Getting Started

[orangecape]

Given that other modern units get very fast (rocket artillery, helicopters in particular) it does seem very reasonable for Mech Inf to have 3 speed. However, even at 3 speed I can't see much reason to ever tech to and build tanks - just get Mech Inf instead since you then don't have to worry about your oil count and Mech Inf are just as good anyhow. If, however, Tanks and Modern Armor were speed 5 and Mech Inf was speed 3 I could really see a use for Tanks - they would be seriously faster and have an edge while attacking as well as being a slightly earlier tech. Mech Inf would still be very useful, and pretty near a necessity for sieges and defending chokepoints but I would definitely want to run some Tank class units to clear out the battlefield.

 

[Tomice]

Again, I think it makes the game more enjoyable if we try to balance units according to their historic counterparts. Tanks were simply never faster than mech inf, so why should they be ingame?

They would really suck in a duel, however, at least in the open field. Not sure how to represent this within the game, though.

Maybe a simple + 30-50% bonus vs mech inf (and only mech inf) would help tanks to find their role? Tanks would then slaughter mech inf in the open field, but less so if they defended on rough terrain. (Not sure if the unit type is important when garrisoning a city?) And it would be exactly what would happen in real life.

Mech inf would still have a role for attacking cities (no penalty) and for defending in rough terrain.

 

[Thalassicus]

One thing I like doing is avoiding 'hard counters' when possible... valuing units based on their inherent characteristics rather than creating a solidified rock-paper-scissors between everything. Hard counters are easier to balance but aren't as interesting I think.

3-move mech infantry seems reasonable. It wouldn't be a huge change, but would give both tanks and modern armor a slight advantage in mobility. I also agree about cavalry... their positioning on the tech tree makes them a little questionable. I could try them at 4-moves.

Modern armor are actually very powerful. I wouldn't want to buff them too much. They deal more damage to cities than Rocket Artillery even with all the big vs-cities differences between the two, because modern armor have such high base strength. I beeline to them in games that last to the modern era.

 

[Tomice]

Normally I'd fully agree, I also dislike dumb rock-paper-scissor mechanics, some games followed them very obviously and they were way less fun than SC2 for example, where roles are less clear.

Still, real MBT's are meant to slaughter APC's, in fact most APC's lack ANY weapon that could damage a MBT. Their role is rather to protect MBT's against their counters (RPG-armed infantry, but also gunships). That's why all post-WW2 APC's are designed to be just as mobile as their MBT's (doctrine of combined arms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms).

We have just as much reason to see MBT's as hard-counter to Mech Inf as we have for knights and pikemen.

 

[Txurce]

Normally I'd fully agree, I also dislike dumb rock-paper-scissor mechanics, some games followed them very obviously and they were way less fun than SC2 for example, where roles are less clear.

Still, real MBT's are meant to slaughter APC's, in fact most APC's lack ANY weapon that could damage a MBT. Their role is rather to protect MBT's against their counters (RPG-armed infantry, but also gunships). That's why all post-WW2 APC's are designed to be just as mobile as their MBT's (doctrine of combined arms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms).

We have just as much reason to see MBT's as hard-counter to Mech Inf as we have for knights and pikemen.

I don't think your analogy holds up. Pikemen are counters to knights. You say that APC's are MBT protection vs RPG' and gunships. That would not be a hard counter... although the rest of your post is a good argument for making MI no more powerful than infantry - just faster.

 

[alpaca]

Which mod has the display of turns left until border expansion in the city bar? Saw this in a screen today.

Is it Atilla's?

 

[Seek]

Which mod has the display of turns left until border expansion in the city bar? Saw this in a screen today.

Is it Atilla's?

No, it's Cope's.

 

[ClarenceSeedorf]

Tried this today and I will be using this mod from now on...what I like best is the fact it makes it possible to have good income and a big army even with smaller empires.

Had a King game as Askia with 3 cities and 1 puppet and was still pumping out +100GPT with about 10-15 units in Renaissance era.

 

[Tomice]

I don't think your analogy holds up. Pikemen are counters to knights. You say that APC's are MBT protection vs RPG' and gunships. That would not be a hard counter... although the rest of your post is a good argument for making MI no more powerful than infantry - just faster.

What I wanted to point out is that a M2 Bradley has hardly any chance in a duel vs. a M1 Abrams, although the M2 carries two TOW anti-tank missiles, which is above average for an IFV. Still, the Bradley has to stand still from the moment the system starts to unfold (it needs some time to be ready for launch) until the missile hits (it is wire-guided and needs signals from the launcher). The main gun of the M1 is gyro-stabilized and can be fired while moving. And most APC have no AT weapon at all, it is considered unneccessary since an APC should never duel a MBT.

So usually an IFV/APC/Mech Inf Unit has very little chance against a MBT in open terrain. If the IFV can hide in a forest and the crew can attack the MBT with shoulder-launched AT missiles, the situation is very different again. The same applies to urban warfare, where the IFV crew can check buildings for attackers, while the MBT is more easily ambushed.

Note that the term "mechanized infantry" clearly means vehicles like the M2 Bradley and its crew. The more general term is "mobilized infantry", which includes infantry transported by unprotected trucks.



I'd say the roles for certain troop types was like this during the cold war:

- MBT's were meant to fight other MBT's.
- MBT's were primarily countered by tank destroyers ("self-propelled AT gun") and gunships
- infantry fighting tanks were rather considered a cheap fallback solution
- IFV's and other infantry added versatility to the MBT's, but they were never meant to fight enemy MBT's

In assymetric conflicts like Iraq the roles shift a bit, since the enemies have only shoulder-launched missiles, traps and mines to fight armoured vehicles.



