being a pike formation

I can see arguments for not having strict 1UPT, but I wouldn't want to go back to unlimited units per tile. I guess having two or three per tile could strike a balance where you have to figure out the optimal composition for every tile. With formations you could even move them as one.

unlimited stacking turns into high unit density turns into micromanagement

Hex boardgames quickly iterated towards stacking limits of around 3 for good reason

Something like a limit of one unit per class would be perfect

I like this idea, but I'm worried it might feel very gimmicky.

It could. It would be nice to have a reason to build more than one scout per game, and for them to have a purpose after the classic era

 

[Leyrann]

Something like a limit of one unit per class would be perfect

Would that not lead to a simplistic "put one of every class of unit on every tile"?

Wheras if you just put a limit of 3, you can ask yourself, do you want two melee and one archer for a strong frontline, or perhaps one melee and two archer for stronger attack but more losses if you have to defend? And if you're sieging, do you want to put two melee units with your one siege unit to make sure your siege weapons don't get caught by a cavalry charge, or do you go for two or even three siege units and rely on other units to make sure they aren't attacked and decimated?

 

[aieeegrunt]

Would that not lead to a simplistic "put one of every class of unit on every tile"?

Wheras if you just put a limit of 3, you can ask yourself, do you want two melee and one archer for a strong frontline, or perhaps one melee and two archer for stronger attack but more losses if you have to defend? And if you're sieging, do you want to put two melee units with your one siege unit to make sure your siege weapons don't get caught by a cavalry charge, or do you go for two or even three siege units and rely on other units to make sure they aren't attacked and decimated?

I’d greatly preferr that system, for all the reasons you listed. I guess I was still thinking with the “what can mods do with the limits of Civ6” blinkers on

I would 100% have a 1 hex range limit on all units that were’nt ballistic or cruise missiles, or railway artillery, or ranged/siege will be even more broken.

A lot of these stacking design issues were hashed out decades ago during the cardboard hex game era, and the vast majority of them settled on a default of three

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Unit Management (1UPT management, Maintenance...)

The maintenance costs of promoted units should go up. WIth international sea trade routes it's not difficult to have enough income that you not longer have to worry about maintain. I beside, who ever heard of getting promoted without a pay raise? Seriously, promoted units should really be considered 'professionals' and would need to be expensive to keep in the field. Great Generals should require maintenance as well.

 

[Leyrann]

The maintenance costs of promoted units should go up. WIth international sea trade routes it's not difficult to have enough income that you not longer have to worry about maintain. I beside, who ever heard of getting promoted without a pay raise? Seriously, promoted units should really be considered 'professionals' and would need to be expensive to keep in the field. Great Generals should require maintenance as well.

Later era units in Civ 6 require more maintenance already. I believe formula is roughly 1 gold per era, with some exceptions.

Also, you could argue that you have enough income that you don't have to worry about unit maintenance... but on the other hand, the more maintenance you pay, even if you're still making money, the less you can spend on purchasing buildings or units or great people or tiles.

 

[Ordnael]

Rarely built: anti cavalary
Never to have built like once or twice: support units like balloons, drones, medics and supply convoys.
Built but found little use: GDR (guess i just build them as a ultimate insurance fun factor).
Still I think the military units are good in both flavour and balance...not much of a bully.
Big fan of using warplanes and strong navy. But mostly I feel like making war is kinda of a drag! Was fun when I started playing CIV VI assaulting walls with bombers but then is like...meh...let them come and witness the power of cash!

 

[Leyrann]

Never to have built like once or twice: support units like balloons, drones, medics and supply convoys.

Dont sleep on balloons and units that can increase movement speed. Balloons allow your siege units to shoot cities without being in city strike range, and units that increase movement speed allow all siege units no matter their promotions to move and shoot on the same turn (they need to have more than two movement in order to be able to do so).

Built but found little use: GDR (guess i just build them as a ultimate insurance fun factor).

I'm pretty sure they're meant as a meme unit anyway.

 

[Ordnael]

@Leyrann
You're saying these units take the pain from moving units through roadless rough terrain at 1 - 2 squares a turn?
One balloon/drone per unit chained or just in the middle like a general giving aura bonus around?
I realize medics heal, but supply convoys i really never built them.
Might give them a try at the session i am playing now...though i become too lethargic to go around smacking the other AI civs...in a way I like CIV VI for making war not as glorious and needed, but I remember being nuked often in the original Civilization