.

[MistyRonin]

Having two different upgrade paths for cavalry units makes sense for symmetry reason, but having nothing between knights and tanks is a HUGE gap.

I'd expect a modern era / reinassance upgrade:

Hussars for light cav and cuirassiers / dragoons for heavy.

In Firaxis last stream they had tanks and cavalry (light cav upgrade).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

AT Crew sound to me like a dedicated Anti-Tank Gun, such as the venerable and highly adaptable 88mm Gun which is also a an AA Gun as well. Also, what are the Civ's representation of a unit, considering you can form Corp's and Armies. Would 3 Infantry units in a Corps with an AT support Unit attached be considered a reasonable representation. Great War tanks were never their own unit as well, being attached to infantry brigades. If they were included in an expansion further down the track, should they just be a promotion as well?

Unfortunately, the graphic shows men on foot with a shoulder-fired antitank rocket launcher, not a modified artillery/antiaircraft gun as an antitank artillery piece, like the German 8.8cm or, more commonly, a dedicated piece of antitank artillery like the ubiquitous Soviet 76.2mm cannon or the US/UK 6 lber/57mm antitank gun. Therefore that graphic (and the use of the Composites tech after the WWII antitank artillery pieces were no longer manufactured) indicates that they are using a weapon as a separate unit that was ALWAYS part of a larger infantry unit. Not Good.
On the other hand, the WWI tanks ('Landships') were always fielded as separate units as battalions, regiments, brigades. IF the game had a tactical system that rewarded Combined Arms, they would be penalized for operating by themselves, but it doesn't so they aren't.

I find the implementation of Support units perfect for these kind of concepts. Support Units are not separate entire units, that is why you need to attach them. Promotions to me are not tactical addons, they acquired skills. IDK...AA and AT to me sounds perfect as a support unit that attaches to a regular unit, as does Observation Balloons for Industrial Era Artillery and Battering rams for Classical Swordsmen

"Promotions" could be a lot more flexible than they (apparently) are, but I will agree that the 'support' arms should be Support Units, including not only the Antiaircraft and antitank but also the Machine-gun units, which actually represent weapons included in the regular infantry from battalion up at al times after the 1920s.

I personally think that the Corps-Army and Support Units systems (as they've been described so far) have missed the mark: The Army Corps was from its inception in the Napoleonic Wars supposed to be a Combined Arms unit, including infantry, artillery, and cavalry. Having it be only a single unit type just makes it a way of 'sneaking' around the 1UPT concept, while the Support Units provided don't always match the actual units always used in Support historically...

And I beg everyone's pardon, but the utter misrepresentation of historical military units in Civ games has been a Major Pain to me ever since Civ II (my first Civ game). I tend to go on about it...

 

[dturtle1]

I haven't seen the graphic, i was only going off the name. I get that in the Atomic area we have progressed fully into combined arms territory making AT capabilities essential for modern Armies. So if the unit was pushed back to Modern(and Changed the graphic to a AT gun) it would work then? I feel the primary concern is in game play and it makes game play sense to allow this kind off specialisation.

In regards to the WW1 Landships i was under the impression that they always served as apart of a infantry brigade and that one of Germany's military tactic "inventions"(sorry, the word escapes me ) was the formation of tank only units. I remember reading something that indicated that this contributed to the downfall of France in 1940. French tanks were scattered among the infantry utilising WW1 doctrine whilst German tanks operated as one unit as an armored fist. Regardless of how they were designated Landships were used as part of a infantry core, without having their own independence. They were treated like adding a Mortar Team or a HMG team, in this case they primarily used as mobile cover

I agree promotion could me more flexible, but i feel support units are an excellent implementation as is. I agree the Heavy Machine Gun should be a support Unit. I understand your concerns with Corps Army as well, i am not sure how the stacking would work though. Artillery shoots multiple tiles, ok that sort of works but Calvary biggest strength is mobility. You cant really simulate combined arms in 1upt Scale , the individual units are too diverse. I agree though they aren't really armies as much as upgraded units, sort of similar to Panzer General's overstacking veteran units.(base health was 10, you could reinforce up to 5 extra points based on veterancy), except costing an entire unit

Everyone has got their bug bears I really should beg everyone pardon for engaging in debates about generally inconsequential things. I have very few Historical(or PC Games in general) gaming Nerds in my RL circle OI sometimes get a bit gung-ho

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Both cavalry lines and both infantry lines have some big jumps while the ranged line always have an upgrade in every era.

