Do you like the Modern / Atomic / Information era split?

[JaGarLo]

Title says it all: do you like the current tech tree for the late-game? If not, how would you like to change it?

[jjkrause84]

Personally I think the entire tech tree is slanted too much to the 'modern' age. I can't stand 'maxing out' on units at turn 350 or 400. I would scrap a bunch of the late "non-ages" and beef up the classical, medieval and early modern ages.

[Nyanko]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

Personally I think the entire tech tree is slanted too much to the 'modern' age. I can't stand 'maxing out' on units at turn 350 or 400. I would scrap a bunch of the late "non-ages" and beef up the classical, medieval and early modern ages.

I dont think so personally. I find the modern game far more fun to play than the ancient game, at least warfare wise. I think its a good balance at the moment

[FeiLing]

Two things are bothering me:
a) Great War Infantry (Str 50) --> 1 tech later --> Infantry (Str 70)
Seriously? Seems so pointless.

b) I hate that a Science and Diplomatic Victory are basically the same (tech and date wise), the later just requiring some more gold. A simple fix would be to switch Particle Physics and Nuclear Fusion like this:

Current:


Better:


The prerequired techs make much more sense this way and I like that it puts science and diplomatic victory dates at least a few turns more apart.

[Bakspatel]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

Personally I think the entire tech tree is slanted too much to the 'modern' age. I can't stand 'maxing out' on units at turn 350 or 400. I would scrap a bunch of the late "non-ages" and beef up the classical, medieval and early modern ages.

I second that.

[KillingMeSoftly]

So far the only thing that really bothers me about the new Tech tree is Great War Infantry being so close to Infantry.

[thadian]

I am glad to have a "real modern age" of eras but now we need a "real future age" of eras, think old call to power with the genetic age and diamond age.

[Kwami]

Originally Posted by FeiLing

Two things are bothering me:
a) Great War Infantry (Str 50) --> 1 tech later --> Infantry (Str 70)
Seriously? Seems so pointless.

This sort of thing happens all over the tech tree. There never seems to be enough techs in between unit upgrades. That's why I play on Marathon, but I understand why many others wouldn't want to do so. I think that we just need a larger tech tree!

b) I hate that a Science and Diplomatic Victory are basically the same (tech and date wise), the later just requiring some more gold. A simple fix would be to switch Particle Physics and Nuclear Fusion like this:

The UN requires 56 techs. The spaceship parts require 73 techs. That's a pretty big difference.

[Jabberwockxeno]

I'm not that fond of the world war split.

Yes, we needed more modern units, but for AFTER the world wars.

For most of the game/most part (Chariot Archer, and everything leading to muskets nothwithstanding, due to firearms being melee weapons in the game, more on that later), you have a logical progression of the advancements of warfare.

Clubs to swords to longswords and such, spears to pikes (though there is no matching unit for the start of the gunpowder era, should be fixed. ), Simple bows to composites and crossbows, etc.

However, once we get to firearms, everything gets wonky. Rightfully so, since the introduction of a weapon that took relatively no skill to wield to fufil a wide range of combat types shook up all of warefare, but for gameplay it should still follow a path. Personally, I think the spearman line should get a fortification/defensive bonus when not being the attacker, and have the pikeman either be the ressinance version and add a new middle age version, or make a ressiance one and keep the pikeman as a middle age unit, and have them upgrade to the gattling gun or a mass volley unit of muskets, a lot of it is because spearman is in ancient not classical, but whatever. IDW about chariot archers.

Back on topic:

Anyways, you can see the clear progression in eras of wars: Clubs, spears, and simple bows, swords, spears, and complex bows, Mounted soliders, pikeman, longswordsman, and crossbows, what should be pikeman and early muskets and cannons, rifles, Calvary, early cased firearms, etc.

Each of the above represents a major shift in the way war was preformed, and the tools used.

Not so for world war one and two.

Both used more or less the same type of gun, of the same technological level, with the same intent and role, more or less the same infantry tactics, same visual style, etc. Not enough changed to warrant a whole new set of units.

I don't mind, of course, but it's annoying to have the units for like 5 turns and then it's out of date.

On the other hand, we REALLY could have used a pre-modern era but post world war era unit set.

After Gods and Kings:

Muskets > Early non cased rifles > mass produced bolt actions > Mass produced bolt actions and MAYBE the equalivent to the modern day semi auto marksman rifle > Presumably AK 103's and SCARs.

Not great, but passable.

