Armies

[Ahriman]

I disagree. I think AA roles are specifically specialized that unless they are insanely good vs aircraft, they will never get built unless they are also at least reasonable at ordinary combat.

AA alone is to narrow a role in Civ5, given how rare aircraft are.

 

[Thalassicus]

Ahriman pointed out the reason why I shifted around AA a bit. Aluminum is common enough that fighters are generally a better anti-air defense... so there needs to be some additional role for AA guns. I'm not quite sure what that second role should be. Right now they're similar to spearmen, but I'm open to other ideas.

 

[Busdriver]

I think AA and anti-tanks both make sense in a similar role as spearmen: good at countering a specific unit, and able to stand up on their own on defense. I can't say I have much experience fighting them, as I am usually relatively far ahead of the AI in tech at this point in the game, but I think your idea for their role is sound.

 

[black213]

Songhai's Mandekalu Cavalry is inferior when compared to Spain's Conquistador: Conquistador receives no city penalty either, and also gets extra sight, defensive embarkation and city founding on other continents.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's also worse than Keshiks, which similarly have no city penalty... so I've been thinking about a ~20% bonus vs cities for Mandekalu Cavalry.

 

[truetom]

The role of AA and AT were specific in real army, if we refer to shell ammo - nowadays it's all based on rocketry. So: 20 / 30mm AA was good against propeller low flying / strafing fighter aircraft and also against infantry; 75+ mm were good against propeller bombers and tanks. Entering jet ear these are both obsolete. Can't this be reflected with bonuses?

 

[Thalassicus]

Emphasizing rock-paper-scissors bonuses against specific unit types is a hard counter system (like the Total War series). Hard counters are easy to balance, but I feel that system has less strategic depth than soft counter systems (like in StarCraft).

Following history as you mentioned, AA guns were hard counters for aircraft, but also soft counters to infantry. This is currently reflected in the 50% vs air bonus, and 100% defensive bonus. I'm trying to shift from hard to soft counters overall... the roles I'm aiming towards are more like "defense" (spearmen) or "healing/flanking" (lancers). I'm just wondering if there's other possible roles these units might have.

 

[Txurce]

It's also worse than Keshiks, which similarly have no city penalty... so I've been thinking about a ~20% bonus vs cities for Mandekalu Cavalry.

Are the Songhai UP compared to Spain, or in general? If not, why buff them? I would compare the knight UUs to the musket ones - there are lots of them, with slight variations, and inevitably one ranks lower than the rest in comparisons. But this doesn't mean that the worst musket UU needs a buff, because the other two civ specifics play a role as well.

Emphasizing rock-paper-scissors bonuses against specific unit types is a hard counter system (like the Total War series). Hard counters are easy to balance, but I feel that system has less strategic depth than soft counter systems (like in StarCraft).

Following history as you mentioned, AA guns were hard counters for aircraft, but also soft counters to infantry. This is currently reflected in the 50% vs air bonus, and 100% defensive bonus. I'm trying to shift from hard to soft counters overall... the roles I'm aiming towards are more like "defense" (spearmen) or "healing/flanking" (lancers). I'm just wondering if there's other possible roles these units might have.

All of this makes sense. My only complaint about AT and AA units was the AI using the to take cities, and this seems to be largely a thing of the past.

 

[Questdog]

Question to clear my understanding:

I understand the rock-paper-scissors model being called by you "hard", but I'm not sure what is meant by "soft". Do you mean by this that a unit is not specifically marked as the counter to a certain unit, but that its inherent properties make it a good counter to a certain unit? Or is it something else?

 

[Ahriman]

I understand the rock-paper-scissors model being called by you "hard", but I'm not sure what is meant by "soft". Do you mean by this that a unit is not specifically marked as the counter to a certain unit, but that its inherent properties make it a good counter to a certain unit? Or is it something else?

A soft counter is something where the countering effect is weaker, and/or is dependent in how you use it.

To illustrate the difference:
In some games, like Battle for Middle Earth, spearmen are a hard counter to cavalry. The spearmen will always annihilate the cavalry, for cost.
In some games, like in Rome: Total War, its not so simple. Cavalry that charge a phalanx from the front will be annihilated, but cavalry that charge a phalanx from the rear can break the phalanx.

In Company of Heroes, a rifleman charging a machine gun from the front is thoroughly countered, but if the rifleman flanks from the side and uses a grenade, then the machine gun is dead.

 

[Questdog]

Thank you for the explanation.

It seems to me that "soft" equals more tactical complexity which equals more fun, but it would seem to be much worse for the AI than the "hard" counters.

 

[Ahriman]

but it would seem to be much worse for the AI than the "hard" counters.

Not necessarily, in fact very often the opposite is true. Hard counters mean that when used correctly, you can gain a huge efficiency advantage. And AIs are usually not good at using them correctly. With a system of soft counters, then the efficiency gains are smaller, and the AI can muddle through with sheer brute force and numbers.

 

[Questdog]

Not necessarily, in fact very often the opposite is true. Hard counters mean that when used correctly, you can gain a huge efficiency advantage. And AIs are usually not good at using them correctly. With a system of soft counters, then the efficiency gains are smaller, and the AI can muddle through with sheer brute force and numbers.

That makes some sense.

 

[Ahriman]

To give an example relevant to the point here:
Suppose that AA guns were massively effective vs aircraft, and destroyed them every time, but were only strength 10.
Suppose that without AA guns or fighters, ground units were incredibly vulnerable to aircraft.

The AI would be unlikely to utilize this system well. Efficient play requires you to bring an AA gun around anytime your ground units might get attacked by bombers, and to keep it safe and shielded, but not to bother with it in any other circumstances. The AI is likely to either have too many AA guns, or too few. If it has too many, you can easily defeat it with just ground units, and keep your air units home (or don't build them). If the AI has too few, then you can easily destroy their ground forces with your super-bombers.

In contrast, imagine the current system, where AA guns are decent vs aircraft, but not amazing, and where AA guns are worse than infantry at melee, but not that much worse, and where non-AA units aren't totally hosed by airstrikes.
Then even a dumb AI that spams AA guns or builds none at all can still do ok if it has enough of them.

 

[truetom]

A good explanation, thank you.

 

[Stalker0]

Here's a soft counter example using RTS games.

In command and conquer, a predator tank will kill many many basic infantry units (the nonrocket ones). Basic infantry almost deals no damage to the tank. This is a "hard" counter.


In starcraft, you have the marine vs the siege tank. The siege tank will counter marines only as long as they can deal with them at range and prevent the marines from getting too close. If the marines were dropped near the tanks however, they quickly kill the tanks.

In other words, its less about the units you build, and more about how they are used. This is a "soft" counter system.

 

[Mortal D]

This game is all about AI, and I will never understand why did they put so much afford in to nice graphics, and none in to AI programing.

No mater what we do or say here, it will not change it.

 

[Ahriman]

This game is all about AI, and I will never understand why did they put so much afford in to nice graphics, and none in to AI programing.

They did put a lot of effort into AI programming. But AI programming is very hard. Graphics are much easier. Yes, the AI still has a lot of problems, but doesn't mean they "put no effort in".

 

[Mortal D]

All i see AI do is A) produce a unit b) send it in direction of 1 of my cities.


Sry but no. I will not acknowledge Civ 5 AI...

 

[Questdog]

They did put a lot of effort into AI programming. But AI programming is very hard. Graphics are much easier. Yes, the AI still has a lot of problems, but doesn't mean they "put no effort in".

A lot of effort by idiots is the same as no effort from geniuses.....