list of units neding buff

That's a limited situation, though, which relies upon not only reducing the city to rubble with bombers, but then ensuring that your Paratrooper doesn't get destroyed whilst it waits to take the city. This requires more air support. I mean, sure, it can be used for that purpose, and that's what it is best at, but that doesn't make it a very useful unit, especially if you're facing a fairly equally matched opponent.

True.

But isn't that what they're meant for? For taking lightly-defended cities or destroy strategic infrastructure? Maybe it's because I haven't played an even opponent in the modern era for a looonnng time.
 
Well, that's certainly what they are for now. Which is probably why they're in need of a buff. So they can have some other uses. :)
 
Well, that's certainly what they are for now. Which is probably why they're in need of a buff. So they can have some other uses. :)

The problem is that in real life, they're really not useful for much beyond what the game shows.
 
I don't think they're so useless in real life. The US has used the 18th Airborne Corps to get control of small countries in the blink of an eye many times over the last five decades or so. That's their role - shock troops. They specialize in airfield take-downs, deliberate raids and ambushes, hostage rescue, etc.

One simple buff to the paratrooper would be to enable worldwide deployment from your own capital. We're getting the modern era version of the paratrooper, so this is accurate - rapid deployment forces (RDF) capable of being anywhere in the world in 24 hrs. Now they have a solid game role, securing territory on a foreign continent. Of course this would require naval & air support and some follow-up forces from the homeland.

Think this would help the AI with overseas invasions? No longer could you build a couple of caravels and disband your military, confident that AI on another continent is no threat to you.
 
the scale of the game dictates that knights and cavalry be movement 3. Which kills their utility, which is the one thing they have going for them.
Amen to that. Mounted units flank and are used to mop up, and with 3-tile movement they end their turn wounded and exposed in the middle of the battlefield, ready for the slaughter. And the battlefield is usually the flank of a city under seige, dense with ranged and melee units that will cream them next turn.

In the end, you hoarde them and they're so situational that they're rarely used. Throw them into battle of necessity and cross your fingers between turns that the unit will still be there to retreat the next; or you might wound/pick off an occasional stray unit, then heal them 4-5 turns even for that foray.

For such an abundant and long-lasting resource, they've become far too marginal, and they're just not repaying their hammer investment. I'd say iron units pay back twice at least what you get from horses.
 
I haven't found a real use for ironclads so I would agree that they need something just to encourage building a few.


Cavalry - Again, I find them fairly useful for rapid response and potential upgrades to tanks. I like to build a half a dozen or so to start building promotions. Cavalry never really dominated the battlefield, especially after the invention of the bayonet and infantry square. It could help win battles but didn't just overrun things. As it is, it will overrun art or missile units. And it provides that extra bit of killing power on the flanks or to finish off a wounded enemy so you don't see him again. Which was its role for much of history in battle (beyond scouting & raiding).

What the heck are you talking about. Cavalry was EXTREMELY important. They went in first, slammed an infantry formation, then came back to strike again, while the allied infantry would setup and start to fire, meaning that the enemy infantry was a dead unit walking. Cavalry definitely need a bonus against infantry. If you were lucky enough to have a bayonet, maybe you could stab a horse, but you would still get run over because it had momentum and didn't die instantly.
 
Knights from the Feudal age get a lot of press but the general press is wrong on how they were used and how "useful" they were on horse.

In general, the most successful "knights" during the middle ages that actually fought on horseback were the Mongols who used the horse bow - not the charge.

And in Europe, by 1100, most knights preferred to fight dismounted with a polearm - not charging on horseback. Sorry to disillusion you but that reality. Especially after the appearance of disciplined such as English archers, Swiss Pikeman, and, in Northern Italy the infantry never did disappear, the Italian militia, the day of the charge dominating the battlefield never happened.

Between about 600 and 800 AD, Knights/Mounted forces dominated in Europe during the "raiding period" due to mobility, not effectiveness on the battlefield. And as Europe became organized, this mobility became less important. By 800 AD, the importance of the mounted troops was on the decline.

As far as Cavalry during the Napoleon period, please cite one creditable source of Cavalry riding down an infantry square without support from artillery or infantry. As far as I know, this happened exactly ONE time in a 60 year time period. Could Cavalry right down infantry in the open if it caught them by surprise? Absolutely. Was the common? No.

Much more common was the tactic of pinning the infantry in a firefight with infantry and having the Cavalry circle to the flank or rear to attack. When that didn't happen, as at Waterloo, the you get the following:


****
Wellington decides to make a tactical move and withdraw his infantry 100 yards to the rear behind the ridge line where they will be ordered to lie down to present less of a target to the French gunners.