It SHOULD be:
Muskets > Early non cased rifles > mass produced bolt actions(world wars) > automatics (vietnam/cold war era) > modern day

[n00bxqb]

Globalization and Stealth (which have already happened) and Nuclear Fusion on the same level seems very off to me ...

I'd like to see a Future Era, in which the technologies that are not yet possible in real life can be obtained, on top of the Information Era.

As for the Great War Infantry vs. Infantry, you're looking at early-1900s firearm technology vs. mid-1900s firearm technology.

As the 20th century opened, the world experienced two of the deadliest and most destructive wars in human history. It was a time of remarkable advancement in the technology of killing, and the infantrymen of World War I faced every conceivable terror the world's scientists and engineers could throw at them. Typically armed with little more than a bolt-action rifle and a simple uniform, these troops braved the horrors of trench warfare to defend their homes and families.

The infantryman of World War II was typically armed with a semi-automatic rifle similar to the M1 Garand and might carry one or more grenades. His only protective armor was a metal helmet which was mostly ineffective against direct gunfire, providing at best limited protection against shrapnel. The men on all sides were tough and resourceful and they died in the hundreds of thousands fighting for their homes and countries.

Bolt-Action Rifle vs. Semi-Automatic Rifle should be no contest as it is in the game.

[smallfish]

Yeah, Infantry... actually, Plastics as a whole tech should be pushed back to Atomic Era me thinks. Replace that gap with... Electronics.

(and +1 for Future Era. I want to see drone units and orbital bombardment platforms and shield generators and gauss guns)

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by n00bxqb

Bolt-Action Rifle vs. Semi-Automatic Rifle should be no contest as it is in the game.

Don't forget: the US was the only country to use a semi-automatic rifle as it's mainline infantry weapon....most nations used bolt action!

[n00bxqb]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

Don't forget: the US was the only country to use a semi-automatic rifle as it's mainline infantry weapon....most nations used bolt action!

I'm just going by the in-game description which states that Great War Infantry uses bolt-action rifles while Infantry uses semi-automatic rifles ...

[Jabberwockxeno]

Originally Posted by n00bxqb

Globalization and Stealth (which have already happened) and Nuclear Fusion on the same level seems very off to me ...

I'd like to see a Future Era, in which the technologies that are not yet possible in real life can be obtained, on top of the Information Era.

As for the Great War Infantry vs. Infantry, you're looking at early-1900s firearm technology vs. mid-1900s firearm technology.





Bolt-Action Rifle vs. Semi-Automatic Rifle should be no contest as it is in the game.

That's wrong though.

The US was the only country in the conflict that started out with a semi automatic rifle at the start of the war, and no other combatant used one as standard issue for the majority of the war.

It was only in the last 2 or 3 years that everyone actually started to supply troops with experimental versions of weapons designed to be used at closer ranges and not for long range accurate fire, as it was clear from late world war 1 and early WW2 that most engangements took place at close ranges, and they had weapons suited for over 400 meters.

Ironically, the OPPOSITE is happening today: So much development has been spent making weapons more and more compact since then, that the standard issue weapon is a carbine, and each squad only gets a designated marksman to take out targets past the 300m range IN THEORY.

When we invaded back in the early 2000's, guess what? They (Extremists/whoever) knew that and purposely targeted troops at distances that we weren't suited for.

[Jwallace]

I built a land ship once, because I'd never used them before. Of course, building != using, so it sat fortified until I later upgraded it.

[Esperr]

The modern techs should just do more in general. Computers should be huge, not just give me access to....a great firewall....

[OmniPotent42]

Yeah, I think the later eras need some fixing. I would definitely like to see more late-game units than those that just upgrade to Mechanized Infantry and Giant Death Robots. There needs to be a complete upgrade path for all units that doesn't negate promotions earned before.

[Piousflea]

The main problem with late tech in any Civ game is that by the time a military-oriented player reaches endgame tech, a Spaceship/Diplomatic/Cultural player has won the game 50 turns ago. For a player who's simply trying to win, there's no point in fighting an endgame war. Just turtle up and finish off that spaceship. That said, endgame wars can be a lot of fun so here's my take on them:

The WW1-and-later eras have a very intricate set of unit and counter-unit relationships, with aircraft versus AA guns, tanks versus helicopters, submarines versus airplanes and destroyers. Sadly, all of these tactical considerations are rendered moot by nukes and GDRs, which come just a few dozen turns after the WW2 stuff. GDRs are practically invulnerable against any unit except for nukes, and they are the only melee unit in the game that can attack-move into an equal-tech city without any help from siege units. GDRs cost few enough hammers that you can easily replace any that get nuked. Basically in a true endgame war whoever has the most Uranium wins. (By the way, why is uranium used for fusion power?)

