juanpavo
Warlord
Yes, this sums it up for me.
Firaxis Livestream tomorrow, Thursday. Sep 22nd at 2pm ET: Rome & Kongo
- Thread starter SupremacyKing2
- Start date
Yes, this sums it up for me.
George Abitbol
Prince
In the very first previews I thought Heavy cavalry was melee and Light cavalry was ranged, so I imagined it would give Something like:
Horseman > Knight > Cavalry > Tank > modern Armor
and
Chariot > Horse Archer > Dragoon? > Armored Car > ???
But since we don't have these last units in the game, I don't know the difference between light and heavy.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Heavy cav: ignores ZOC
Chariot-Knight-Tank
Light cav: ?faster movement?flank bonus?
Horseman-Cavalry-???
Horse Archer is for barbs and UU
Chariot-Knight-Tank
Light cav: ?faster movement?flank bonus?
Horseman-Cavalry-???
Horse Archer is for barbs and UU
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
The only ranged cavalry we have seen have been unique units. The game seems to cycles between heavy and light cavarly. We do know that heavy cavalry ignore zone of control but we do not know if light cavalry have other special abilities but they probably does.
Infantry seems to cycle between resourceless anti cavalry and resource needing melee infantry (anti anti cavalry)
Ranged units seems to cycle between light units and heavy artillery.
This however seems to apply only in the earlier eras.
Many civilizations get unique unit which do not replace a unit and give the civilization a unit type that do not generally exist in that era like Japan get the samurai which is a melee unit in the medieval era whose normal infantry unit is the pikeman. This give Japan a huge advantage because the samurai counter pikemen very well.
I think the infantry line is something like this: Warrior-Spearman-Swordman-Pikeman-Musketman-Infantry (as anti cavalry become support)-Mech infantry (maybe?)
The cavalry line: Heavy Chariot-Horseman-Knight-Cavarly-Tank-Helicopter (maybe it is own category but it fits well between the tanks as a light cav)-Mech infantry (maybe?)-Modern Armor
The ranged line: Slinger-Archer-Catapult-Crossbow-Bombard-Ranger (could be consider to be a scout)-Field Cannon (maybe it is a light ranged unit)-Artillery-Machine Gun-Rocket artillery
Some eras do seems to lack a some unit types like no renaissance cavalry. This could be explaind to the corps and army system get unlocked around that time.
Infantry seems to cycle between resourceless anti cavalry and resource needing melee infantry (anti anti cavalry)
Ranged units seems to cycle between light units and heavy artillery.
This however seems to apply only in the earlier eras.
Many civilizations get unique unit which do not replace a unit and give the civilization a unit type that do not generally exist in that era like Japan get the samurai which is a melee unit in the medieval era whose normal infantry unit is the pikeman. This give Japan a huge advantage because the samurai counter pikemen very well.
I think the infantry line is something like this: Warrior-Spearman-Swordman-Pikeman-Musketman-Infantry (as anti cavalry become support)-Mech infantry (maybe?)
The cavalry line: Heavy Chariot-Horseman-Knight-Cavarly-Tank-Helicopter (maybe it is own category but it fits well between the tanks as a light cav)-Mech infantry (maybe?)-Modern Armor
The ranged line: Slinger-Archer-Catapult-Crossbow-Bombard-Ranger (could be consider to be a scout)-Field Cannon (maybe it is a light ranged unit)-Artillery-Machine Gun-Rocket artillery
Some eras do seems to lack a some unit types like no renaissance cavalry. This could be explaind to the corps and army system get unlocked around that time.
Olleus
Deity
I dont think spears upgrade to swords, that would be weird. I think the unit upgrade paths are:
Warrior (A) ->Swordsman (C)-> Musketman (R) -> Infantry (Mo) ->Mechanised Infantry (In)
Spearman (A)->Pikeman (M) ->Musketman (R) ->See above
Slinger(A) ->Archer (A) ->Crossbowman (M) -> Machinegun (Mo)
Catapult(C )-> Bombard (R) -> Field Cannon (I) -> Artillery (Mo) -> Rocket Artillery (In)
The thing in the brackets is the era (Ancient, Classical, Medieval, Renaissance, Industrial, MOdern, ATomic, INformation)
Cavalry is harder to work out, I'd guess something like:
Heavy Chariot (A), Knight (M)->Tank (Mo) -> Modern Armour (In)
Horseman (C)-> Cavalry (I) ->?(Guess would be helicopter (At))
But that leaves HUGE gaps of up to 3 eras between upgrades. Them being in one line actually makes more sense, but it's kind of weird to switch unit types around like that...
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
My lines was not based on upgrades, they just simply bunch togther the two units categories into a single one.
I think field cannon may belong here. It make sense because field cannon is ment for the battlefield and it make sense to have the industrial ranged unit as a light ranged unit.
Olleus
Deity
Ah, I see. That makes more sense, everything is more evenly distributed that way. Although in that case then I think machine gun will probably be a support. Not only does it make sense thematically, it also gives a choice of modern support between anti tank/bazooka, anti air and machine gun (anti infantry).
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
(looking at the tech tree on Ariochs site)
bombard to field cannon is what? One tech? Late Renaissance (Bombard) direct to Early Industrial (Field Cannon). That would be poor placement if they were in the same line, so yeah, probably right that they are not the same unit types.
Also, Metal Casting (bombard) seems to require 2 Crossbowmen for the Eureka while Ballistics (field cannon) requires 2 forts in your territory.
Seemingly different purposes.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
There is a promotion for ranged units which give +10 strength if the ranged unit is in a fort or a district. Given that engineers instabuild forts that promotion can be pretty strong. The description for the catapult and bombard on the analyst site say that both are good against cities so catapult should upgrade to bombard.
