Txurce
Deity
No, I didn't mean upgrading, which has indeed always been that way. I meant simply building an infantryman after researching RP.
Armies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
lord_graywolfe
Wolfman
just added this mod in and i am already enjoying the game more. thanks for all the work you put into it. i have not read through all the posts nor played a game all the way through with the mod yet but there are a couple of things i have been hoping to see change.
one why don't the units with guns have a ranged attack like the bows? it would only make sense.
second i find that great generals are pretty useless for the most part. it would be nice if they could be attached to a unit similar to civ IV giving it free upgrades.
one why don't the units with guns have a ranged attack like the bows? it would only make sense.
second i find that great generals are pretty useless for the most part. it would be nice if they could be attached to a unit similar to civ IV giving it free upgrades.
Txurce
Deity
1. This point has been argued at length at CFC. The basic reason in my opinion is era scale, as the size of the battlefield grew over time with technology. For practical purposes, rifles are melee units, and "shoot" over a shorter distance than, for example, artillery. The two units scale with each other. This leads to some inconsistencies, but there's no middle ground.
2. GG's essentially give units a free combat bonus upgrade if within two tiles of them.
lord_graywolfe
Wolfman
yeah i know about the 20% bonus for the GG but i still liked them better in IV where they became part of a unit.
i guess that makes sense for the gunpowder units, though it seems a bit odd with bows and cats together. oh well i kinda knew it was not going to happen already.
i guess that makes sense for the gunpowder units, though it seems a bit odd with bows and cats together. oh well i kinda knew it was not going to happen already.
Yes, Thal added this dependency a few weeks ago.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I think this is a good thing. It was far too easy in past to skip massive chunks of military tech, focus on economy, and then crunch your neighbors with infantry.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
The rifling requirement to build infantry was a frequent request on the todo list for a while. The idea is that Infantry are a mainline "bottom half tech" elite unit, and therefore require those techs to proceed. Light Infantry are the cheaper variety for "top half tech" economic path civs.
The other unit with a double-tech requirement is Airborne, which require both the tech they're on plus Flight (for obvious reasons). This information is displayed on the tooltips of Infantry and Airborne.
The other unit with a double-tech requirement is Airborne, which require both the tech they're on plus Flight (for obvious reasons). This information is displayed on the tooltips of Infantry and Airborne.
mitsho
Deity
Well, it was mainly a complaint before the vanguard unit line was continued to the modern age. It is however - even if gameplay demands it - highly disintuitive that you cannot upgrad your muskets to infantry. Because if you come to that situation, and you then need to research rifles, it is higly superfluous to upgrade to rifles to be able to upgrade to infantry. Again, it just doesn't make sense from a historical point of view. "Hey guys, we invented better guns, but before I can give you those, you first need to learn how to use those old rifles we invented afterwards"
Ahriman
Tyrant
I don't think so. No other upgrade path lets you skip an intermediate unit.
As I see it; the real issue is that the tech that enables infantry intuitively should require the rifling tech. But it turns out that this is a bit hard to do to the game given how the tree is structured, so it is easier to have rifling as a pre-requisite for the unit rather than for the tech.
It would be disintuitive to imagine that you could develop infantry (who are, after all, using rifles) without having developed rifling.
Gamewizard
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,234
I completely agree.
The basic problem (well, A basic problem), is that techs are arbitrarily named. For instance, 'Dynamite' is a pre-req for railroads, but because it is explosive it grants artillery which should NOT have to come before rails. 
Perhaps the rifleman unit should come before infantry, but not because it is called Rifling.
Perhaps the rifleman unit should come before infantry, but not because it is called Rifling.
mitsho
Deity
Well, then let me rephrase it. It's nonsensical for every upgrade path to not let you skip an intermediate unit. It was this way in the last civ games btw. as far as I remember, upgrading would jump you to the current unit. It's the same with if I only get Iron in the middle age, do I now really need to upgrade my lone starting warrior to a swordman and a turn later to a Longswordman? Come on!
As for the tech requiring issue, I guess one can have both opinions and it doesn't really matter as it's more a historical question. Btw. what makes Infantry Infantry and Rifleman Rifleman? The standard rule in civ is that the unit is named after the weapon they use, but Rifles and Guns and stuff are awkardly named as Rifles itself are not static weapons, they developed more and more so an Infantry certainly isn't using a Rifle, but a what? A new rifle? A WW2-rifle? an assault gun? See, naming is problems, but I think I am way off topic. So there are two issues here and neither is terribly important ;-)
@Gamewizard with whom?
@Jaybe Exactly!
Ahriman
Tyrant
I think it is reasonable that upgrading takes one turn for each step you want to upgrade, and I think it is reasonable that you should have to have tech pre-requisites to move along an upgrade path. I don't think it should be an easy thing to convert stone-age warriors into mechanized infantry. I agree that its a bit annoying in terms of MM, and I wouldn't care that much if you could upgrade all at once.
I think the much more annoying issue is that each unit can only upgrade to a single other unit, but that also seems hard-coded into the engine.
Equipment, doctrine, training, logistics, command & control, technological support. Riflemen are using late muskets, early rifles, early grenades, they're supplied by horse-drawn wagons, they're communicating via telegraph, they're giving orders with flags and mounted runners, and using a spyglass to observe things. Infantry are also using machine-guns, mortars, grenades, early assault rifles, some mines, maybe bazookas or panzerfausts. They have radios for communications, they have binoculars.
I don't see a problem with the existing unit names; they represent a military unit of a rough period of time. Of course they represent more than the single weapon, but there isn't any name that would be better than using the weapon.
I don't understand why you think it should be an easy thing to change 17th century musket units into WW1-WW2 era infantry, nor why you think it should be possible to have WW2-era infantry without having invented rifles and 19th century military technology and industry (powder mills, war colleges, professional officer corps, etc).