Translating this into game rules, I'd suggest:

- MBT's and Mech Inf should be equally mobile.
- Reduced sight, city attack penalty, no terrain bonus and move after attack are justified for MBT's.
- Tanks should win very often vs. Mech Inf in open terrain, and still have a slight edge over them when they defend in rough terrain.
- The justification for APC's should be their ressourcelessness, their price and their versatility (no penalties!). They should especially be strong when attacking cities.
- Overall, a combined arms force should be the best strategy in modern combat.

 

[juckie]

Downloaded this mod, together with the Recommended Mods.

But I'm now changing my GlobalDefines.xml, I only forgot that things got changed.
Where can I find the modversion of globaldefines?

 

[Txurce]

Translating this into game rules, I'd suggest:

- MBT's and Mech Inf should be equally mobile.
- Reduced sight, city attack penalty, no terrain bonus and move after attack are justified for MBT's.
- Tanks should win very often vs. Mech Inf in open terrain, and still have a slight edge over them when they defend in rough terrain.
- The justification for APC's should be their ressourcelessness, their price and their versatility (no penalties!). They should especially be strong when attacking cities.
- Overall, a combined arms force should be the best strategy in modern combat.

This works for me. There's no reason for MI to be more powerful than infantry - just faster. That's pretty simple.

 

[orangecape]

There is a real risk in making MI that weak though. Using Thal's mod and taking the +50% to city strength SP and building The Kremlin I had cities with 200 Str in the industrial era. There is absolutely nothing that could deal with that, which is potentially an issue in itself, but if MI are the unit that is supposed to be good at taking cities they need enough strength to beat those numbers or those numbers need to go down.

 

[Txurce]

There is a real risk in making MI that weak though. Using Thal's mod and taking the +50% to city strength SP and building The Kremlin I had cities with 200 Str in the industrial era. There is absolutely nothing that could deal with that, which is potentially an issue in itself, but if MI are the unit that is supposed to be good at taking cities they need enough strength to beat those numbers or those numbers need to go down.

I think the basic idea behind taking cities with the Mod is that no one unit takes down a strong city - you need contemporary siege weapons plus a decent melee unit. To take down your monster city would probably require 2 or 3 rocket artillery for a good long while, maybe bombers as well to get it done in a more reasonable time frame. But in all fairness, a 200-strength city is pretty rare.

 

[Tomice]

This works for me. There's no reason for MI to be more powerful than infantry - just faster. That's pretty simple.

That's not exactly what I meant. As orangecape mentioned, there are other units and cities to be considered. While you understood that MI should have less overall strenght than tanks, I would prefer a bonus for tanks against ONLY one single unit, namely Mech Inf. Both could keep their basic strenght of 50. This way we could keep the balance between MI and siege/air/navy/cities unchanged.

Modern Armor wouldn't need this boost, as they are strong enough vs MI already.


Talking about exact numbers, a boost of 25% would make tanks equal to MI when they defend on rough terrain (not thinking about promotions now). A bonus of 50% would make tanks just as strong against MI as Modern armor, which is undesirable. IMHO, the ideal solution would be somewhere around 30-35%, to achieve what I said in my previous post (Tanks should win very often vs. Mech Inf in open terrain, and still have a slight edge over them when they defend in rough terrain).

Example: 35% bonus

MI defending in rough terrain: 62,5 str
MI defending in open terrain: 40 str (Thal's version with -20%)

Tank attacking MI: 67,5 str
Modern Armor: 80 str

The exact number would also depend on how likely it is for MI to have more promotions than tanks, due to upgrading paths.

 

[Thalassicus]

An alternative could be to increase base tank strength and increase their vs cities penalty. This would keep the level of complexity basically the same (no new promotions) by simply tweaking numbers, and further solidify tanks as a dominant force in the field while leaving infantry as the ideal city raiders.

On a side note, the "siege" promotion name is so much more confusing for conversation than "city raider." If you say 'siege' you could mean a benefit against siege units, or when besieging cities, or is it talking about siege units themselves? So ambiguous! And ground units have a 'siege' promotion, while air units have a 'siege I' promotion...

 

[Maximus9102]

I have a questions about the Civilization NIGHTS modpack, is there a way to make the units small and multiple again, instead of the single large unit?

 

[Tomice]

An alternative could be to increase base tank strength and increase their vs cities penalty. This would keep the level of complexity basically the same (no new promotions) by simply tweaking numbers, and further solidify tanks as a dominant force in the field while leaving infantry as the ideal city raiders.

Yes, that sounds viable, too.

This whole thing is not about details for me. But IMO game units should always have similar characteristics as their real-world counterparts. If you achieved perfect balance, but all units would have random attributes without real counterparts, you would only have replaced one problem with another.

Real-world Mech Inf is fast, but weak against tanks. Some posters here have suggested the exact opposite, so I felt I have to say something.

 

[Slowpoke]

Btw, check the new patch info for 12/3 in general, (the @2k thread). All of us modders are going to need to change a whole lot, but at least the game will rock.

 

[Txurce]

Real-world Mech Inf is fast, but weak against tanks. Some posters here have suggested the exact opposite, so I felt I have to say something.

I don't think anyone has said that MI should be slower but more powerful than tanks. Some, including me, originally proposed slowing down MI, as the "simple" fix. Upon reflection, a better solution seems to be keeping speeds the same, and making MI significantly weaker than tanks, but giving them an edge (MI bonus/tank nerf) vs cities.

 

[Txurce]

Btw, check the new patch info for 12/3 in general, (the @2k thread). All of us modders are going to need to change a whole lot, but at least the game will rock.

No kidding! It's quite a compliment to the work all of you have done.