Vokarya's Workshop: Units

About units needing a new model: missile submarine and stealth submarine use the same model. And to tell the truth, attack submarine resembles more a missile submarine because you can see missile tubes on its back; here and here you can find some new models for missile subs if you want to change it. They look better to me, I've used them in a previous project of mine, although I think I remember I scaled them up a bit in size.
Also this one or this one could be a good model for one of the transhuman era fighters/bombers.
 
45°38'N-13°47'E;13172448 said:
About units needing a new model: missile submarine and stealth submarine use the same model. And to tell the truth, attack submarine resembles more a missile submarine because you can see missile tubes on its back; here and here you can find some new models for missile subs if you want to change it. They look better to me, I've used them in a previous project of mine, although I think I remember I scaled them up a bit in size.
Also this one or this one could be a good model for one of the transhuman era fighters/bombers.

I want to finish the cleanup first and see if the mod is still stressed. I'm still getting an error message on exit from the game, but that's only with the Megapack installed. I think I'm also going to need some time to field test the changes to the art def file and make sure I didn't mess anything up. I've found many unused models and a few unused art defines.
 
45°38'N-13°47'E;13175809 said:
Fusion Destroyers can't carry missiles anymore, while earlier destroyers can. I suppose we should give this ability to Fusion Destroyers too, right Vokarya?

I'll put it on my list of things to look at. My next build is going to be limited to the cleanup of artwork - I want to see how that goes before I do anything else.
 
Hello Vokarya. I upgraded all units of MegaCivPack to the latest revisions, and reviewing all the changes I've noticed something strange.

[*]Rifleman can upgrade to Mounted Rifleman

Normal Rifleman, and now their MegaCivPack versions, can be upgraded to Mounted Rifleman, but Redcoat (English U.U) can not.

It is intentional?
 
Hello Vokarya. I upgraded all units of MegaCivPack to the latest revisions, and reviewing all the changes I've noticed something strange.

Normal Rifleman, and now their MegaCivPack versions, can be upgraded to Mounted Rifleman, but Redcoat (English U.U) can not.

It is intentional?

Not intentional. I will fix that at some point. I'm running down a bug in my massively revised unit art definitions file.
 
I have the germ of an idea to share. I'm going to try and do some work on merging the various Mech units into the Tank line. The usual role for Mechs is to be the heavy assault that falls to Tanks in the late Industrial and entire Modern Era, so I think this is a natural progression. However, the first merge is going to be slightly reworking the Power Armor Infantry as an additional upgrade of Mech Infantry. I think the stats need to be adjusted in line with the Walker Mech as well.
 
When I was looking at the Power Armor Infantry and the Walker Mech, I noticed that the Walker Mech starts with Urban Tactics promotions, which are a bundle of bonuses that could also be granted directly by the XML code for the units. I think it would be better if we unrolled the bonuses, incorporated them directly into the unit, and dropped the promotions.

I think innate promotions should be avoided on generic units. For consistency's sake, a promotion that's given to one unit needs to be given to every unit down the line to avoid removing a capability from the unit for later.

Unique Units and certain special units (Crusader, Shaolin Monk) are okay with me to get innate promotions, as this encourages players to build/upgrade these units rather than skip them in favor of better units later with more XP. Later-era units almost always have more XP than early ones.
Certain promotions also have effects that are only possible with promotions, not with regular unit code. This includes Amphibious, Blitz, Commando, March, and Sentry. All Spy promotions are also in this category, so these have to be done with promotions (probably to allow it to be turned on/off with the Super Spies component).

Removing innate promotions would have an effect on four different units/pairs.
  • Explorer and Adventurer: These start with Guerrilla I and Woodsman I. This results in the awkwardness of having every future recon unit needing to start with these promotions. If we give them +25% hills/forest/jungle defense, I think that would be acceptable. It would be harder to get a Guerrilla II or Woodsman II double-move unit, but these units already ignore terrain costs, so they are going to get two moves anyway.

  • SR-71 Blackbird starts with Chaff (+15% evade intercept). Let's just up the evade rate from 50% to 65% and drop Chaff.

