I hadn't made a Dragoon button yet. Here is the Lancer button that I made; I found a Lancer button in my collection of unpacked FPK units. Then I pasted a Spear weapon over the left side and filled in the shoulder. I like this Lancer because it looks like the other Civ4 unit buttons. What do you think?
C2C - Units
- Thread starter EldrinFal
- Start date
I hadn't made a Dragoon button yet. Here is the Lancer button that I made; I found a Lancer button in my collection of unpacked FPK units. Then I pasted a Spear weapon over the left side and filled in the shoulder. I like this Lancer because it looks like the other Civ4 unit buttons. What do you think?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Sub-Combat Class identifiers should be working completely as intended at the moment. There should be no concerns there but if, in use, we find any bugs, it could be helpful to know about them. Nevertheless, all my testing shows its completely functional.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Historically the Cuirassier came before the Dragoon.
Cuirassier = "Knights with Guns"
Dragoon = Napoleonic Wars
If we were comparing to Infantry units ...
Arquebusier = Cuirassier
Musketman = Dragoon
Rifleman = Calvary
Trench Infantry = Trench Calvary
Yeah that needs to be fixed.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
No offense but I think the AOE3 looks better. Plus its confusing enough with so many other buttons with Photoshopped Calvary buttons.
Arquebusier is not close to Cuirassier. Not the way the Tech Tree is currently laid out. Using my level scale: Matchlock (Arquebusier) is level 2 (Gunpowder - Matchlock). Cavalry Tactics is level 5 (Gunpowder - Divine Right - Leadership - Dueling - Cavalry Tactics). Flintlock is closer to Cavalry Tactics, and it's still only level 4 (Gunpowder - Metallurgy - Chemistry - Flintlock). Cavalry Tactics falls straight into the middle of the Renaissance Era. I think you're placing the Cuirassier too early, and I really think Dragoon should be allowed to be before it.
I don't like that Lancer button for two reasons; it looks like the Lancer is wearing armor (which my suggested Lancers aren't), and I can't even tell that the unit is supposed to be a Lancer. I don't mind several buttons that look similar; I think it makes it easier to tell what the unit is supposed to do without having to think about it too much.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@Vokarya
I was actually hoping to use that Lancer model for a California culture. Here is what a lancer unit looks like in AOE3. And here is a Dragoon. I would like them to be like these units.
I also don't think the Cuirassiers are too early. Your Dragoon would be too early. The earliest it can be is late 17th Century, while the Cuirassiers could be as early as the 15th century. However we still have to follow our own tech tree limitations. Which is why I wanted the Dragoon to be between the between Cuirassier and the Calvary.
I was actually hoping to use that Lancer model for a California culture. Here is what a lancer unit looks like in AOE3. And here is a Dragoon. I would like them to be like these units.
I also don't think the Cuirassiers are too early. Your Dragoon would be too early. The earliest it can be is late 17th Century, while the Cuirassiers could be as early as the 15th century. However we still have to follow our own tech tree limitations. Which is why I wanted the Dragoon to be between the between Cuirassier and the Calvary.
Spoiler :
@Vokarya
I was actually hoping to use that Lancer model for a California culture. Here is what a lancer unit looks like in AOE3. And here is a Dragoon. I would like them to be like these units.
I also don't think the Cuirassiers are too early. Your Dragoon would be too early. The earliest it can be is late 17th Century, while the Cuirassiers could be as early as the 15th century. However we still have to follow our own tech tree limitations. Which is why I wanted the Dragoon to be between the between Cuirassier and the Calvary.
Spoiler :
I don't agree with that Dragoon idea. We don't need a unit between Cuirassier and Cavalry. They are already close enough together; Cuirassier is mid-Renaissance, Cavalry is early Industrial. What I am trying to create is an upgrade of the Mounted Infantry, and that's what historical dragoons are.
I also think that our Cuirassier is much later than what you think it is. Cavalry Tactics shows up closer to Nationalism and Colonialism, so I think it's pushing into the 1700's. If you want an Early Cuirassier somewhere, you could do that. Maybe what we need is a correspondence between columns on the tech tree and years?
How about we use the current Cuirassier graphics for the new Dragoon and this for the current Cuirassier?
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@Vokarya & ls612
It might not be a bad idea.
Ok then how about we put the new Cuirassier at like Armored Cavalry AND Matchlock with the new graphic like ls612 suggested. This would not longer link it to Calvary Tactics.
What do you guys think? It would still keep the Dragoon between the Cuirassier and Calvary, but would still give them more time. Perhaps even the Cuirassier could exist at the same time as the other Heavy Calvary and then the Mailed Knight could upgrade into the Dragoon instead of the Cuirassier. Much like how the Arquebusier co-exists with other armored infantry before they upgrade into the Muskemen.
It might not be a bad idea.