The jump from Knight to tank is 3 eras and so is the jump from horseman to cavalry. Given that the cavalry line use horses mean you may have to disband your old cavalry units and thus lose their experience, maybe the big jump is designed as an experience rest point.

The anti cavalry line have the same big jump as the knight. The other infantry line do need resources (atleast pre infantry) but it don't have any jumps in its upgrade path.

It seems like ranged unit have a defensive line and an offensive line with each line taking turn to upgrade.

The difference between knight and musket is not to big as knight can overcome the musket with better mobility and experience. Cavalry is not that much stronger then musket. Naturally the redcoat and garde imperiale is a very nice boost here. It is worth to mention that promotions are very strong.

 

[Tomice]

I'm sure we'll know more on the 29th, but here's my guess:

I've allowed myself to adopt your great overview slightly:

Melee: Warrior ------ Swordsman ------ Musketmen ------- Infantry ------- Mechanized Inf.
Anti Cav: ----- Spearmen ------- Pikemen ------- Bazooka ------ AT Trooper -----------

Ranged: Slinger - Archer ------ Crossbow ------ Field Cannon ------ Machine Gun --------
Siege: -----------------Catapult ------ Bombard ------------ Artillery ----------- Missile Artillery

Light Cav: ---------- Horseman ---------- Cavalry ----------- Helicopter ------------
Heavy Cav: Chariot ------------ Knight --------------- Tank -------------- Modern Armor

Recon Scout ------------------------------------- Ranger ------------------------------------

Melee Ship: Galley ---------- Caravel ----------- Ironclad ----------- Destroyer ------------
Ranged Ship: -------- Quadreme--------Frigate ----------Battleship -------------- Missile Cruiser
Covert Ship: -------------------------Privateer ------------- Sub --------------Nuclear Sub

Fighter Aircraft: --------------------------------------------- Biplane ---Fighter ----Jet
Bomber Aircraft: --------------------------------------------------Bomber ---- Stealth Bomber



After thinking a bit about it, I do like the system quite a bit. A few thoughts:

Knight -> Tank might seem like a huge gap when we imagine knights as medieval knights. But Cuirassiers were quite similar in their role and even looked similar. The knights (heavy cav) were the first to use pistols, quite some time before light cav with carbines (dragoons/wild west style cav) started to dominate. Cuirassiers were used until mid-19th century, light cav until motorized vehicles became common enough to fully replace them (WW2). Example for a cuirassier demonstarting the fluent shift (around 1630):

Spoiler :

Sure, this could be seen as a different unit and may have been worth to seperate, but imagining lategame leftover knights as cuirassiers might help immersion.
The new solution also allows to understand what actually happened: Cavalry became more and more useless due to better firearms, but both tradition and lack of alternatives forced nations to still field them - as outdated as they were.



Another important thing: While promotions carry over through the ages, ressource requirements change!
Spearmen might be the backbone of your army early on due to being resourceless, but this doesn't mean that resource-poor nations field tons of bazookas later on (as infantry is most likely resourceless, so the melee line will become more dominant).

Also, I'm pretty sure that strategic ressources are no longer counted on a per-unit basis. This essentially means that any nation having one or two iron/saltpeter sources might field unlimited numbers of swordmen/musketmen (see this post/thread for more info)

 

[stealth_nsk]

Anti Cav: ----- Spearmen ------- Pikemen ------- Bazooka ------ AT Trooper -----------

I think this line is wrong. The tech tree which we have from June build doesn't differentiate normal and support units (that's why we've messed Air Baloon with Paratrooper). The Bazooka seem to be AT support unit, while later we see AA support unit. IMHO, Pikemen join the melee line.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

From the last stream the bazooka is cleary a combat unit as it do not have the diamond symbol of support units like the anti aircraft gun does. Instead it have the circle symbol of combat units.

I don't see how the late game combat would work if the bazooka was a support unit because the counter system would be very weird in such case.

 

[Hajee]

There is rifle man that Muskets upgrade to

 

[Hajee]

The consensus is that there are no riflemen in Civ6.

Has to be wrong tho.

England and France both have uquies units in the Industrial Era replacing rifleman

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Many unique units in civlization VI do not replace a unit. You can see that in the Norway game, the beserker is such a unit.

 

[Tomice]

But do we know if each resource on the map gives only 1 amount of that resource? That post might be right, but as it was wrong about the luxury resource I'm a little sceptical. It's also a big change from Civ5 back to the Civ3 and 4 way of doing things, which is odd. Also unusual for them not to have mentioned it at all.

