Unit Tree Image

Llednar Twem · Mar 18, 2015

Wodhann said:
Musketman is a renaissance unit of 24 strength.

This samurai is a medieval unit of 28 strength.

joosegoose25 said:
The ability is not just being a Musketman an era early, but a more powerful Musketman at that. If the Samurai had the strength of a Musketman but unlocked at Steel we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, as that doesn't sound too extreme.

It's a difference of 3 CS (the musketman is actually 25) As much as Wodhann dislikes this argument, you can't really ignore that the samurai does use iron. The 3 CS gap between the samurai and the musketman is the same as the gap between the spearman and the swordsman. It's actually smaller than the gap between the pikeman and the longswordsman.

Wodhann said:
PS: Just looked at the wiki, and in vanilla civ, the Musketeer - a renaissance, unique unit - has 28 strength, and no other abilities. You're literally making a Musketeer in the medieval era.

Funak said:
It is actually still exactly like that. so while we're at the subject, the Musketeer probably need some retuning aswell.
Not because it is terrible, France have other bonuses covering form them. But just plain extra CS is boring.

Wow...is that really all the musketeer does? I'd definitely call that terrible. 3 CS is not at all worth being a UU's entire ability.

Funak · Mar 18, 2015

Llednar Twem said:
Wow...is that really all the musketeer does? I'd definitely call that terrible. 3 CS is not at all worth being a UU's entire ability.

Yeah, I had a lingering feeling about it since this thread first started. Finally started civ to check it out and blam, musketeers are garbage

Speaking of other unique units that are rather pointless: We have the Korean Hwach'a (I'm not even going to pretend that is correctly spelled).
Last time I checked it still had the same power and weaknesses as in vanilla, while the normal trebuchet went from 14 CS to 20. Meaning the Korean Hwach'a is now a Trebuchet with 6 extra RCS without the bonus vs cities.

For some context here is a table of RCS taken right off the top of my head:

UNIT:-----------In vanilla:-------------------In CPP:
Hwach'a--------- 26----------------------------26
Trebuchet:-------14----------------------------20
Cannon:----------20----------------------------30
Artillery:---------28----------------------------40

Finarvi · Mar 19, 2015

Good point. And now we have Volley Gun as strong ranged unit so Hwacha is even more useless.

Finarvi · Mar 26, 2015

I want to release new version of unit tree. There will be some changes and new suggestions. But first, could someone, somehow send me icons for these units:

Explorer
Cruiser
Volley Gun
Mercenary

It will make it look better. Thanks!

Finarvi · Apr 2, 2015

UPLOADED VERSION 2.0

I hope that there is still some interest about this unit tree. I've mad lots of improvements, as well as adding the rest of units.

I encourage you to take a look at first page and see what's new

And feel free to comment, I'd like to discuss units in this topic!

And (especially) Gazebo, please take a look at my updated "bugs" list. I would be happy to help with this project at least this way

Gazebo · Apr 2, 2015

Finarvi said:
UPLOADED VERSION 2.0

I hope that there is still some interest about this unit tree. I've mad lots of improvements, as well as adding the rest of units.

I encourage you to take a look at first page and see what's new And feel free to comment, I'd like to discuss units in this topic!

And (especially) Gazebo, please take a look at my updated "bugs" list. I would be happy to help with this project at least this way

Looks great. I'll upload a .jpg of the unit pics if you need them (the new units). You can also grab them if you have a .dds file opener (you can get one for GIMP for free). They're in the Art folder of the CBP.

If you wouldn't mind, could you copy-paste your bug list to github? You can put it all in one issue post if you want, that way I can keep track of them.

G

Finarvi · Apr 2, 2015

I use GIMP so i will get these icons by myself

Just couldn't find folder with them, thanks.

OK, I will git-hub this list.

Funak · Apr 2, 2015

Finarvi said:
- Caravel: it has only 3 while it's predecessor and upgrade have 4 . It doesn't make sense that more advanced ships are slower. We talk about almost 3 era difference in time!
- Galleas: same as above. Only 3.
- Ironclad: it has only 3 and "Double movement on coast" promotion. I think that this makes no sense. Why can't he just have 5 or 6 (like other units in his upgrade line) without this weird promotion? Not only this is weird but imbalanced: movement bonusses from wonders/englandUA/other sources gives this unit 2 additional , not 1 . It's strange that this industrial unit can be faster than any other unit in game (except planes). Maybe I don't get the idea, why this unit is slower on oceans (I'd understand if it was ancient unit but this...).

Caravels should definitely be at 4 moves, Galleass however in my opinion is fine at just 3 movespeed. Ranged ships should have weaknesses and should definitely get run down in a one vs one situation with a meleeship.

Ironclad is really weird, it is true, but I kinda like it. Sure having 14 moves per turn in coastal territory gets a little weird, but most of the time the unit is just fine.
I guess one could reverse it, giving them 6 movespeed but only half the speed in ocean territory.

joosegoose25 · Apr 6, 2015

Right now, in the Industrial Era (before Cruisers), you need iron to build any sort of ships at all. I would consider that to be a problem.

Gazebo · Apr 7, 2015

joosegoose25 said:
Right now, in the Industrial Era (before Cruisers), you need iron to build any sort of ships at all. I would consider that to be a problem.

Kinda, but the Industrial Era was the deciding era (historically) in which naval dominance and technology really went hand-in-hand. I think a lack of iron at that point is fair, as you should either have an ally for trade, or have a renaissance navy.