It seems like the 3 major categories (infantry, ranged and cavalry) are each split into two sub categories, atleast for the early part of the game with a subcategory is only improved each second era.
It seems like the 3 major categories (infantry, ranged and cavalry) are each split into two sub categories, atleast for the early part of the game with a subcategory is only improved each second era.
Big J Money
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,030
Yes, I think we're going to be using war engineers, and thus forts, quite a bit in Civ VI. It's exciting to see the boring fort come alive finally.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Instabuild is a huge improvement for forts because battles may not last for long.
Im not sure what bonuses the light ranged units have if any but the heavy ranged units seems to get a bonus against cities. I could see that light ranged may be able to get terrain and fort bonuses while heavy may not get those.
Heavy cavalry speciality is to ignore zone of control while light cavalry likely have some unkown advantage.
Anti cav get bonus against cav while melee infantry get bonus against anti cav.
Im not sure what bonuses the light ranged units have if any but the heavy ranged units seems to get a bonus against cities. I could see that light ranged may be able to get terrain and fort bonuses while heavy may not get those.
Heavy cavalry speciality is to ignore zone of control while light cavalry likely have some unkown advantage.
Anti cav get bonus against cav while melee infantry get bonus against anti cav.
Big J Money
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,030
Maybe light cav will typically have 1 higher movement, or can attack then move, or that chance of automatic retreat? It's a bit strange because I think light cav should be the one to ignore ZOC to quickly move past infantry to strike the back lines, while heavy should have a bonus vs. the swordsman line, and/or bonus vs. light cav.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Move after attacking would be good for light cav, heavy cav ignore zone of control make them feel powerful because infantry don't dare to stop them but after they have attacked they are stuck in place while light can hit and run.
Both tank units are likely heavy cav so they should also ignore zone of control.
Both tank units are likely heavy cav so they should also ignore zone of control.
SMcM
Emperor
The point is to win, not specifically to win a religious victory. Victory type does not matter. Kongo is better at achieving other victory types at the expense of missing out on this one victory type. This upsets you maybe, but I actually really like this. Firaxis will clearly have tested Kongo, and they must have decided that the Civ did not feel under-powered.
Including Aztecs, we have 19 civs in the game. 18 of these can win win 5 victory conditions, and 1 can win 4. So, instead of being able to win to win the game in 90 different ways, you can win it in 89 different ways. Is that really such a big problem? Kongo is only a one off. The reduction in content is very minimal. I understand this could still be a bit irritating for a completionist, but there is no real reason it should be a problem in my view.
Yes, this is fair. What we want to avoid is under-powered Civs. If blocking one victory type does not make a Civ under-powered, I do not think it is a problem.
I would also agree that allowing Kongo to start religions anyway would not work.
Amrunril
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,236
To go back to the discussion of legacy bonuses earlier in the thread, I hope that they don't cap out as quickly as these calculations are indicating in the final game. The point of legacy bonuses is to encourage sticking with a government type for a long time, but if they stop increasing before you unlock new government tiers, the incentive will actually be to do the opposite.
One interesting point that I haven't seen discussed yet is the option to directly build corps and armies. At first, this seems like a simple quality of life option to reduce micromanagement. On closer inspection, though, it's actually cheaper to build corps this way than by combining units (in the build screen, an infantry unit had a build time of 19 turns, compared to only 29 for a corps and 43 for an army). This means that while corps have been described so far as being created by combining units, doing so will actually be an inefficient, situational option, while the norm will be to build them from scratch as if they're a completely separate unit type. It also means that splitting corps will likely be impossible, as otherwise you could get two units for the price of one and a half simply by building a corps and then splitting it.
One interesting point that I haven't seen discussed yet is the option to directly build corps and armies. At first, this seems like a simple quality of life option to reduce micromanagement. On closer inspection, though, it's actually cheaper to build corps this way than by combining units (in the build screen, an infantry unit had a build time of 19 turns, compared to only 29 for a corps and 43 for an army). This means that while corps have been described so far as being created by combining units, doing so will actually be an inefficient, situational option, while the norm will be to build them from scratch as if they're a completely separate unit type. It also means that splitting corps will likely be impossible, as otherwise you could get two units for the price of one and a half simply by building a corps and then splitting it.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
50 turns on quick is about 1/6 of the game. You have 9 different legacy bonuses so you can not max all out anyway.
I guess you may keep the experience and promotions if you combine an experienced unit with an unexperienced unit.
I guess you may keep the experience and promotions if you combine an experienced unit with an unexperienced unit.
Amrunril
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,236
You can't max out all of them (except possibly as America), but you're actively penalized for sticking with a single government type until it goes obsolete, which I had thought was exactly what legacy bonuses were meant to encourage.
True, that does make some sense flavor wise, and it's the only way I can think of for the uneven build costs to be balanced beyond the first round of integration.
shaglio
The Prince of Dorkness
While building a corp is more efficient, combining existing units (from before you tech corps) is certainly a viable option. And while building a corp just to split it into individual units is faster, building 2 units separately allows you to use the first unit sooner. Also, you can build units in 2 high production cities at the same time and then combine them.
Olleus
Deity
Do we know that we can split corps up?
When you combine two units with different promotions into a corp, what happens?
When you combine two units with different promotions into a corp, what happens?
Hakan-i Cihan
Emperor
I think that light cav should have both ignore zone of control and move after attack. They should be able to sneak behind enemy lines to attack weak ranged/siege units. Heavy cavalry will already have a higher strength in combination with ignore zone of control.
Was it mentioned anywhere already that corps/armies can be split up or is it just a guess?
Similar threads