Marshal Ney sees this and thinks that the British are retreating from the field altogether. He thinks that there is a golden opportunity for him to route the British army and win the day.

So he masses 5,000 of the French cavalry and attacks on a front of less than 700 yards.

Lancers, Hussars, and Cuirassiers charge into the British lines. This is a mistake. In Napoleonic warfare, cavalry charges are not normally made against infantry without the support of infantry.

The British artillery pour shot and shell into the French, while their infantry (who only retreated 100 yards) form square.

The British squares are hollow, 2 or 3 ranks deep with reserves in the center. The front ranks kneels with back ranks standing, with fixed bayonets. After firing off another round, the British artillerymen hastily retreat into the safety of the squares.

The French cavalry swarm past the guns and over the ridge only to be confronted by the squares.
The horses are unwilling to charge into a wall of bayonets, and merely end up circling the squares looking for an opening. The cavalrymen reach down with their sabers and lances to hack at the British. French losses are dreadful, but the squares hold.

The French retreat back over the ridge to regroup. As they pass the English cannon, they fail to either spike the guns or turn them on the British squares. Ney reinforces the cavalry with more cavalry failing to infantry or artillery support. Two more charges take place. Again, Marshal Ney reinforces with more cavalry and tries again with the same result, and the same mistakes being made.

Napoleon, observing the charge, comments that it has occurred at two hours too early but reinforces the cavalry with additional cavalry - failing to see the lack of infantry and artillery support. By now, over 10,000 sabers have been committed against the British squares.

After two more charges, the last "charge" being delivered at a walk, due to the churned up muddy ground, and the clumps of dead horses and men. The British hold, but the proud, magnificent French cavalry sustains unbearable losses with an estimated 5-6,000 losses.

And just as a note, horses WON'T RUN over someone with a long pointed stick aimed at them unless you have trained them for a LONG LONG time. And Cavalry after the war horses of the middle ages didn't get that kind of training. You can read a lot of first hand account of horses literally STOPPING in front infantry formations that had bayonets out or formed a square. And you can read a lot of accounts of the riders who tried to get them to "break into" that formation get thrown into those bayonets over the heads of those horses who stopped.
 
when it comes to cavalry and their '-50% vs. mounted units' I think the problem isn't the promotion, but which unit it's actually on.

I don't mind if Lancers have a bonus vs. Cavalry, but the bonus should be on the Lancer, not as a negative promotion on the Cavalry. (this will indirectly buff the usage of Lancers)

They can't have been that bad, where horsemen could gain a massive indirect bonus vs. them. Let alone the Knights.

As per cav vs. infantry, do remember that there's a promotion that only mounted units get. They can gain a bonus vs. weakened units, which is exactly what should happen. (ranged attacks/infantry engagement first, then cav)
 
MadDijinn's idea is a very good one. Lancers, both during the Medieval time period and Napoleonic time period, were the terror of other horse armed troops and weren't less effective against infantry. If needed, they would discard their lances and use other weapons.

Regarding Airborne. Airborne are light troops. You simply couldn't, and still can't, drop the heavy equipment that a regular infantry division uses for a an airborne division that actually paradrops. These units are already stronger than the normal infantry division - buffing them would make them close or equal to a mech division. They simply don't have weapons in that class.

As far as extending their or changing their drop range, that's a different debate. Anything you come up with is arbitrary (as is the five hexes) and is more a balance issue than anything else.
 
If melee units didn't have weaknesses, we'd be playing with only melee units every game. Maybe other units can be buffed a bit, but the current system isn't broken (well, the horrible AI and weird realtime MP are broken anyway, but that's beside the point).

Some melee unit weaknesses:
- no ranged attacks
- any attack on a city or other unit hurts the unit too
- take more hammers for less strength compared to horse units
- until late game, can only attack units next to it, or with only one open hex in between.
 
Well for Paratroopers I would
1. Increase their range to~8 (emphasizing their speciality)
2. allow attack after landing

For Ironclads
Allow movement over the Ocean. (maybe slow movement over the ocean)

For Cavalry/Lancers
Cavalry +1 Str, remove the -50% v. Mount
Lancers +50% v. Mount, reduce the Defensive penalty to ~15-30%

For Subs... make Destroyers require Oil (and give them their Sight bonus Back) so Subs are the resourceless navy

For GDR...Remove the Uranium Requirement (increase their cost to ~600)
 
What we get in exchange? +1-2 move and ability to move after attack... Not that cool actually

In the current 1UPT system, move after attack is extremely powerful to preserve units and stage the battlefield.
 
when it comes to cavalry and their '-50% vs. mounted units' I think the problem isn't the promotion, but which unit it's actually on.