My thoughts on endgame wars:
1) The years-per-turn should REALLY REALLY slow down at and after WW1-tech. There is no reason why destroyers and airplanes should take 6 years to cross an ocean, so one turn should represent a lot less time. It should take many more turns to advance from WW1 to WW2, and from WW2 to 2000.

2) We need distinct infantry roles, analogous to longswords vs pikes vs crossbows. Right now infantry in the WW1- and WW2- era are a confusing mess. The MG occupies a weird place in the tech tree where it is later and stronger than most other WW1-era units, but is earlier and weaker than WW2-units. The infantry/marine/paratroop all overlap each other, and then they are all obsolesced by the massively superior Mechanized Infantry.

IMO, the infantry balance could be maintained with something like this (WW1/WW2/2k):
Great War Infantry / Infantry / Mechanized Infantry: Standard infantry, weak vs tanks.

None / Paratroopers / Tilt-Rotor Infantry (Ospreys!): Ability to drop behind enemy lines. Can be intercepted just like bombers. If not intercepted they gain a stack of Fortify upon landing.

Machine Gun / Heavy Machine Gun / Close Air Support (infantry with AC-130 gunships overhead): Work like gatling guns, can attack without retaliation but are expensive and cannot take cities. Also should take extra damage from air attacks.

None / Bazookas / LAW Infantry: Extra damage vs tanks but much lower strength otherwise.

3) There should be a WW2 level of artillery that is halfway in between Artillery (WW1 strength) and Rocket Artillery (Info Era strength). Bring back Howitzers!

4) City defenses seem a lot weaker at the later eras. This is mainly because bombers can reduce a city to 1hp without putting any other units at risk. This is pretty silly, in WW2 many cities were bombed viciously for years and still put up a fight. Maybe bombers should only be able to reduce cities to 50% health, after which you still need artillery and infantry to finish the job. (Or a Nuke)

5) The "Future Tech" level of wars is stupid because GDRs obsolesce everything else. Either GDRs need to be removed or they need to add an additional tech level for future tech. Honestly I'd be fine with not having GDRs at all, this is Civ and not Starcraft or Alpha Centauri.

==========
Oh, and on a firearms and Great War Infantry note: the guns used in WW1 and WW2 weren't all that different. I think the British Lee-Enfield rifle was used in both. The main difference was support, supply and tactics. WW1 troops were dug into trenches without a whole lot of communications or support. WW2 soldiers drove around in jeeps and carried radios. They had the mobility to get to or away from a fight, and if faced with pockets of resistance they would call in support ranging from additional infantry to aerial or artillery bombardments. They also had better grenades and flamethrowers for bunker-to-bunker fighting.

Since the civ game is about massive-scale fighting, on a national scale WW2 infantry would definitely beat the tar out of WW1 infantry. It wouldn't even be close. 50 strength vs 70 strength is pretty appropriate.

[PhilBowles]

Well there is the semantic oddity that the modern era comes before the others...

[Jabberwockxeno]

NOTE: VARIOUS THINGS SNIPPED OUT:

Originally Posted by Piousflea

2) We need distinct infantry roles, analogous to longswords vs pikes vs crossbows.

3) There should be a WW2 level of artillery that is halfway in between Artillery (WW1 strength) and Rocket Artillery (Info Era strength). Bring back Howitzers!

4) City defenses seem a lot weaker at the later eras.

5) The "Future Tech" level of wars is stupid because GDRs obsolesce everything else. Either GDRs need to be removed or they need to add an additional tech level for future tech.

==========
Oh, and on a firearms and Great War Infantry note: the guns used in WW1 and WW2 weren't all that different. I think the British Lee-Enfield rifle was used in both. The main difference was support, supply and tactics.

I love you.

Every point you make is 100% correct, AND you have a halo related username.
Though I don't exactly agree with the precise things you suggest.

More or less, everything you have in bold I totally agree with, as individual statements.

On WWI vs. WW2: Absoutly, the main change was the fact that WWI was a very placid, calm before the storm type of war. I think, ironically, Red vs. Blue puts it best:

[Y.OUTUBE]9BAM9fgV-ts&t=0m57s[/YOUTUBE] The jump to second thing doesn't work in embed videos, I was talking about the "The only reason we have a base over here is because they have a base over there..." line.

The issue is that tactics don't translate well on a unit to unit basis, as that's up to the player.

The most you could do is to give one a defensive bonus.

I'll go in detail as to what I think should happen later.