Ok then how about we put the new Cuirassier at like Armored Cavalry AND Matchlock with the new graphic like ls612 suggested. This would not longer link it to Calvary Tactics.
What do you guys think? It would still keep the Dragoon between the Cuirassier and Calvary, but would still give them more time. Perhaps even the Cuirassier could exist at the same time as the other Heavy Calvary and then the Mailed Knight could upgrade into the Dragoon instead of the Cuirassier. Much like how the Arquebusier co-exists with other armored infantry before they upgrade into the Muskemen.
Sure. Then all we need is graphics for the Lancer.
OK. How about this, then? I'm moving towards putting the Dragoon at Flintlock.
- Cuirassier requires Leadership and Matchlock
- Dragoon requires Flintlock
- Lancer requires Cavalry Tactics
I think the real problem with the Renaissance is that the technology placement doesn't match up to history very well. For example, all of Gunpowder, Oil Painting, Astronomy and Calculus are in the first Renaissance column. However:
- Gunpowder is common on European battlefields by 1350
- Oil Painting is being practiced in 1425 (van Eyck)
- Astronomy kicks off with Copernicus publishing in 1543
- Calculus doesn't come around until Newton and Liebniz in 1680
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@Vokarya
1. I don't think that gives the Cuirassier enought time before the Dragoon if you have leadership. So ...
Cuirassier = Armored Cavalry AND Matchlock
Dragoon = Leadership AND Flintlock
Also if its not redundant the Stirrup tech should be included too.
2. Well you have become the tech expert. If you have some ideas to better plot out the techs, then let me know (in the tech thread). However the tech tree is a mixture of historical dates, what techs make sense to link and of course practical game play.
1. I don't think that gives the Cuirassier enought time before the Dragoon if you have leadership. So ...
Cuirassier = Armored Cavalry AND Matchlock
Dragoon = Leadership AND Flintlock
Also if its not redundant the Stirrup tech should be included too.
2. Well you have become the tech expert. If you have some ideas to better plot out the techs, then let me know (in the tech thread). However the tech tree is a mixture of historical dates, what techs make sense to link and of course practical game play.
OK. We can go with those combinations. Leadership is already required on Flintlock (so the Dragoon is just Flintlock) and Stirrup is required for Armored Cavalry (so it's not needed on the Cuirassier) and then through Chivalry to Leadership (so it's not needed on the Dragoon either).
I'll create something in that thread. Mostly I think it's moving certain techs up or down the tree. I will keep in mind that just about every tech needs to link into something else, but I'm beginning to think some wholesale swapping around of techs may be in order. I see a lot of post-1800 technologies in the Renaissance and I think those need to be moved up to the Industrial Era.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Ok. The other mounted units that upgrade to the Cuirassier will need to be adjusted to upgrade to the Dragoon instead so they don't get replaced too early.
Should we lower the strength of the Cuirassier if it's being moved backwards?
I think it's fine for Knights to upgrade to Cuirassier. The upgrade tree for mounted units is really strange -- for example, Horse Archer only upgrades to Cuirassier, skipping over the entire Medieval Era. Which units do you want sticking around after the Cuirassier appears?
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
1) Why doesn't the Da Vinci Tank upgrade to the Steam Tank?
2) The cost of the modern work boat is too high for what it does. iirc the only advantage over the middle ages one is speed and it can remove ice at the cost of the loss of the unit.
2) The cost of the modern work boat is too high for what it does. iirc the only advantage over the middle ages one is speed and it can remove ice at the cost of the loss of the unit.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
1. Yes the strength and along with its cost should be reduced.
2. Hmm. Ok so like the Knight should, but not the Mailed Knight, it should upgrade to the Dragoon so you will have both Cuirassier and Mailed Knights on the battle field at the same time.
3. I have thought about the issue of the Horse Archer. I was thinking maybe we should have a Longbow Horseman. Such as ...
Horse Archer -> Longbow Horseman -> Cuirassier
much like ...
Archer -> Longbowman -> Arquebusier
1. Yeah that should not be since culture units are not suppose to be able to be upgraded to.
2. I don't know. That's up to ls612 since he re-did the unit costs.
I don't know if you guys have already, but you should really look at using some of Zulu9182's A new flavour unit graphics mod I love them.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=378141
I remember I mentioned it a long time ago and people said 'but it doesn't fit our culture setup' but surely that doesn't matter. If im Japan I don't care what cultures i've built, I want my units to look japanese tbh.
Spoiler :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=378141
I remember I mentioned it a long time ago and people said 'but it doesn't fit our culture setup' but surely that doesn't matter. If im Japan I don't care what cultures i've built, I want my units to look japanese tbh.
1. That will be fixed over the weekend along with a whole slew of backlog stuff and the new Cav units.
2. IMO the Medieval Workboat should have 3 movesModern Workboat should have 4 moves.
