C2C - Units

How about this ...

Ribauldequin
- Remove 50% vs Mounted
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Organ Gun
- Remove 50% vs Mounted
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Gatling Gun
- Reduce vs Mounted to 25%
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Machine Gun
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Vietcong
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Note these are directly from intlidave's ideas.

I don't mind keeping the inability to attack... I mean - they're supposed to be defensive (and thus able to fortify and get defensive bonuses!). If we allow them to attack, they should get a severe penalty to combat strength on Attack.

BTW: I'm not even sure we HAVE tags for Combat Modifier on Attack and on Defense. Do we have generic tags for these? If not, I think its critical we do!

Hydromancerx said:

How about this ...

Ribauldequin
- Remove 50% vs Mounted
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Organ Gun
- Remove 50% vs Mounted
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Gatling Gun
- Reduce vs Mounted to 25%
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Machine Gun
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Vietcong
- Remove the Inability to Attack

Note these are directly from intlidave's ideas.

Click to expand...

How do you plan to differentiate these units from the regular line of Gunpowder units if you remove the inability to attack? I think this line fills a specific role and I don't think we have another group of units that fills the same role.

Ok. So like make them be defense only, can defend and still remove the Mounted unit bonus? Sound good. I will post the infor in the other thread then.

Makes sense to me. I take it the Mounted unit bonus does grow as it evolves into Machine Gun right? I guess the slower ones probably don't have much cause to be so good against mounted and in fact mounted might be the best way to close the gap to take out the guys behind the guns until the rapid fire becomes truly rapid.

Thunderbrd said:

Makes sense to me. I take it the Mounted unit bonus does grow as it evolves into Machine Gun right? I guess the slower ones probably don't have much cause to be so good against mounted and in fact mounted might be the best way to close the gap to take out the guys behind the guns until the rapid fire becomes truly rapid.

Click to expand...

Yeah the older units just were not fast enough to shoot at mounted units. Which is why the benefits were either completely removed or reduced.

Hydromancerx said:

Yeah the older units just were not fast enough to shoot at mounted units. Which is why the benefits were either completely removed or reduced.

Click to expand...

But an organ gun was fast-- compared to others of its time. Not to mention the effect cannonbals raining donw might have on the horses mind.... it is hard to model mounted vs artillery with civ combat. If battles were actually played out ( thinking Total War series here) it would be easier: Cavalary riding straight at artillery means dead cavalary. Cavalary fllanking artillery means dead artillery.

Is a "combined arms" bonus possible? Like artillery gets a malus against mounted units if alone, but a bonus agaisnt them if in a stack with for example pikemen?

Apart from that: Machine Guns should keep the inability to atack. from their place in the tech tree they represent machine guns from the first maxim to WW I. And those were heavy, bulky and not meant for attacks.

Is a "combined arms" bonus possible? Like artillery gets a malus against mounted units if alone, but a bonus agaisnt them if in a stack with for example pikemen?

Click to expand...

Yes... working on it!

I have a game option to unveil that will be able to fully reflect this aspect of 'teamwork' among units but I've got some other things to do before its fully ready to go.

Il Principe said:

But an organ gun was fast-- compared to others of its time. Not to mention the effect cannonbals raining donw might have on the horses mind.... it is hard to model mounted vs artillery with civ combat. If battles were actually played out ( thinking Total War series here) it would be easier: Cavalary riding straight at artillery means dead cavalary. Cavalary fllanking artillery means dead artillery.

Is a "combined arms" bonus possible? Like artillery gets a malus against mounted units if alone, but a bonus agaisnt them if in a stack with for example pikemen?

Apart from that: Machine Guns should keep the inability to atack. from their place in the tech tree they represent machine guns from the first maxim to WW I. And those were heavy, bulky and not meant for attacks.

Click to expand...

What about this then? ...

- Ribauldequin = 5% vs Mounted
- Organ Gun = 15% vs Mounted
- Gatling Gun = 25% vs Mounted
- Machine Gun = 50% vs Mounted

Il Principe said:

Cavalary riding straight at artillery means dead cavalary. Cavalary fllanking artillery means dead artillery.

Click to expand...

Maybe change the flanking promotions at first? Like +10% Withdrawl Chance and +200% vs artillery"

Hydromancerx said:

What about this then? ...

- Ribauldequin = 5% vs Mounted
- Organ Gun = 15% vs Mounted
- Gatling Gun = 25% vs Mounted
- Machine Gun = 50% vs Mounted

Click to expand...

Faustmouse said:

Maybe change the flanking promotions at first? Like +10% Withdrawl Chance and +200% vs artillery"

Click to expand...

How about having both? That would reflect the multible ways to Cavalary vs rapid fire artillery could play out.
Although then I would up the MG to 60% or even70% since compared to all their predecessors they were much harder to flank.
Without taking flanking into account I would say

- Gatling Gun = 40% vs Mounted
- Machine Gun = 50% vs Mounted

since the increase in firering speed was not that great between those two, nor was the accuracy. But nevertheless they were far better then organ guns because they could keep up their rate of fire far longer.

Hydromancerx said:

Could you post them before you put them on the SVN? I would like to see your idea first. Maybe even tweak or add to it.

