.

[Tomice]

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

Thank you, wanted to do it myself, but I currently don't have an office package at hand.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

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

The "Bazooka" and AT Crew are backwards if you examine the icons in the tech tree. The Info Era one is probably a TOW Launcher or something of that nature.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

It is possible that they allow cross upgrade. That would mean you can upgrade musketman into bazooka for example and knight can upgrade to cavalry.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

It is possible that they allow cross upgrade. That would mean you can upgrade musketman into bazooka for example and knight can upgrade to cavalry.

For early units this seems like a good idea, but for late era units it seems weird, for example think about the following crossover upgrade path:
Tank ==> Helicopter ==> Modern Armor.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

It can be solved by removing promotions.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It can be solved by removing promotions.

Its very counterintuitive is the problem.

Like biplane-bomber-jet fighter

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

A quick question: I've heard several times about a bonus that swords have against spears/pikes, is that confirmed?

Yes, even stuff like beserker do get that bonus as far as I know so I guess that bonus is simply tied to the promotion class.

Am I the only one who thinks those make more sense?

Maybe from a historical perspective but for a gameplay view I think the current setup is superior. I don't think it would work well having anti tank being support units and I am not sure if having a machine gun as a support unit is a good idea either.

 

[George Abitbol]

Melee Ship = Galley, Caravel, Ironclad, Destroyer

I thought Ironclad was ranged (Single model)?

 

[Akkarin]

Yes, even stuff like beserker do get that bonus as far as I know so I guess that bonus is simply tied to the promotion class.

I am not aware of any general bonus that standard melee units get against anti cav units, at least not in the same way that anti-cav units get a a bonus against cav.

What they do have IIRC is an an promotion that gives them a bonus against anti-cav. Most promotion trees have some kind of unit-specifiv bonus, e.g. the anti-cav units can also gain a +10 bonus against melee (or an additional +5 against cav). See here for more

 

[j51]

A quick question: I've heard several times about a bonus that swords have against spears/pikes, is that confirmed?


I'm stealing your table Akkarin:

|Ancient|Classic|Medieval|Renaissance|Industrial|Modern|Atomic|Information
Shock (Melee)|Warrior|Swordsman|| Grenadier ||Infantry||Mechanized Infantry
Line (cheap resourceless, anti cav)|Spearman||Pikeman||Musketman| Infantry || Mechanised Infantry
Heavy Cav|Chariot||Knight|||Tank||Modern Armor
Light Cav||Horseman|||Cavalry||Helicopter|
Ranged, Standard|Slinger, Archer||Crossbowman||Field Cannon|| Mortar |
Siege||Catapult||Bombard||Artillery||Rocket Artillery
Support |Battering Ram | Siege Tower | Military Engineer || Medic | Baloon, AT | AA, Machine Gun | Bazooka

Changes I want to see and/or make in red:

Grenadier = old musketman, requires Niter, bonus against spears/pikes/muskets

Musketman is a new unit with a flintlock musket and a socket bayonet, think Napoleon line infantry. Str 60, no resource requirement, available at military science. That makes it as strong as pikeman against cavalry, but able to stand up to other units of similar era. Relationship between grenadier and musketman is the same as between swordsman and pikeman. Redcoats and Imperial Guard replace this unit

Mortar = old machine gun

AT, Bazooka, Machine gun are new support units specialised against tanks and infantry.


Am I the only one who thinks those make more sense?

That's a good fix. I would, however, rename your Musketman in this case to Line Infantry.

There needs to be another tier of units in the mounted lines. Like a Lancer between the Knight and Tank, and a Reiter between the Horseman and Cavalry.

Also, there should be something between the Scout and Ranger. Maybe an Explorer in the late Middle Ages?

 

[BrokenBokken]

The developer's specifically said they thought there were too many units in the previous game. I doubt they want to add all these things in. Honestly I think the lighter tree will make better game play for the average player.

 

[j51]

The developer's specifically said they thought there were too many units in the previous game. I doubt they want to add all these things in. Honestly I think the lighter tree will make better game play for the average player.

Civ 5 did have too many units, but they've gone too far in the other direction. Having units not upgrade for more than two eras creates two new problems:

1. It breaks the thin gossamer of historical verisimilitude that Civ relies on for its immersion. (Some people don't care about this. To them I ask, "Why are you here and not playing a fantasy, or sci-fi 4X?")

2. In terms of gameplay, it leaves you with units that are simply "sitting on the bench" for an era or two until they can be upgraded. For example, the player ends up holding on to a scout that can't fend for itself during the middle ages and renaissance to preserve its promotions until it can become a ranger. Having an explorer in between would allow it to maintain its usefulness mid-game.

 

[Magil]

2. In terms of gameplay, it leaves you with units that are simply "sitting on the bench" for an era or two until they can be upgraded. For example, the player ends up holding on to a scout that can't fend for itself during the middle ages and renaissance to preserve its promotions until it can become a ranger. Having an explorer in between would allow it to maintain its usefulness mid-game.

The problem is the opposite extreme happens too often: you produce a unit, and then it's obsolete very quickly, sometimes even before it finishes building. This is a side-effect of slowing down production to accommodate 1UPT (lowering production costs results in the carpet-of-doom effect).

