Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
It's, again, not important to game design.
You can compromise it that an anti-tank regiment really is an infantry regiment with a higher-than-average concentration of anti-tank armament and training if it makes you happier, but in gameplay terms, identifying it as "Anti-Tank" makes more sense and makes for easiser recognition than identifying it as "Infantry with anti tank specialists".
This is why I maintain that a combat system in a Grand Strategy Scale game like Civ has to be simplified to be 'improved'. I have come to the conclusion that having the gamer/Grand Boggus of the Civilization move each unit on a battlefield is entirely out of place in the scale of the game.Personally I find the many support units and combat classes to be a hassle that instead of add immersion or strategy end being annoying, and this come from somebody that is a lifelong fan of Age of Empires and Total War series. I mean those games are from different sub-genres but the focus is the combat in real time, there every unit movement and action feels dynamic, significative and exciting. Meanwhile in CIV "battles" are ping-pong conga lines or eternal stacks of JRPG slapping, I realized of own annoying this is when find myself preferring EU4 combat over CIV's one, and you know how minimalist Paradox combat is!
And in my idea, you could possibly combine Antitank and Machine gun units into one tile with another Infantry unit.and for Antitank and Machineguns. as well as Musketeers. none of these are operated as single regiment. but parts of other 'regiments'.
The Dacian tribes, used a kind of wood tank on wheels, used in battles for protecting the first line, but also to launch it against enemy lines on fire.They could have the turtle tank, for one!
- And the Romans used pigs with their backs smeared with oil and lit on fire, launched against Pyrrhus' elephants - once, and it didn't work very well at panicking the elephants.The Dacian tribes, used a kind of wood tank on wheels, used in battles for protecting the first line, but also to launch it against enemy lines on fire.
The mounted archer as only being available to a pastoral Civ like Scythia is dead accurate in Civ VI. The only thing they missed is that mounted archers were hired as mercenaries by everybody else, including Athens, Rome, Byzantium, and China.There is a turtle promotion why not a flaming pig promotion?
Am I right in thinking the mounted archer is underrepresented in Civ 6, and the power of Horsemen is overstated? Cavelry should come into play in the latter stages of the Roman Empire from my understanding, rather then being a contemporary of the Legion.
Were used by many cultures around the world is why I see Catapharacts as the regular cavalry unit between Chariots and Knights (note that here these names are labels for concepts that do mean neither a real equivalence or replacement, but that are practical ways to abstract unit into CIV's model).You guys left out the cataphract. Cataphracts were really strong mounted units that were known to be used in combat by many tribes and civilizations in Africa, Asia and even Europe.
Considering this thread is about unique units, who would you give the Cataphract too considering they were used by many different civilizations, as you said yourself?You guys left out the cataphract. Cataphracts were really strong mounted units that were known to be used in combat by many tribes and civilizations in Africa, Asia and even Europe.
Why not return them to the Byzantines in the dark and medieval eras like they did in civ4? If teched right, they were really powerful for their time and could overpower elephants as well as pikemen.Considering this thread is about unique units, who would you give the Cataphract too considering they were used by many different civilizations, as you said yourself?
I agree that they should be a general Classical Era cavalry unit available to everyone.
The best-known Kataphractoi were those of the Sasanid Persians and the Byzantines. But they originated as central Asian tribal units - the first that I know of was the Massagetae contingent at Gaugamela against Alexander in 331 BCE, or several hundred years before either Persian or Byzantine examples, and from fresco illustrations we know that the Sarmatians were "armored men on armored horses' or Cataphractoi configuration in the early centuries CE.Considering this thread is about unique units, who would you give the Cataphract too considering they were used by many different civilizations, as you said yourself?
I agree that they should be a general Classical Era cavalry unit available to everyone.
Because I believe the Byzantines should at least get the Dromons first. Second, I would give them the Varangian Guard.Why not return them to the Byzantines in the dark and medieval eras like they did in civ4? If teched right, they were really powerful for their time and could overpower elephants as well as pikemen.
You are right in that they weren't used by everyone. But if they were used by more than two, maybe three different groups of people, I don't think that should make them a unique unit to one particular civilization.Note, however, that they were not used by everyone. The only Roman Cataphractoi were hired Sarmatians, nor did any of the Germanic successors to Rome field Cataphract cavalry - even the Lombards or Goths who did have heavy cavalry didn't have armored horses, nor were they a feature of most of the Chinese Imperial dynasties unless they got them from their 'Northern Barbarian' neighbors.
So, probably not appropriate as a general Classical unit, either: but possibly a type that requires some particular combination of requirements in addition to a simple Technology + Resource that the game has always used for general units.
how bad. and why?The mounted archer as only being available to a pastoral Civ like Scythia is dead accurate in Civ VI. The only thing they missed is that mounted archers were hired as mercenaries by everybody else, including Athens, Rome, Byzantium, and China.
Other cavalry in the Classical Era came in two types:
1. Aristocrats from cities who could afford a horse and rode because it indicated their superiority over the Lower Classes. This was the cavalry for most of the Greek city states and the Republican Roman army, and they were almost uniformly Bad.
do you have better names for it. for 'heavy' variants of classical cavalry between chariots and knights?The best-known Kataphractoi were those of the Sasanid Persians and the Byzantines. But they originated as central Asian tribal units - the first that I know of was the Massagetae contingent at Gaugamela against Alexander in 331 BCE, or several hundred years before either Persian or Byzantine examples, and from fresco illustrations we know that the Sarmatians were "armored men on armored horses' or Cataphractoi configuration in the early centuries CE.
Note, however, that they were not used by everyone. The only Roman Cataphractoi were hired Sarmatians, nor did any of the Germanic successors to Rome field Cataphract cavalry - even the Lombards or Goths who did have heavy cavalry didn't have armored horses, nor were they a feature of most of the Chinese Imperial dynasties unless they got them from their 'Northern Barbarian' neighbors.
So, probably not appropriate as a general Classical unit, either: but possibly a type that requires some particular combination of requirements in addition to a simple Technology + Resource that the game has always used for general units.