Click to expand...

Here's a draft of what I am looking at. I'm still trying to understand all the art files I am using before I even create the XML for the units.

Dragoon

• Tech requirements: Matchlock, Leadership
• Resource requirements: Horse, Firearms, Sulphur
• Building requirements: Horse Trainer
• Cost 250
• Strength 15
• Move 2
• 20% withdrawal chance
• +25% plains/grassland/desert attack
• -25% forest/jungle/swamp attack
• Starts with Commando
• Upgrades to Cuirassier or Lancer

The one issue that I have is classification. I am thinking about classifying Dragoons as a Gunpowder unit, not a Mounted unit, because Dragoons use their horses for mobility, not combat. I'm leaving in the terrain adjustments and Commando promotion since that's where the horse mobility would work even if the horses weren't riding into combat, but if I don't classify them as a Mounted unit, then I don't need to give them a bonus vs. Spear-line melee units.

The key point of Dragoons is that they do NOT have Doesn't Receive Defensive Bonuses, which is the hallmark of mounted units.

Lancer

• Tech requirements: Cavalry Tactics
• Resource requirements: Horse, Firearms, Sulphur
• Building requirements: Horse Trainer
• Cost 300
• Strength 18
• Move 3
• 15% withdrawal chance
• +25% plains/grassland/desert attack
• -25% forest/jungle/swamp attack
• +50% vs. Spearman/Pikeman/Heavy Pikeman
• +50% vs. Animals
• +50% vs. Mounted
• Flank attack against Catapult/Trebuchet/Bombard/Cannon
• Immune to first strikes
• Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
• Starts with Commando
• Upgrades to Cavalry

Lancers are Renaissance light cavalry. I am intending them to serve as a raiding and counter-cavalry unit; I want to leave the assault role to the Cuirassier, while the Lancers can be used to run down enemy cavalry or other units in your turf. Thus, they have move 3 and only Strength 18, but the +50% vs. Mounted makes them better than average against Cuirassier (27 vs. 21) and even odds against Cavalry.

Let me know if you have suggestions.

@Vokarya

First of all I think the Dragoon should be Mounted. I have seen painting of them charging into battle such as this British Dragoon and this French Dragoons.

Second perhaps all the mounted units should be separated into 2 classes. Such as a Horse Archer would be Mounted + Archery. Thus the Dragoon would be Mounted + Gunpowder.

3rd for constancy with the mounted units I think if its on a horse it should be counted as mounted.

Another issue is that I think that the Cuirassier should come before the Dragoon. Thus ...

Cuirassier -> Dragoon -> Calvary -> Trench Calvary

I see the Cuirassier as the 16th and 17th century type of unit. While the Dragoon is the 17th and early 18th century unit. Thus if I was making the unit I would have it ...

Dragoon
Graphic: ?
Icon: ?
Type: Mounted
Strength: 24
Movement: 2
Cost: 375
Req Tech: Flintlock AND Stirrup AND Calvary Tactics
Req Resource: Horse AND Firearms AND Sulphur
Req Building: Horse Trainer
Upgrades From: Cuirassier
Upgrades To: Calvary

Special Abilities

• Doesn't Receive Defense Bonuses
• Can Withdraw from Combat (20% Chance)
• +25% Grassland Attack
• +25% Plains Attack
• +25% Desert Attack
• -25% Jungle Attack
• -25% Forest Attack
• -25% Swamp Attack
• +50% vs Spearmen
• +50% vs Pikemen
• +50% vs Heavy Pikemen
• +50% vs Animals
• Flank Attack vs Catapult, Trebuchet, Bombard, Cannon
• Starts with Commando

-----

As for the Lancer I assume you mean this type. And not a unit with a Medieval "Jousting Lance" like the Heavy Calvary unit has. Thus more of a mounted unit with a polearm.

This is what I would change ...

Lancer
Graphic: ?
Icon: ?
Type: Mounted
Strength: 18
Movement: 3
Cost: 300
Req Tech: Stirrup AND Calvary Tactics
Req Resource: Horse AND Firearms AND Sulphur
Req Building: Horse Trainer
Upgrades From: Knight OR Mailed Knight
Upgrades To: Cavalry

Special Abilities

• Immune to First Strikes
• Doesn't Receive Defense Bonuses
• Can Withdraw from Combat (15% Chance)
• +25% Grassland Attack
• +25% Plains Attack
• +25% Desert Attack
• -25% Jungle Attack
• -25% Forest Attack
• -25% Swamp Attack
• +50% vs Spearmen
• +50% vs Pikemen
• +50% vs Heavy Pikemen
• +50% vs Mounted
• +50% vs Animals
• Flank Attack vs Catapult, Trebuchet, Bombard, Cannon
• Starts with Commando

-----

Lastly what unit graphics did you find for them?