G

Funak · Apr 7, 2015

Gazebo said:
Kinda, but the Industrial Era was the deciding era (historically) in which naval dominance and technology really went hand-in-hand. I think a lack of iron at that point is fair, as you should either have an ally for trade, or have a renaissance navy.

Please for the sake of balance, keep melee-ships free of resource-requirement. You can't defend against a naval invasion without ships. Ranged ships is a luxury that you can survive without, they are useful in defense but nowhere near necessary.
The alternative would be to keep two lines of melee-ships, one without SR-costs and one with, but that just seems like a lot of more work.

Gazebo · Apr 7, 2015

Funak said:
Please for the sake of balance, keep melee-ships free of resource-requirement. You can't defend against a naval invasion without ships. Ranged ships is a luxury that you can survive without, they are useful in defense but nowhere near necessary.
The alternative would be to keep two lines of melee-ships, one without SR-costs and one with, but that just seems like a lot of more work.

I'll just make the Corvette build-able through to destroyers. Ironclads need iron, yo.

G

Funak · Apr 7, 2015

Gazebo said:
I'll just make the Corvette build-able through to destroyers. Ironclads need iron, yo.

G

That is all I ask for.

Also, in that case don't make corvettes upgrade into ironclads, as that would force you to get iron to actually upgrade your fleet to destroyers.

joosegoose25 · Apr 7, 2015

Funak said:
That is all I ask for.

Also, in that case don't make corvettes upgrade into ironclads, as that would force you to get iron to actually upgrade your fleet to destroyers.

Would there be a way (without adding much to the DLL) to make the upgrade optional? As in, you could upgrade to Ironclads if you had and wanted to use the iron, but you aren't SOL if you lack iron. It would stink to have a large swath of melee ships that are now weak without an upgrade for an extended period, despite being able to build newer and stronger melee ships.

Gazebo · Apr 7, 2015

joosegoose25 said:
Would there be a way (without adding much to the DLL) to make the upgrade optional? As in, you could upgrade to Ironclads if you had and wanted to use the iron, but you aren't SOL if you lack iron. It would stink to have a large swath of melee ships that are now weak without an upgrade for an extended period, despite being able to build newer and stronger melee ships.

Not easily, no.

G

Finarvi · Apr 20, 2015

Gazebo said:
Looks great. I'll upload a .jpg of the unit pics if you need them (the new units). You can also grab them if you have a .dds file opener (you can get one for GIMP for free). They're in the Art folder of the CBP.
[...]

Hmm I'm afraid I couldn't find them (I've found only new units' on-map icons). If you could send me jpegs it would be nice.

EDIT: Nevermind, found them. Will be updated in next version.

yrug1o9l · Apr 21, 2015

I have 2 suggestions.

First, making Tercios available for all Civs (like Horse Archers, Keshiks and Dromons).
Pikemen are not enough strong to battle with Lancers.

My idea is that Pikemen upgrade to Tercios and Tercios upgrade to Fusiliers.
Tercio's combat strength should be reduced to 20 or so.
20CS + 50% Bonus = 30CS (Lancers)

Second, moving Landsknechts to the Renaissance Era (or Steel tech).
I can rarely (or never) adapt "Mercenary Army" social policy in the Medieval Era.
In the Renaissance Era, they are as weak as Explorers (CS16).
We should upgrade them to Musketmen immediately, paying 310 gold.
Purchase Cost and Upgrade Cost spoil one of their advantages (cheap cost).

My idea is that moving Landsknechts to the Renaissance Era (upgrade to Fusiliers).
Landsknecht's combat strength should be raised to 20 or so.

Funak · Apr 21, 2015

yrug1o9l said:
I have 2 suggestions.

First, making Tercios available for all Civs (like Horse Archers, Keshiks and Dromons).
Pikemen are not enough strong to battle with Lancers.

My idea is that Pikemen upgrade to Tercios and Tercios upgrade to Fusiliers.
Tercio's combat strength should be reduced to 20 or so.
20CS + 50% Bonus = 30CS (Lancers)

Why are you comparing pikemen to lancers? They are different era units. Pikemen upgrade to musketmen, and musketmen stand up to lancers fairly well.

yrug1o9l · Apr 21, 2015

Because I wanted to compare Mounted Units to Anti-Mounted Units and Tercios were not common for Civs.
(By the way, Pikemen and Musketmen have the same combat strength against Mounted Units.)

Though it is true that Musketmen stand up to Lancers, Lancers have no natural enemies.
They can go into battle without fear and inflict more damage to enemies except for some UUs.
I think Tercios maintain thrilling tactical battles in the Renaissance Era.

Funak · Apr 21, 2015

yrug1o9l said:
Because I wanted to compare Mounted Units to Anti-Mounted Units and Tercios were not common for Civs.
(By the way, Pikemen and Musketmen have the same combat strength against Mounted Units.)

Though it is true that Musketmen stand up to Lancers, Lancers have no natural enemies.
They can go into battle without fear and inflict more damage to enemies except for some UUs.
I think Tercios maintain thrilling tactical battles in the Renaissance Era.

Lancers gets no defensive bonuses, if they go into battle without fear they'll get blasted to bits. Tercios just aren't necessary, they are better off as super-strong uniques that you can get from city-states.

Unit Tree Image

Prince

Deity

Prince

Prince

Prince

Lord of the Community Patch

Prince

Deity

King

Lord of the Community Patch

Deity

Lord of the Community Patch

Deity

King

Lord of the Community Patch

Prince

Chieftain

Deity

Chieftain

Deity

Similar threads