  • Assault Mech and Scout Mech start with Morale (+1 movement range). It would be much better off with giving Assault Mech move 3 and Scout Mech move 4. Morale is a fairly large investment to get, requiring either Kong Miao or a Warlord.

  • Walker Mech starts with Urban Tactics I and Urban Tactics II. This is equivalent to +45% city attack, +25% city defense, +10% vs. Gunpowder/Wheeled/Tracked/Clone units, and +15% vs. Siege/Helicopter. I don't think situational bonuses of less than 20% are worth including, so I think we can replace this with +50% city attack and +25% city defense.

The only downside I can see is that these bonuses might be too high if stacked with the equivalent promotion, but if it proves to be too much, we can always lower the bonuses. That's one problem with promotions: the bonuses can theoretically apply to any eligible unit.

Let me know what you think of this.
 
I put together some ideas so that we can start trying to clear up the Mounted units. Right now, they are still a hodge-podge of abilities from different sources. There are two lines I am looking to clear up: the Light Mounted line (Chariot, Horse Archer, Heavy Cavalry, Lancer, and Light Cavalry) and the Heavy Mounted line (Horseman, Heavy Horseman, Mailed Knight, Cuirassier, Cavalry). The Knight exists in a grey "medium" area. I'm lumping it in with the Heavy Mounted units for now.

All units in these two categories have the following in common:
  • Requires Horse
  • Speed 2 (exactly)
  • Doesn't Receive Defensive Bonuses
  • Immune to First Strikes
  • Terrain adjustments: -25% city attack and forest/jungle/peat bog attack, +25% grassland/plains/desert attack

What I found in looking at the units are the things that change from unit to unit:
  • Tech and resource requirements
  • Cost
  • Strength
  • Withdrawal chance
  • Units flanked
  • Combat bonuses vs. types
  • Some offbeat bonuses

This is the light mounted line:
Light Mounted Chariot Horse Archer Heavy Cavalry Lancer Light Cavalry
Era Ancient Classical Medieval Renaissance Industrial
Strength 4 7 10 18 24
Cost 25 60 100 160 240
Withdraw 25% 20% 10% 20% 40%
Flanks Cat/Treb Archery Cat/Treb/Bomb/Cannon Cat/Treb/Bomb/Cannon
Combat Bonus +100% atk vs. Axeman +50% atk vs. Cat/Treb +25% vs. melee +50% vs. melee, animal +50% vs. melee, animal, Cannon
Other Nonstandard terrain 1-2 first strikes
Ranged Atk (60%)

Chariot has a nonstandard terrain bonus: instead of the regular mounted unit package, it gets -25% forest attack and -50% jungle attack, with no penalties to bog attack or city attack.

This is the heavy mounted line (including the Knight):
Heavy Mounted Horseman Heavy Horseman Knight Mailed Knight Cuirassier Cavalry
Era Ancient Classical Medieval Medieval Renaissance Industrial
Resources Copper/Iron/Obsidian Iron Iron Iron
Strength 5 8 11 14 18-21 27
Cost 40 65 90 130 180 270
Withdraw 25% 25% 0% 0% 15% 30%
Flanks Cat/Treb Archery Cat/Treb Cat/Treb/Bombard Cat/Treb/Bombard/Cannon Cat/Treb/Bomb/Cannon
Combat Bonus +25% vs. Archery, Cat/Treb +25% vs. Archery/Melee +50% vs. melee, animal +50% vs. melee, animal, Cannon
Other 0-1 first strikes

