[Vote] (6-42) Recon Unit Line Reworks

[ma_kuh]

I think sticking to something closer to the previously passed movement changes is better than more double-movements on scouts.

[Vote] - (1-19) Proposed Replacements for Trailblazer Double Movement Promotions

Voting Instructions Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" for every proposal you'd be okay with if it were implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if these proposals weren't implemented. You can vote for any number of options. All votes are public. If you wish, you can...

forums.civfanatics.com

I know this specific proposal failed due to technical challenges, but just +1 movement instead of more x2 movement feels a lot better to me.

 

[Tekamthi]

yeah i think the x2 movement in flat open terrain is problematic, alongside ignore terrain cost. Just give the scouts 3 base moves, then you move 3 grasslands or w/e if thats what we want

I don't wanna spend too much time rehashing recent discussion, but I'd suggest any proposals and counters for recon movement should drop ignore terrain cost altogether, and just use the double movement to confer bonuses. consider that a 2 cost plot costs 1 move when ignore (on its own) is applied to it; and that a 2 cost plot costs 1 move when double bonus (on its own) is applied to it; ie. they're the same effect. Its double AND ignore, together, that create all kinds of headaches for balancing this unit's movement -- of the two the double bonuses are more customizable and have fewer undesirable side effects. Propose a thoughtful movement regime with only one or the other included, and I become interested.

 

[Stalker0]

MAGI: @DoveCDog Current TB promotions give +10% CS not 5, it looks like this is a typo as you thought the same for the current status, so just ensuring that was the case and you are not trying to change the Cs value as well.

 

[DoveCDog]

MAGI: @DoveCDog Current TB promotions give +10% CS not 5, it looks like this is a typo as you thought the same for the current status, so just ensuring that was the case and you are not trying to change the Cs value as well.

Fixed, thanks!

 

[Recursive]

Sponsored.

 

[Tekamthi]

I am cross-posting from the 6-48c thread, just to replicate the salient discussion points for voters' consideration here:

Here are what I believe to be the contentious issues potential sponsors/voters should be focused on with this proposal [6-48c]:

• Underlying assumption with this proposal is that the current long-standing promo structure for the recon line is pretty good, that a complete re-design is NOT needed.
• Most common complaint about recon, that they move as fast or faster in bad terrain than mounted in good terrain, is 100% fixed.
• Some say ignore terrain cost MUST remain on recon, as its their key, defining characteristic. Others say its not ignore cost necessarily, but just their general mobility in rough terrain, their easy access to ignore ZoC, and their collection of XP from exploration that defines them as a unique unit line. This proposal strongly favors the latter position.
  • freeing up 'ignore terrain cost' makes room for a return of zeppelins, and/or expansion of helicopter lines whether via modmod or future proposal
  • 'ignore terrain cost' affects movement in water too, should VP or modmodders ever attempt to add water features -- its a very flat and broad effect
• while really a non-core feature, imported from other proposal, the ice crossing promo is nonetheless included in OP, and this requires a CustomModOption to be enabled that has long been disabled.

Recon gameplay has long been a modmod focus of mine; I've posted some rather unconventional implementations on the forums here at times, or some very lua-reliant adjustments to the game -- however my take here does not fit this experimental character: Several months ago, I became tired of hearing the same complaint that recon in forest is as fast/faster than mounted in open, and altered my approach to recon modding to focus on this singular issue, with as few other database-only changes as possible. If you were to search back several years, you'd find me arguing against this concern, that its fine within VP's abstraction to have these different speeds of movement, that there is even thematic argument supporting such (its easier to forage in a forest and keep moving vs crossing open plain on foot, etc.). In this sense, I like pretty much all the proposals here.

TLDR:

If you want a relatively small change to recon promo structure, while fixing the most common complaint about recon, vote for 6-48c. Give it a test-drive before voting if you want; there's a game-ready version of this proposal (VP 4.2.x+), attached as modmod.

On the other hand, if you think recon actually needs bigger changes in addition to the common movement complaint fix, or even that this movement disparity is not an issue, the other choices this round suit such viewpoints much better; all appear to have some interesting gameplay value to them.

 

[ma_kuh]

(Existing leaves:

• Medic I: prereq changed from Trailblazer II to Scouting II.
• Screening: prereq changed from Trailblazer II to Scouting II.
• Frogman: prereq changed from Trailblazer II to Scouting II.)

I made a mistake in my original counter-proposal, Screening and Frogman require Survivalism/Trailblazer III, not II. This is not changing, so Scouting III should be required. For clarity, could this be corrected in the OP?

 

[azum4roll]

If you want none of these changes, please remember the Nay option exists and you don't have to vote for any one of these. It's not an election where one has to be elected.

And if you don't mind it NOT being changed (sorry for the double negative), you should also include Nay as one of your options.

