[Vote] (6-42) Recon Unit Line Reworks

[Tekamthi]

*and then it disappears at the very least desirable moment...

in v2 of the modmod via which this was developed, it was lost only on upgrade. Personally I found this made scout feel like a bit of a downgrade, and moved to the temp timer. By turn 20 it strikes me that all the early recon units have done what they need to do, balance-wise.

I think the issue with my proposal here is moreso it leaves recon a little bland, without additional changes; the fast forest recon may be jarring in some respects, but it is fun

 

[Rekk]

'ignore terrain cost' on a unit that travels on foot is a much bigger kludge, but well tolerated. Reducing its effects to 20 turns, by definition, is a great reduction in kludginess

I completely disagree. I think Ignore Terrain Cost is quite thematic for a unit designed to move expertly through terrain in comparison to its more regimented contemporaries.

 

[Tekamthi]

I completely disagree. I think Ignore Terrain Cost is quite thematic for a unit designed to move expertly through terrain.

you voted for it to be removed in round 1 of VP congress. I've pulled over the previous winning proposal, for reference:

Spoiler :

Proposal Details
This is a counterproposal to @ilteroi's proposal for removing double movement abilities from the scout line.
His proposal adds % withdraw chances as recompense for the lost double movement abilities. Withdraw chances have already been removed from the scout line in the past, because they were random chance mechanics and unpopular with certain members of the community.

Here is what I propose:
All Recon Units have base 3 moves and lose "Ignore Terrain Cost" (affects Pathfinder, Scout, Paratrooper, Special Forces, XCOM. Explorer and Commando are Unaffected)

• Trailblazer 1:
  • +1 Sight.
  • Ignore movement penalties on forest, jungle, and hills.
• Trailblazer 2:
  • +1 moves.
  • Ignore movement penalties from desert, snow, marshes, and rivers.
  • no penalty for attacking over rivers.
• Trailblazer 3:
  • Ignores ZOC.
  • Can cross mountains and embark
  • +20% CS Outside friendly territory.

Other promotions:

• Scouting 1(Available at TB 2 and Survival 2): +1 Sight
• Scouting 2: +1 moves
• Scouting 3: removed
• Frogman (New promotion):
  • Available at TB III
  • Costs 1 Move to Embark and Disembark
  • No penalty to attack from embarked
  • +50%defense when Embarked

Recall that this proposal suggested "All Recon Units have base 3 moves and lose "Ignore Terrain Cost""; wherever the winning proposal suggests "ignore movement penalties from", we can replicate this functionality almost exactly with a double move bonus -- the difference will be a hilled forest/jungle/desert will cost 1.5 MP instead of 1.

edit: I've implemented the winning congress proposal from round 1 as modmod -- it works ~99% as intended by that proposal.

 

[Rosete]

I voted Nay. I think the scout is good as is. I don't think there is even a problem with the scout line. Scouts faster on certain terrain than on plains is not a problem. Scouts faster than mounted units is not a problem. Scouts ignoring ZOC is not a problem.

I like my scouts to be fast, to "ignore terrain cost" and to ignore ZOC. If I baby it well it becomes a strong support unit, but never strong enough to be on the front line. The current scout can accomplish all of this, and these proposals would break this.

 

[azum4roll]

With 6-42a as the early frontrunner (not counting the nays), I think it's worth noting that AI is not good at picking terrain specializations, as is implied by that proposal. ie when AI gets to the trailblazer leaf promotions it's just gonna pick the first one in the list.

What I've done when modding similar terrain specializations, is restrict their choice to only the promo that represents the most abundant type in their owned territory. Presumably this could be done dynamically so after one trailblazer leaf is chosen, the next most abundant is the only one available, etc.

I'm curious, for those voting nay and only nay, what is it that none of these proposals accomplish, in your view? Or is it simply a 'no change needed' vote?

To me, the current iteration is perfect and nothing needs to be changed.

 

[adan_eslavo]

I voted Nay. I think the scout is good as is. I don't think there is even a problem with the scout line. Scouts faster on certain terrain than on plains is not a problem. Scouts faster than mounted units is not a problem. Scouts ignoring ZOC is not a problem.

I like my scouts to be fast, to "ignore terrain cost" and to ignore ZOC. If I baby it well it becomes a strong support unit, but never strong enough to be on the front line. The current scout can accomplish all of this, and these proposals would break this.

How would 6-42b break the thing? It was supposed to give even more variety and freedom for the Scouts... But I feel that people just vote Nay because either they do not want any changes, if they are big overhauls/small tweaks, or only overhauls, but because it is hidden tightly in between... then it gets lost.

6-42b touches only water tiles, and gives a unit a freedom on choice to move faster on desert/snow or water, depending on the map type, terrain youget etc. without waiting for the tech. I don't know why we should restrict Scouts to the tech tree...

 

[Tekamthi]

But I feel that people just vote Nay because either they do not want any changes, if they are big overhauls/small tweaks, or only overhauls, but because it is hidden tightly in between... then it gets lost.

We have a few voices emerging about this topic -- one of these being that things are just fine! Personally, I think at the very least some small, incremental tweaks are in order, though these weren't well captured this round -- yours being the only one of the bunch that took this approach. As far as movement goes, for a long time I agreed with the no-change perspective; most of my early projects with recon focus on other things. Of the 71% that voted for the round 1 proposal, I was not one of them -- in fact I was a nay-only back then! (now an all-but-nay)

Anyway, barring any major reversals, I think we're sticking with status quo for now. For anyone that's interested in this topic, but perhaps lacking familiarity with relevant tables or civ 5 modding in general, I will help create worthwhile and well-supported ideas as modmods for you and others to workshop further, provided you are committed to doing so. If interested, create a thread in modmod subforum and @ me in your OP

 

[adan_eslavo]

We have a few voices emerging about this topic -- one of these being that things are just fine! Personally, I think at the very least some small, incremental tweaks are in order, though these weren't well captured this round -- yours being the only one of the bunch that took this approach. As far as movement goes, for a long time I agreed with the no-change perspective; most of my early projects with recon focus on other things. Of the 71% that voted for the round 1 proposal, I was not one of them -- in fact I was a nay-only back then! (now an all-but-nay)

Anyway, barring any major reversals, I think we're sticking with status quo for now. For anyone that's interested in this topic, but perhaps lacking familiarity with relevant tables or civ 5 modding in general, I will help create worthwhile and well-supported ideas as modmods for you and others to workshop further, provided you are committed to doing so. If interested, create a thread in modmod subforum and @ me in your OP

Yeah, I guess I will have to modmod that and play, because there are little to no chances for it to be upvoted.

 

[adan_eslavo]

@Tekamthi Maybe you will be interested:

Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.

discord.com

 

[Tekamthi]

@Tekamthi Maybe you will be interested:

Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.

discord.com

View attachment 676624

excellent -- I've had trouble joining the discord when i've tried in the past. Probably an issue on my side, can someone send me invite tekamthi#8912

 

[adan_eslavo]

excellent -- I've had trouble joining the discord when i've tried in the past. Probably an issue on my side, can someone send me invite tekamthi#8912

Dołącz do serwera Official Vox Populi Discord na Discordzie!

Zobacz społeczność Official Vox Populi Discord na Discordzie – rozmawiaj z 877 innymi członkami i korzystaj z darmowego czatu głosowego i tekstowego.

discord.gg