I think the cost and strength curves are good, but what we need to establish are:
  • Withdrawal curve. It should definitely be higher for light mounted units than heavy, but the questions are:
    • Should Heavy Mounted units even get a withdrawal chance? Knight and Mailed Knight currently have no withdrawal.
    • Should we do a standard withdrawal chance for each unit in a line, or increase it as the eras increase? We should probably top out at 30% (I currently have Light Cavalry at 40%, but that was because Cavalry was 30%. I'd probably top Cavalry at 25% if we give Heavy Mounted any withdrawal).
  • Standardized flanking. We've got some siege flanking and some archery flanking, and it's on units in different lines. I think Heavy Mounted units should only flank Siege units. Do you think Light Mounted units should be restricted to flanking Siege units, or flank Archery/Gunpowder as well? If we do Archery flanking, then we should probably do Gunpowder for consistency's sake.
  • Standardized bonuses vs. enemy types. I think we can remove all of the bonuses against Animal units (the highest Animal strength is 4, so these units don't need a bonus against that). Gunpowder mounted units get a bonus against melee to cancel spears and pikes' bonus against Mounted. After that, I think bonuses should probably be limited to the flanked units, and maybe we don't even need that.
    • Knight, Mailed Knight, and Cuirassier get no bonuses against the units they flank.
    • Cavalry gets +50% attack vs. Cannon, but probably doesn't need it. In BTS, Cavalry is strength 15 and Cannon is 12. In AND, Cannon is raised to 16 but Cavalry is raised all the way to 27 - a bigger bonus in the Cavalry's favor.
  • Chariot thought #1: We should probably standardize this unit on the same terrain package as the other mounted units.
  • Chariot thought #2: What if we swapped the stats of Chariot and Horseman, making Chariot more expensive but stronger in the field and Horseman cheaper and weaker? I feel that Chariots have absolutely no lifespan and would like to see them get a little extra use.
  • First strikes. The only ones that currently have first strikes are the Horseman and the Horse Archer. I don't think these units really need it, if only the interest of consistency.

Let me know how all this sounds.
 
I think that the withdrawal chance for heavy cavalry should be eliminated. Primarily, light cavalry were skirmish troops that got their advantages from being able to turn around and regroup as soon as things turned sour. Heavy cavalry, on the other hand, was mostly used for shock value. They were generally held in reserve until the line was about to break, and then would deliver the final blow. Taking away their withdrawal chance both makes another difference between the two and makes the game a bit more historically accurate.
 
I put together some ideas so that we can start trying to clear up the Mounted units....

<snip>

I think the cost and strength curves are good, but what we need to establish are:
  • Withdrawal curve. It should definitely be higher for light mounted units than heavy, but the questions are:
    • Should Heavy Mounted units even get a withdrawal chance? Knight and Mailed Knight currently have no withdrawal.
    • Should we do a standard withdrawal chance for each unit in a line, or increase it as the eras increase? We should probably top out at 30% (I currently have Light Cavalry at 40%, but that was because Cavalry was 30%. I'd probably top Cavalry at 25% if we give Heavy Mounted any withdrawal).
  • I agree. No withdrawal for heavy mounted units. Non-decreasing withdrawal chance for light units. I agree that 40% is too high for inherent withdraw chance.
    [*]Standardized flanking. We've got some siege flanking and some archery flanking, and it's on units in different lines. I think Heavy Mounted units should only flank Siege units. Do you think Light Mounted units should be restricted to flanking Siege units, or flank Archery/Gunpowder as well? If we do Archery flanking, then we should probably do Gunpowder for consistency's sake.
    Archery/Gunpowder as well as siege would be quite interesting - as long as the units themselves are weak enough such that they don't become over-powered. Would the AI know how to use them? Mop up operations or promoted with Flanking to increase withdraw chance?
    [*]Standardized bonuses vs. enemy types. I think we can remove all of the bonuses against Animal units (the highest Animal strength is 4, so these units don't need a bonus against that). Gunpowder mounted units get a bonus against melee to cancel spears and pikes' bonus against Mounted. After that, I think bonuses should probably be limited to the flanked units, and maybe we don't even need that.
    Yes, animal bonus seems redundant.
    • Knight, Mailed Knight, and Cuirassier get no bonuses against the units they flank.
    • Cavalry gets +50% attack vs. Cannon, but probably doesn't need it. In BTS, Cavalry is strength 15 and Cannon is 12. In AND, Cannon is raised to 16 but Cavalry is raised all the way to 27 - a bigger bonus in the Cavalry's favor.
    • Yes I agree, the extra bonus seems redundant with these relative strengths.
    [*]Chariot thought #1: We should probably standardize this unit on the same terrain package as the other mounted units.
    [*]Chariot thought #2: What if we swapped the stats of Chariot and Horseman, making Chariot more expensive but stronger in the field and Horseman cheaper and weaker? I feel that Chariots have absolutely no lifespan and would like to see them get a little extra use.
    [*]First strikes. The only ones that currently have first strikes are the Horseman and the Horse Archer. I don't think these units really need it, if only the interest of consistency.
I think the horse archer should have a (two?) first strike. Don't normal archers also have some inherent first strike abilities? This makes the horse archer a little unique compared with the other light mounted units.
Let me know how all this sounds.