I don't mind if Lancers have a bonus vs. Cavalry, but the bonus should be on the Lancer, not as a negative promotion on the Cavalry. (this will indirectly buff the usage of Lancers)

They can't have been that bad, where horsemen could gain a massive indirect bonus vs. them. Let alone the Knights.

As per cav vs. infantry, do remember that there's a promotion that only mounted units get. They can gain a bonus vs. weakened units, which is exactly what should happen. (ranged attacks/infantry engagement first, then cav)


The penalty against mounted that cavalry has is completely atroucious. You need a lot of positive modifiers only to make cavalry stand a chance against knights.

And rethinking mounted units promotions (as they made with choppers) around the bonus against wounded units and a second chain of promotions (better mobility, for example), instead of around terrain (as with melee units), would probably improve them. Then again, tank promotions should be changed too?


Well for Paratroopers I would
1. Increase their range to~8 (emphasizing their speciality)
2. allow attack after landing

No idea about the ranged thing (maybe they do need more range), but allowing attacking after landing may be too much. Allow attacking after landing, but with a penalty to CS, may be the right spot. That way they can get cities faster with heavy air support, and snipe down ranged units behind the enemy lines, aside from its only real use right now, which is destroying resource improvements (it is the best unit to do so, since the only other possibility are nukes...).

-------------------------------------

Thinking about how to solve mounted units: what would be the unfortunate consequences of a unit that ignores Zone of Control considerations?
 
Some body above said tanks weren't very good. Since they were buffed at the start of summer, they are now superb. A much better use of oil than bombers. 5 movements is massive, add to that the fact that they have the highest strength of that time and you get a beast of a unit. Don't even get me started on the Panzer. A handful of them can literally take out a couple of civilizations at tech parity like a knife through butter.
 
Paratroopers should not attack at the same turn as the drop. Realistically, paratroopers are vulnerable during/after the drop, and the defender has a chance to attack before the paratrooper.
For gameplay reasons, this is also ncessary. If you can just jump over troops and attack their ranged units directly is would be too easy and overpowering.

I think they are pretty okay as they are. They can pillage right after the drop, so you can use it to make the AI unhappy or destroy resources to gain an advantage. Maybe a promotion to strengthen the fortify-bonus, or to directly enable the fortify-bonus could be a way to make them better at their job.
 
Well for Paratroopers I would
1. Increase their range to~8 (emphasizing their speciality)
2. allow attack after landing

What about a chain of promotion giving

First: +1 range
Second: +1 range
Third: Can attack after landing
 
Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be allowing attack after landing with a penalty, but not on cities? So, they could attack other units after landing and receive a penalty similar to the amphibious penalty, but they wouldn't be able to attack cities.
 
As far as I can see, paratroopers have 3 uses:

1) Capturing islands without the hassle of building a navy
2) Giving the flanking bonus to friendly units by going around the rear
3) Blocking roads/railroads for a few turns to stop reinforcements

It is alright at 1; but as you're going to need land or see based artillery anyway to take that island, you might as well just embark and disembark. I could see it being very useful in archipelago maps where you can save a lot of time by not having to snake around. 2 is almost none existent as you will almost always have a front at least 2 tiles wide in front of any enemy unit to get the flanking bonus. Paratroopers simply aren't strong enough to do 3. No matter where you drop it to block a road you'll almost certainly be in range of a city which will do a lot of damage to it. If your paratrooper is strong enough to stop the reinforcements for even one whole turn, then the reinforcements simply werent strong enough to be worth stopping. Otherwise, it will die the turn it drops and will prove to be a very expensive, experience giving, speed bump.

That said, this is all fairly historical as paratroopers were never as used as the history channel seems to make it out. IMO, it would make more sense to have it as a promotion (same tier as amphibious) available after flight.

I can't think of any buff to paratroopers that would make them more useful, while not making them a standard replacement for either infantry, mech infantry or entirely useless.
 
On the problem that cavalry units with their 3 move end up exposed because of zones of control, I would suggest a general improvement on combat mechanics. What if melee units are given the option to either kill the target unit, which means they take the hex of that unit, OR they leave 1 hp on the target unit with the idea of just weakening them to the full extent possible, without having to commit into taking a hex that is more inside the enemy's lines?
 
I probably haven't mastered them but to me the fact they can't attack after dropping makes their special ability largely useless other than a means of redeploying infantry from one side of my empire to the other faster.

The ironclad seems useless.

It's really useful to drop in and take out enemy strategic resources, as you can raze improvements on the same turn as dropping.

The problem with this in my mind, is that when it's useful it can be dominant, but it's rarely useful (due to short range of paratroopers). In a recent game I started a modern war, dropped in and took out the other civ's source of Aluminum. War was basically over at that point, just a matter of cleanup....
 
Top Bottom