 

[Tekamthi]

good reminder in this case -- recall that community voted for another change altogether not so long ago. Turned out it required massive effort on the DLL side and was scrapped for this reason. It only had vague similarities to this round's current offerings. This round has the advantage of all being easily implemented, there won't be any DLL surprises, but they're each a different direction from previous winner.

If we don't change anything here, 6-48c still works as an optional add on, the others could be mocked up as modmods, we could come back to this question next round having play tested every candidate we're seeing here, refined them each further etc.

On the other hand we've kind of stalled on this question as a community for a long time now, I'm withholding my nay vote just on the basis that we need to try something new, and revert is always available next round too

 

[Tekamthi]

With 6-42a as the early frontrunner (not counting the nays), I think it's worth noting that AI is not good at picking terrain specializations, as is implied by that proposal. ie when AI gets to the trailblazer leaf promotions it's just gonna pick the first one in the list.

What I've done when modding similar terrain specializations, is restrict their choice to only the promo that represents the most abundant type in their owned territory. Presumably this could be done dynamically so after one trailblazer leaf is chosen, the next most abundant is the only one available, etc.

I'm curious, for those voting nay and only nay, what is it that none of these proposals accomplish, in your view? Or is it simply a 'no change needed' vote?

 

[pineappledan]

I'm curious, for those voting nay and only nay, what is it that none of these proposals accomplish, in your view? Or is it simply a 'no change needed' vote?

When we made major changes to the skirmisher line, we deliberated different ideas for months. The Espionage changes went through pre-congress discussions, drafts, and the proposals are stronger for it.

These scout proposals, collectively, feel haphazard. There is not the deliberation or care that I think these seismic changes to the scout line deserve.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm curious, for those voting nay and only nay, what is it that none of these proposals accomplish, in your view? Or is it simply a 'no change needed' vote?

For me I think none of the proposals provide an improvement over what we have now.

 

[Tekamthi]

yes, my proposal was designed entirely to address the perceived "weirdness" of the turbo scout forests -- a common gripe but not one I personally care all that much about. I threw in one idea from other proposal, which I rather like, but otherwise there was no added interest to the line. In this sense, I'm not particularly in love with my proposal all that much, it just accomplishes the assigned task efficiently, and would likely require more changes in future to fill out the uniqueness of the line.

I'm seeing little to build off of this round, if the 'nays' take it. We had a winning proposal previously, sure, but those things just aren't achievable. Likely this question will come back next round; if not, the one after... what direction would we like to see when it re-appears?

 

[ma_kuh]

Just guessing, but I think the Nays would probably prefer that the question didn't re-appear.

I think we have two options that are in the spirit of the originally-passed proposal, but using technical tools we already have available. If they don't pass, I think the take away is we should focus our collective mental efforts on other aspects of the game for a bit.

I would encourage everyone to keep in mind, the Recon Problem is pretty small in the grand scheme of the game. It's very easy to suggest changes to, but the changes generally amount to trying to do the same thing but differently. Which can be fun, and shakes up metas (for whatever that's worth to you) between versions, but probably doesn't make or break the game either way.

 

[Tekamthi]

the Recon Problem is pretty small in the grand scheme of the game

it is, but highly visible, given its prominence in the early game -- somebody gonna bring it back within 1-2 rounds i think

 

[Rekk]

Pathfinding

• free to all pathfinder-equivalent units, not available to any others
• temporary, 20 turn duration
• double movement in all rough terrain (ie hills & forest/jungle), snow, desert, marsh
• can cross rivers without penalty (movement & attack)

This is a random kludge of a fix.

 

[Rekk]

What I've done when modding similar terrain specializations, is restrict their choice to only the promo that represents the most abundant type in their owned territory. Presumably this could be done dynamically so after one trailblazer leaf is chosen, the next most abundant is the only one available, etc.

Recon units don't want to exist in their own territory, so this AI choice-pattern seems wrong for these promotions.

 

[Tekamthi]

This is a random kludge of a fix.

'ignore terrain cost' on a unit that travels on foot is a much bigger kludge, but well tolerated. Reducing its effects to 20 turns, by definition, is a great reduction in kludginess

 

[adan_eslavo]

'ignore terrain cost' on a unit that travels on foot is a much bigger kludge, but well tolerated. Reducing its effects to 20 turns, by definition, is a great reduction in kludginess

*and then it disappears at the very least desirable moment...

 

[adan_eslavo]

Personally I would share my vote also to 6-42a, but this line is totally the opposite of what I would like to see...

"Embarkation" without Fishing becomes a T4 promotion, instead of T3. This changes how accessible coastal islands will be to recon units, and puts more of a premium on the Fishing tech.

We could also get rid of it completely. This is how useful this Embarkation can be.
Rest is disqualified from the start.