IIRC I've watched the tooltips in some stream (Marbozir talked about it in his first vid I think) and I've never seen an indicator for the amount of iron per source. Might be that double/triple iron exists, but I've never seen it.
Also, the varying amount of needed strategics (depending on presence of an encampment district in the city who builds the unit) would only really work in my interpretation.

 

[Hajee]

Many unique units in civlization VI do not replace a unit. You can see that in the Norway game, the beserker is such a unit.

I find that odd tho

on the wells of souls site he has them listed as needing the Military Science Tech, which is in the industrial era

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I find that odd tho

It make the unique units and the civs more unique. Such units add aditional advantages.

 

[Akkarin]

I made a Table:

Ancient|Classic|Medieval|Renaissance|Industrial|Modern|Atomic|Information
Melee, Standard|Warrior|Swordsman||Musketman||Infantry||Mechanized Infantry
Anti-Cav, Spear|Spearman||Pikeman|||Bazooka||AT Crew
Heavy Cav|Chariot||Knight|||Tank||Modern Armor
Light Cav||Horseman|||Cavalry||Helicopter|
Ranged, Standard|Slinger, Archer||Crossbowman||Field Cannon||Machine Gun|
Siege||Catapult||Bombard||Artillery||Rocket Artillery

 

[Hajee]

Right, but why is that odd?

Military science gives Imperial Guard and Redcoat, but not riflemen. Where's the problem?

Its odd because
1. they the only ones to get Industrial era units?
2. If they replace musketeers, then they have to wait in era to use them
3. if they dont replace musketeers, they they get more units then others do

edit: I guess it does not matter simple modding should fix the tech tree and the missing* units

*if they are missing, the tech tree on that site is a few months old

 

[Akkarin]

I think this line is wrong. The tech tree which we have from June build doesn't differentiate normal and support units (that's why we've messed Air Baloon with Paratrooper). The Bazooka seem to be AT support unit, while later we see AA support unit. IMHO, Pikemen join the melee line.

In the recent stream we were specifically shown that the AT crew follows the Anti-Cav upgrade tree. As such, it is highly likely that the Bazooka, too is an Anti-Cav and not a support unit.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Its odd because
1. they the only ones to get Industrial era units?
2. If they replace musketeers, then they have to wait in era to use them
3. if they dont replace musketeers, they they get more units then others do

In Civ6 there's at least 1 era between units of the same class - could be more if there are units of similar class. For example Knight (Heavy Cavalry, Medieval) upgrades directly to Tank (HK, Modern), because we're skipping Renaissance, Industrial has Cavalry (Light Cav) and only after this - Tanks.

So, having 1 era between melee unit upgrades (no Industrial melee) is absolutely normal here. And having UU fitting the era is ok too.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think the upgrade model is good.

The Types of forces you have move back and forth from one era to the next, the addition of corps/armies gives you something to do with the melee gap in the Industrial era.

If promotions get rechosen whenever upgrading from one promotion tree to the other (since UU at least seem to have their own promotion trees) that will be good (that was a major problem with the pike line before.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

So, with the the upgrade paths having such wider gaps in them, do you think instant upgrades will still be one of the random bonuses you can get from hidden villages?

I always thought it was weird that, in Civ 5, ruins would upgrade a Scout into an Archer, a completely different type of unit. So when I heard that Recon Units would have their own upgrade path now, I assumed that wouldn't happen any more.

But it would be absurd for Scouts to upgrade into Rangers in the ancient era! Who are these mysterious villagers who have mastered the secrets of rifling centuries before everyone else!

So they could do the Civ 5 and have units upgrade into units from a completely different path, but it's just as likely they'll get rid of that bonus altogether.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So, with the the upgrade paths having such wider gaps in them, do you think instant upgrades will still be one of the random bonuses you can get from hidden villages?

I always thought it was weird that, in Civ 5, ruins would upgrade a Scout into an Archer, a completely different type of unit. So when I heard that Recon Units would have their own upgrade path now, I assumed that wouldn't happen any more.

But it would be absurd for Scouts to upgrade into Rangers in the ancient era! Who are these mysterious villagers who have mastered the secrets of rifling centuries before everyone else!

So they could do the Civ 5 and have units upgrade into units from a completely different path, but it's just as likely they'll get rid of that bonus altogether.

What would be more balanced is giving the unit a large lump sum of experience, so that it got 2-3 promotions. (Since promotions are better and rarer now)

Or maybe they join you and form an early corps.