As long as one-unit-per-tile exists, it makes a lot more sense to have some technological gaps in unit lines to allow them to actually see some use before they get upgraded. Note that this doesn't really excuse the absurd mid-to-lategame warrior blobs we've seen in the various streams and videos.

 

[Phobetor]

I think it's a good idea to have significant breaks between some of the upgrade lines. Knights will be strong when you first get them, but if you invest in them heavily you need to use them before they get outclassed. That's an interesting decision we wouldn't have to worry about if they could be upgraded sooner.

And also... Scythia gets double helicopters?

 

[usadefcon1]

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

Thanks! the FGM-148 Javelin missile is what I meant by Javelin... the icon just looks so much like the actual missile. I'm not sure if they have the rights to call it that though.

I thought Ironclad was ranged (Single model)?

I'm not sure of any of these to be honest, but to me it makes more sense as a melee.

Civ 5 did have too many units, but they've gone too far in the other direction.

Agreed, specifically Knight to Tank (maybe a WWI era Tank)

 

[BrokenBokken]

Civ 5 did have too many units, but they've gone too far in the other direction. Having units not upgrade for more than two eras creates two new problems:

1. It breaks the thin gossamer of historical verisimilitude that Civ relies on for its immersion. (Some people don't care about this. To them I ask, "Why are you here and not playing a fantasy, or sci-fi 4X?")

2. In terms of gameplay, it leaves you with units that are simply "sitting on the bench" for an era or two until they can be upgraded. For example, the player ends up holding on to a scout that can't fend for itself during the middle ages and renaissance to preserve its promotions until it can become a ranger. Having an explorer in between would allow it to maintain its usefulness mid-game.

1. I love Civ way more than other 4X, BE, and Alpha centauri because I enjoy the historical themes. I find having units around for long periods of time no more immersion breaking then the fact that it takes them two hundred years to march out of my territory in the ancient era. Like there are far more appealing reality breaks than a unit type being used for a long period of time because its very easy to take a general approach to your views of units, just like we do with technologies.

2. They said an average era difference of strength was 10. We have seen it takes far more than 10 difference to one shot. Even if you are technologically behind, those units could easily still be useful and it would be wasted production to not attempt to use them in some manner. Especially since each unit type fits a particular role and your opponent will probably still have some of his older models left behind as well. For example just because you've built knights doesn't mean my pikemen will be worthless, which means your swordsmen will still have a use as well. Also, this gives units with specific abilities and roles and chance to shine without it being a giant cluster of constant new units

 

[j51]

The problem is the opposite extreme happens too often: you produce a unit, and then it's obsolete very quickly, sometimes even before it finishes building. This is a side-effect of slowing down production to accommodate 1UPT (lowering production costs results in the carpet-of-doom effect).

As long as one-unit-per-tile exists, it makes a lot more sense to have some technological gaps in unit lines to allow them to actually see some use before they get upgraded. Note that this doesn't really excuse the absurd mid-to-lategame warrior blobs we've seen in the various streams and videos.

Yeah production is factor with 1upt. That's why the sweet spot is 1.5-2.5 eras for a unit's life span. Having an upgrade every era, or less as they sometimes did in V, creates the problem you mention. Having a unit upgrade ≥2.5 eras leads to the problems I described above. 1.5-2.5 eras=perfect balance.

Another work around would be to limit the number of units a civ can build by tying it to population (above a minimum number of units, like 4). OR the unit artwork could change with the era, even if the unit itself doesn't, but that could confuse some players.

 

[j51]

I find having units around for long periods of time no more immersion breaking then the fact that it takes them two hundred years to march out of my territory in the ancient era.

Oh man, that also drives me nuts! They should just have turn numbers and use the eras to denote when in history you're at. (I could never figure out how to mod that in 5.)

 

[BrokenBokken]

Yeah production is factor with 1upt. That's why the sweet spot is 1.5-2.5 eras for a unit's life span. Having an upgrade every era, or less as they sometimes did in V, creates the problem you mention. Having a unit upgrade ≥2.5 eras leads to the problems I described above. 1.5-2.5 eras=perfect balance.

Another work around would be to limit the number of units a civ can build by tying it to population (above a minimum number of units, like 4). OR the unit artwork could change with the era, even if the unit itself doesn't, but that could confuse some players.

I don't expect 2.5-3 to be much worse than 2-2.5. The latter could be better, but I don't expect it to be a frustrating or game breaking experience. Also we know what era those units are all in, but do we know which half?

Also I think if they added interesting support options in the eras without new units, it would feel like you army was still progressing and evolving.

 

[j51]

I don't expect 2.5-3 to be much worse than 2-2.5. The latter could be better, but I don't expect it to be a frustrating or game breaking experience. Also we know what era those units are all in, but do we know which half?

I was honestly being generous with the 2.5. It's too much time IMO, but it leaves some wiggle room. Whenever possible, it should be exactly 2. As for the late eras, by that I simply meant the second column of technologies in an era.

Also I think if they added interesting support options in the eras without new units, it would feel like you army was still progressing and evolving.

Yeah, an extra support unit, or two in the renaissance/industrial would go a long way.