Anti-tank guns before tanks....

[Agamemnus]

Isn't that a little odd?

 

[Ahriman]

Isn't that a little odd?

No. If your enemy is technologically ahead of you and gets tanks first, you can't fight their tanks with your tanks, but you can at defend yourself against their tanks somewhat.

Similarly, you can get AA guns before bombers, and spearmen before horsemen.

Also, from a realism perspective; it is much easier to make a gun that can shoot through armor than to make the same gun *and* a heavily armored mobile vehicle to incorporate it into.

 

[Malachi256]

Yup, it is consistent with the "offensive" tech lines vs. "defensive" tech lines.

 

[Agamemnus]

But they could not have thought to develop an anti-tank gun without seeing a tank in the battlefield in the first place..

If you get tanks first and your enemy, with a similar amount of tech, already has anti-tank units, that makes tanks a bit nerfed, no?

 

[Catastrophe90]

If you get tanks first and your enemy, with a similar amount of tech, already has anti-tank units, that makes tanks a bit nerfed, no?

But on the other hand, don't AT Guns have 27 strength? Riflemen have 25, Infantry 38-40-ish. Anything not a Tank will maul AT Gun units, so I think its fine. In fact, I'd rather have AT Guns be a light ranged unit in the vein of Archers, but I'm just dreaming...

 

[Ahriman]

If you get tanks first and your enemy, with a similar amount of tech, already has anti-tank units, that makes tanks a bit nerfed, no?

No, because tanks are still super-high strength. AT guns are still not very effective in attacking tanks, they're useful only really to deter the tank from attacking, to buy your artillery a bit more time to shoot the tank. ATs don't really "counter" tanks that well.

In fact, I'd rather have AT Guns be a light ranged unit in the vein of Archers, but I'm just dreaming...

It would be pretty weird to see AT guns bombarding infantry units.

 

[Catastrophe90]

It would be pretty weird to see AT guns bombarding infantry units.

Its not that weird. Most AT Guns can fire HE Shells (like this one, this one and this one for example). In fact, according to Wikipedia, the T-12 is now exclusively used as an artillery piece firing HE shells. So AT Guns firing on infantry isn't without precedent (although their main role is, without doubt, countering enemy armor).

 

[gunnergoz]

Early AT guns were not much different from the artillery pieces of the day - at least the WW1 versions. They had different ammunition and in some cases different mounts but otherwise were derived from what was at hand, which was mostly light field pieces. So they could be considered to be around even before the AFV showed up on the battlefield.

 

[Thalassicus]

I wouldn't be opposed to trying out AT guns as archers, though it might make their upgrade path a little weird. (melee -> ranged -> melee)

One thing I could do is change Lances so they upgrade to Tanks, and AT-guns start off as a brand new unit. This would solve the upgrade weirdness and reduce the initial experience potential for AT guns. I could also make Helicopters into chariot-archer-like hit and run ranged units that lob missiles at targets instead of arrows.

No, because tanks are still super-high strength. AT guns are still not very effective in attacking tanks, they're useful only really to deter the tank from attacking, to buy your artillery a bit more time to shoot the tank. ATs don't really "counter" tanks that well.

One-on-one AT guns and tanks are not a huge counter, but AT guns cost much less. We can afford 2 AT-guns for every 1 tank, which I'd say is a matchup in favor of the AT guns.

 

[albie_123]

I like the idea of AT Guns starting off as a new unit. It makes sense, after all. They are a specialised unit, and in my experience, I only build them when the enemy has loadsa tanks.

 

[Ahriman]

One-on-one AT guns and tanks are not a huge counter, but AT guns cost much less. We can afford 2 AT-guns for every 1 tank, which I'd say is a matchup in favor of the AT guns.

To be clear: I think the existing design for AT guns is probably fine. They're a niche specialist defensive unit.

I don't like the idea of making them bombardment units, that is what artillery is for.

Lancers upgrading to tanks is fine though, as is having AT/AA as new units.

 

[Txurce]

One thing I could do is change Lances so they upgrade to Tanks, and AT-guns start off as a brand new unit. This would solve the upgrade weirdness and reduce the initial experience potential for AT guns. I could also make Helicopters into chariot-archer-like hit and run ranged units that lob missiles at targets instead of arrows.

I agree that this makes the upgrade path more seamless, and puts Lancers on a more worthwhile one as well. VEM is now balanced enough so that I vary building Lancers and Cavalry based on circumstance, just as I would Tanks. Bringing Lancers into the mainstream makes sense to me.

 

[Tomice]

More bombarding unit types in the lategame could prove to be fun. Remember we have THREE types of bombarding units early on (archers, catapults and chariots) and they all have meaningful roles.

Making both AT guns and gunships ranged would be worth considering IMO.

 

[Ahriman]

Late game we have artillery, fighters, bombers and battleships (and destroyer, but ancient also has trireme). I think we're ok.
Gunships are high strength/mobility units, I don't think they should be bombardment units.

I also think that it is important that bombardment units be weak, so they have to be protected. Making a defensive unit like the AT gun have bombardment would seriously mess this up. No frontline unit should have a ranged attack.

 

[Tomice]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should absolutely do this, but ranged units are fun and when trying to improve a mediocre, mostly unused unit, such a role change is worth considering IMO. This does not exclusively mean AT guns, but the whole range of units.

You are right that with the introduction of air units, we have quite a bit of variety among unit types again (and there are the new vanguard units, too). I still find it dissapointing, however, that such interesting concepts like mounted archers are used only in niche roles and that the renaissance is so boring considering unit types (which is largely due to a lack of historical counterparts, I know).

 

[Ahriman]

I think it is good that mounted archers are limited to niche roles, because these units are *incredibly* powerful in the hands of a human player but weak in the hands of the AI.
I agree that the Renaissance is boring, but as you say, there aren't any other obvious unit types that would make sense.

If you did want a late game archer-type unit, then I would suggest mortars, rather than trying to twist the AI gun to meet that role.

 

[Tomice]

"AI gun"?

Yes, we talked about mortars since the game came out. They might be a good expansion unit, but they're industrial (WW1+2) rather than renaissance units. All the discussion about midgame "archers" didn't bring up a good renaissance indirect fire unit.

We could only have light and heavy cannons (w or w/o set-up time).

 

[Ahriman]

We could only have light and heavy cannons (w or w/o set-up time).

Yes, horse-drawn field cannon would be the only sensible alternative.
But I don't think they're needed; I think it is fine to have a period where there is less bombardment, and where dragoons and lancers can really shine.

 

[qemist]

Isn't that a little odd?

IMNSHO it's simply wrong. Countermeasures get developed once a threat is apparent, very rarely is a countermeasure developed for a weapon that doesn't even exist yet.

Then again, there are far more serious inconsistencies in the tech tree. How can I build a ship which has cannons as parts if I don't know how to make a cannon? how can I put an archer on the back of a chariot if I don't know how to train an archer? etc.

 

[Thalassicus]

That's true from a realism perspective, but as Ahriman pointed out, not in the game. Spearmen come before Horsemen in Civ.