Great!
Hope my formatting works well enough to be legible.

Cheers! A.
 
Here's what I'm currently thinking:

First Strikes: Units that have a first strike are usually units that are trained to fire in a volley; Archers get this but Gunpowder units starting with Musketman do not. I don't think Horse Archers are organized enough to pull that off either.

Withdrawal: I'm thinking about making the withdrawal chances start at 0% for Heavy Mounted units, 10% for Light Mounted and Mobile Defense, and then increase by 10% for gunpowder units. So the first batch of Heavy Mounted units (Chariot, Heavy Horseman, Knight, Mailed Knight) have no withdraw, Cuirassier/Cavalry get 10%, Horseman/Horse Archer/Heavy Cavalry (really need to rename this) get 10%, and Lancer/Light Cavalry get 20%. If you want higher withdraw, you have to work for it, in terms of Flanking promotions. I think that gives a good curve.

Flanking: Heavy Horse gets changed to flank Catapult and Trebuchet, not Archery. I'll put Archery/Gunpowder flanking on the Light Mounted units. The strengths of the Archery/Gunpowder units are comparable to or better than the Light Mounteds available at the time: look at Horseman vs. Archer, Heavy Cavalry vs. Longbowman, Lancer vs. Musketman, and especially Light Cavalry vs. Rifleman.
 
It sounds very well for me, too. And for the renaming of Heavy Cavalry - maybe let's name them Hobelars? Or, if it is too specific, maybe Mounted Skirmishers? That could be a little too broad on the other hand, but I think it shows their role on the battlefield quite well. Or, given that it is from the same times as Knights and Mailed Knights, we could name them Pages or Squires, as the 'lighter form of knights', but they usually didn't fight on their own...
 
Sounds good to me Vokarya, I'm also thinking about a name for Heavy Cavalry but I can't come up with anything. I've found trooper somewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure it's a good name.
 
Okay, here it is: the rework of the Mounted Units. Starting with the Heavy Mounted line (saving the Light Mounted for the next post):

Chariot
This gets reworked heavily so as to be the heavy mounted unit of the Ancient Era.
  • Strength increased to 5
  • Cost increased to 40
  • Upgrades to Heavy Horseman, not Horse Archer
  • No withdrawal chance
  • Gets the standard terrain adjustments as other mounted units
Keep in mind in terms of cost, you have Wheelwright available to double your production. I think we will be seeing a lot more Chariots on the battlefield.
View attachment 374421

Heavy Horseman
Flanking and withdrawal modified to fit with other Heavy Mounted units.
  • Flanks Catapult and Trebuchet
  • No withdrawal chance
  • No bonus vs. Archery or Melee units
View attachment 374423

Knight, Mailed Knight
No changes at all. These units feel like the sun around which everything else revolves.

Cuirassier, Cavalry
I'm giving gunpowder mounted units a small withdrawal bonus compared to pre-gunpowder mounted units. It's much lower than it used to be.
  • Withdrawal chance lowered to 10%
  • No bonus vs. Animal units
  • Cavalry: No bonus vs. Cannon, Add Immune to First Strikes
View attachment 374422View attachment 374429
 
I think more real changes are involved with the Light Mounted units, giving them a more-defined role as skirmishers and flankers.