OK, Dragoons will be Mounted; but their key distinguishing feature is that they are mounted infantry. They have to be able to get defensive bonuses. The other point is that I want a unit between Knight and Cuirassier. Thus Matchlock + Leadership prerequisites. I don't want the Dragoon to require Cavalry Tactics because they aren't using cavalry tactics. They ride to battle and dismount to fight. The technology requirements for a Dragoon are lighter than for the heavy cavalry, so they are a weaker unit to compensate; I think Dragoons are mid 17th-century and Cuirassiers in their current form are late 17th-century and later, so they can coexist. I also want to keep the heavy cavalry line as Mailed Knight - Cuirassier - Cavalry. I think that line still works, and I want to add units that fill other roles.

I don't know if double-unit classification works right now. If you can get it to work, then maybe, but right now, I'm not convinced that it is even a working element.

I'm not putting a Stirrup prerequisite on any cavalry unit after medieval, because it's redundant (Stirrup - Armored Cavalry - Chivalry - Cavalry Tactics). I think we need to clean up redundant unit prerequisites the way we cleaned up redundant tech prerequisites; it doesn't add anything to the game, and if you want a unit list by type, look it up on the unit categories page, not the tech page. In fact, I see putting redundant tech prerequisites on a unit as dishonest, because if you look up a technology and see units that you can't build because of other tech prerequisites, it's not fair to the player. For multiple techs that are not directly related, that has to be accepted, but for truly redundant techs, I want to take a scalpel to those techs.

@Hydro and Vokarya:

I like those two new unit ideas, but before you get too carried away remember that I need graphics to make any unit. Also, how would these units' roles be different from the Cavalry unit in the same era?

@Vokarya

1. Ok so it will work like the Mounted Infantry.

2. Cuirassiers according to wikipedia first appeared in 15th-century Europe and lasted all the way to the 19th century. However my impression was that we were using the early version of it in the 16th and 17th century where they wore armor like knights and had early firearms.

On the tree the Cuirassiers requires Calvary tactics which means if the Dragoon comes after it it needs to have it, unless its not an upgrade for the Cuirassier (which I think you are saying).

3. We can worry about double class later.

4. Oh I did not realize Stirrup was redundant. That means some later Calvary units don't need that tech requirement.

5. And yeah I think some early ships also have this problem of redundant tech requirements. Its really not their fault but a symptom of techs being moved around.

6. And do the graphics for these 2 units?

ls612 said:

@Hydro and Vokarya:

I like those two new unit ideas, but before you get too carried away remember that I need graphics to make any unit. Also, how would these units' roles be different from the Cavalry unit in the same era?

Click to expand...

I'm making the units. I have unit graphics and I'm working on buttons.

The Dragoon is going to use the British Light Dragoon from here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=15239

Its role is to serve as a Renaissance-era mounted infantry, so it lacks the usual Doesn't receive defensive bonuses that general Mounted units have.

The Lancer is going to use the Presidial Lancer from here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=220

Its role is to be a lighter Renaissance-era cavalry. It has the same requirements as a Cuirassier, but it is faster (Move 3 vs. 2), lower base Strength (18 vs. 21), and gets +50% vs. Mounted units, so it functions as a counter-attacker rather than an assault unit.

@Vokarya

Here are the Dragoon and Lancer button/icons from Age of Empire 3. Please use them since they will match the other AOE3 icon/buttons we already have on units.

Hydromancerx said:

@Vokarya

2. Cuirassiers according to wikipedia first appeared in 15th-century Europe and lasted all the way to the 19th century. However my impression was that we were using the early version of it in the 16th and 17th century where they wore armor like knights and had early firearms.

On the tree the Cuirassiers requires Calvary tactics which means if the Dragoon comes after it it needs to have it, unless its not an upgrade for the Cuirassier (which I think you are saying).

Click to expand...

The Dragoon comes BEFORE the Cuirassier, not after it (actually, I want the Dragoon to upgrade to Cuirassier or Lancer). I always thought the Cuirassier came later, once they had lost some of the heavy armor. Cavalry Tactics is in the middle of the Renaissance Era, so I think there is room for the Dragoon in the early Renaissance.

Hydromancerx said:

4. Oh I did not realize Stirrup was redundant. That means some later Calvary units don't need that tech requirement.

5. And yeah I think some early ships also have this problem of redundant tech requirements. Its really not their fault but a symptom of techs being moved around.

Click to expand...

I understand. I don't think anyone else takes as systematic an approach towards technologies/units/buildings/everything else as I do. There are several places where I would like to clean up unit prerequisites:

• Remove prerequisites that are flat-out redundant (Stirrup on a lot of later cavalry)
• Move units that require Siege Weapons Workshop to at least require Siege Warfare technology (Ballista lists only Ancient Ballistics tech, but requiring a Siege Weapons Workshop adds a hidden Siege Warfare tech requirement)
• Culture units need to account for both their original technology and the technology of their Culture wonder (Zulu Impi needs to list Warfare as a tech requirement because Warfare is required for Culture (Zulu))
• A few other minor inconsistencies (Ballista Mammoth doesn't require Siege Weapons Workshop, but Ballista Elephant does)

Hydromancerx said:

6. And do the graphics for these 2 units?

Click to expand...

I'm working on the graphics. As I said, I have the main unit graphics and I am just trying to figure out the animations and create buttons.

@Vokarya & ls612

I found a Heavy Currassier. Perhaps this should be added as well.