I just started playing with VEM and I've never posted over here so forgive me if this is in the wrong space, but I have a quick question.
Is it intended / normal in VEM for enemy military units to be able to 'snipe' Great Persons and kill them even while they're occupying the same hex as a friendly military unit? I had a Great General somehow get killed by a Chariot Archer despite my Knights occupying the same hex as the GG. I assume that's normal, but I wanted to check.
Next question: is there some documentation of all the changes that VEM makes to combat mechanics, so I can avoid screwing myself over in situations like this? I've looked in these various subforums and on Thal's website, but no luck so far.
I really like VEM so far, but it's incredibly frustrating to keep restarting games due to mechanics changes that I didn't anticipate. Thanks!
Is it intended / normal in VEM for enemy military units to be able to 'snipe' Great Persons and kill them even while they're occupying the same hex as a friendly military unit? I had a Great General somehow get killed by a Chariot Archer despite my Knights occupying the same hex as the GG. I assume that's normal, but I wanted to check.
Next question: is there some documentation of all the changes that VEM makes to combat mechanics, so I can avoid screwing myself over in situations like this? I've looked in these various subforums and on Thal's website, but no luck so far.
I really like VEM so far, but it's incredibly frustrating to keep restarting games due to mechanics changes that I didn't anticipate. Thanks!
Txurce
Deity
A quick answer: if the GG died but the covering unit did not, that's not a feature. It's either a bug or you misinterpreted what happened. Occasionally freak things happen that almost never occur again. I'm playing with v120 now, and have never had that happen to me.
The most central place to find documentation is on Thal's website - the links at the top. I don't think there's anything more comprehensive than that. But feel free to ask questions about anything that you haven't encountered before. Someone will answer pretty quickly.
The most central place to find documentation is on Thal's website - the links at the top. I don't think there's anything more comprehensive than that. But feel free to ask questions about anything that you haven't encountered before. Someone will answer pretty quickly.
Thanks for the info. That's definitely what happened, but I'll just chalk it up as a bug in the mod. I was a bit annoyed (which is putting it lightly) when it occurred, but I'm playing as China so hopefully another GG isn't too far off.
I'll have to check Thal's site again for more info about VEM. Thanks again for the tip.
Thanks for the info. That's definitely what happened, but I'll just chalk it up as a bug in the mod. I was a bit annoyed (which is putting it lightly) when it occurred, but I'm playing as China so hopefully another GG isn't too far off.
I'll have to check Thal's site again for more info about VEM. Thanks again for the tip.
It's probably more likely it's a rare vanilla bug, like the "can't enter friendly CS water after some combination of war" bug. Have you posted on the official forums to see if anyone else has experienced it?
wobuffet
Barbarian
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,248
A few notes from my last couple games:
- Great General combat bonuses don't seem to apply to naval units (probably a vanilla issue, like the land ranged unit bug that Txurce set me straight on in the Bug Reports subforum.)
- Submarines seem a bit too powerful... it seems that as soon as I build a couple, I can run around and decimate naval fleets of civs who haven't teched up to Destroyers or Subs yet with impunity.
- How about some equivalences for Indirect Fire and the few other ranged promotions that don't seem to have land equivalents yet?
- Settlers in encampments that City-States eliminate appear to just vanish into thin air. Any way around that? I just played a game where my 3rd city was built maybe 15 turns late because a Settler got captured. I was one turn away from getting it back from the encampment with a land unit, but apparently I'd weakened the unit in the encampment just enough to allow some CS to swoop in and inadvertently destroy my hard-earned Settler.
Oh, and a quick question: does hitting Space (Do nothing) fortify the unit in question? It seems like it should if the unit hasn't done anything that turn, but then again Ambush and other fortified-specific combat bonuses suggest maybe staying still but not fortifying should be an option.
- Great General combat bonuses don't seem to apply to naval units (probably a vanilla issue, like the land ranged unit bug that Txurce set me straight on in the Bug Reports subforum.)
- Submarines seem a bit too powerful... it seems that as soon as I build a couple, I can run around and decimate naval fleets of civs who haven't teched up to Destroyers or Subs yet with impunity.
- How about some equivalences for Indirect Fire and the few other ranged promotions that don't seem to have land equivalents yet?
- Settlers in encampments that City-States eliminate appear to just vanish into thin air. Any way around that? I just played a game where my 3rd city was built maybe 15 turns late because a Settler got captured. I was one turn away from getting it back from the encampment with a land unit, but apparently I'd weakened the unit in the encampment just enough to allow some CS to swoop in and inadvertently destroy my hard-earned Settler.
Oh, and a quick question: does hitting Space (Do nothing) fortify the unit in question? It seems like it should if the unit hasn't done anything that turn, but then again Ambush and other fortified-specific combat bonuses suggest maybe staying still but not fortifying should be an option.
Txurce
Deity
That's correct. It probably is a vanilla issue.
They were once too weak. With regard to your example, I think any advanced naval unit is going to wreak havoc on an AI navy.
This just happened to me recently. I don't know if the captured Settler disappeared, or was captured or turned into a Worker. But either way, he would not have remained a Settler... and so the only way you would have gotten him back is to beat the CS to the camp.
wobuffet
Barbarian
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,248
Well, but if I burst into your territory with a Battleship and sink a ship or two, you'll soon be able to fight back and either sink my Battleship or force it to run away and heal. With a Sub, you're simply out of luck if you have more units than you have coastal cities. Good luck starting your navy from scratch.
I do realize that Electricity (and thus Destroyers) come a tech before Refrigeration (Subs), but that's just not much a buffer.
Really, you don't think it's a problem that City-States just destroy your Settlers? Even if you're Friends or Allies with them?