Horseman
This gets to be the weaker but cheaper mounted unit of the Ancient Era.
  • Lower Strength to 4
  • Lower cost to 25
  • No first strike chances
  • Ignores terrain movement costs
  • Withdrawal lowered to 10%
  • Upgrades to Horse Archer, not Heavy Horseman
  • No bonus against Catapult/Trebuchet
  • Gains Flank Attack against Archer
View attachment 374430

Horse Archer
  • No first strike chances
  • Ignores terrain movement costs
  • Withdrawal lowered to 10%
  • No bonus against Catapult/Trebuchet
  • Gains +25% vs. Archery units
  • Flanks Archer, Longbowman, Crossbowman
View attachment 374431

Rider (renamed Heavy Cavalry)
I'm going with Rider as the rename of Heavy Cavalry mostly as a throwback to Civilization III. In Civ 3, the Rider is the Chinese UU and a replacement for the Knight. I think it sounds good and is sufficiently short and generic that it can be used for any mounted unit, and the Heavy Cavalry is screaming for a name change. (I thought about Squire, but it sounds too European and it can't upgrade to a Knight.) Aside from that, the changes are fairly minimal.
  • Ignores terrain movement costs
  • Gains +25% vs. Archery instead of Melee
View attachment 374432

Lancer
The first gunpowder light mounted unit gets a couple changes.
  • Ignores terrain movement costs
  • Flank attack is against Longbowman, Crossbowman, Arquebusier, Musketman
  • No bonus against Animal units
View attachment 374433

Light Cavalry
Light Cavalry gets to come into its own as a gunpowder stack-attacker instead of a cheap version of Cavalry.
  • Immune to first strikes
  • Ignores terrain movement costs
  • Flank attack is against Arquebusier, Musketman, Grenadier, Rifleman
  • Withdrawal lowered to 20%
  • No bonus against Animals or Cannon
View attachment 374434

I think that should do it. Light Mounted units are now good scouts (ignore terrain movement costs) and can flank defensive units (Archery and Gunpowder). Heavy Mounted units are still your shock troops that can flank siege units. Elephants remain the heaviest of units, but they're slow.
 
Now for a question: does anyone have a good combat calculator for AND? There are several units that have really big modifiers against other units on top of a large Strength advantage (such as Machine Gun against Archery units). I'd like to clear out some of these bonuses if the bonus isn't tipping the odds very much to begin with. The chart here: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/combat_explained.php seems to show that once a unit gets about a 2-1 advantage, it's going to win 99% of the time. Given what we may have done to the DLL, is this still true?
 
I think I spent way too much time on that art reworking project (and it still might be bugged -- :() because I'm firing on all cylinders right about now with ideas.

One of the reasons I acquiesced to the Advanced Combat Mod was to put helicopters on carriers. I still don't think we should put missiles on Attack Subs, because that's what Missile Subs are for and I don't want to blur the lines between units too much. However, I definitely think that carriers should be able to handle copters. I'm taking away a little bit of the fighter capability to allow a small number of helicopters. Helicopter in this case is defined as SPECIALUNIT_HELICOPTER (which I just created), not necessarily UNITCOMBAT_HELICOPTER, so we can define other units as eligible helicopters.

View attachment 374441

The Early Carrier will not be able to handle helicopters, but the later ones will. Carrier gets 4 Fighters + 2 Helicopters, Supercarrier gets 6 Fighters + 2 Helicopters, and Fusion Carrier gets 8 Fighters + 3 Helicopters.
View attachment 374442View attachment 374443View attachment 374444

One drawback is that you cannot use helicopters that cannot enter ocean (the basic Helicopter and the Gunship) to attack enemy naval units on the ocean. I'd rather keep it this way to prevent ocean-going helicopters until the Transhuman Era.
View attachment 374445View attachment 374446
However, you can use them to attack coastal squares or land squares.
View attachment 374447View attachment 374448
 
Helos on carriers? Cool :cool:

Question: does the Cargo line of promotions affect the number of fighters or helos? Or both?
 
Top Bottom