C2C - Units

I Specifically said the Wheel, not Chariot, and No wasn't looking at the Tech Tree, I was trying to sift through archaeological information from Wikipedia and other sources I could find in the short time I spent on it, as such the Dates I Gave are approximately when we historically started to use them, or at least that we know of seeing sadly a LOT of our history especially back then has been lost to time and war

also, sorry I did put the order of things in reverse, going Back in time

Historically the Horse was first a Food source, and after that it became an animal we used for riding around and work,
also with the wheel it's assumed that Oxen Carts where amongst the first uses of it,

and I couldn't really see where Chariots would fit into things, but I Believe it's after Horseback Riding, or even Bits, seeing It's quite different from having simple reigns to control a Cart or some other non-combat role

Also, one needs to keep in mind there are also places where Chariots never had a role while Horseback Riding Did, because of Terrain or materials so it'd make sense to have Chariots separate but more Combat/War orientated while having a lighter horse mounted unit that's more a pursuer, Harasser, raider, hunter, or scout, in terms of role, beside the Chariot,

Animal Husbandry 12-10.000 BC > Horseback Riding 3500 BC > Bits 3000 BC > Saddles 700 BC (Spread over three Ingame Ages I believe, seeing Saddles would be Antiquity)
........................................................................................ V or .......V
Wheel 4000 BC > Chariots ¿2500 BC? (Don't quote me on that date)

(Had to edit to make the Down arrows work >.< sorry for the dots It's how I made things work )
 
There seems to be disagreement if horse riding or chariot were first in common use, with some people claiming horse riding in battle at 5000BCE, other claiming it wasn't common until 500 years after the chariot in 2500BCE or so. Perhaps it is different definitions of widespread. In the end I guess we need to decide if the technology represents the first person ever attempting something, or its widespread adoption. If the tech unlocks a military unit then I would suggest the tech represents widespread adoption not mere first ever use. However if it unlocks the unit tech, but the unit still has other prerequisites then perhaps it is reasonable to see the tech as first usage, and the fullfilling of the other prerequisites as being whatever the historic conditions where for "widespread adoption".
 
In the end I guess we need to decide if the technology represents the first person ever attempting something, or its widespread adoption
We determined on the forum a few years back that it is the latter.
 
Update:

Did some design planning last night on the Defensive Siege line that currently ends at Unmanned Machine Gun. I will be further developing stats and a unique Defensive Collateral ability (deals collateral to the stack on the plot from which the attack comes) for the following units that I will also be needing to find art for:

Tesla Tower
UNIT_TESLA_TOWER
TECH_ELECTRIC_ARC_WEAPONRY
(Electric arc weaponry at its finest - needs a heavy power source so is not as mobile or small as future Tesla Infantry units to come, but this applies the weaponry type immediately and is very hard to overcome for most unit types.)

Ion Cannon Turret
UNIT_ION_CANNON_TURRET
TECH_ION_BEAMS
(High powered beam weapons are very hard to approach - accuracy is greater than anything previously developed and the range is nearly interplanetary.)

Freeze Ray Turret
UNIT_FREEZE_RAY_TURRET
TECH_FROST_BEAMS
(Sub-Zero (of Mortal Kombat of course) would be envious.)

Photon Ball
UNIT_PHOTON_BALL
TECH_SOLAR_ORDNANCE
(Giant disco-ball that scours in all directions and capable of focusing the photonic rays into incredibly powerful directed beams or as a variety of spreads so as to be highly useful against a wide array of very dangerous unit types.)

Disintegration Cannon
UNIT_DISINTEGRATION_CANNON
TECH_WEAPONIZED_DISINTEGRATION
(So you're heavily armored? So what? We've learned how to simply disassemble anything we see and send its atoms scattering throughout space, even splitting some of them on impact. You'd better be faster than we can aim because absolutely nothing can stand against this.)

Tactical Wave Disruption Turret
UNIT_TACTICAL_WAVE_DISRUPTION_TURRET
TECH_WAVE_MOTION_GUN
(If we turn this thing up high enough we could probably carve out a new Grand Canyon, dispersing all atoms in the path of the weapon into the sub-atomic soup of chaos. The only problem is it takes a little longer to charge up to fire. It's a small scale version of larger ones on larger ships so it's much faster, but there might be some things that can move even faster than this, allowing them to get at this defense.)

Unraveling Wave Pulse Generator
UNIT_UNRAVELING_WAVE_PULSE_GENERATOR
TECH_COSMIC_WARFARE
(F it... just banish every enemy acting in a hostile manner. Only the most enlightened beings can resist the pulse of unraveling which would simply write its targets from existence.)

I've got some stats outlined already but final strength values will have to be determined based on what other units in those eras adopt. Will take some further analysis before I can determine that.

Many more to come... Just figured I might let y'all in on some of what I'm up to here. (And I'm asking for help with the unit art! I did find art I think will work for the previous requests.)
 
Last edited:
More plans tonight on the Anti-Air Vehicle line, currently ending with ACV SAM (which I will assume uses laser-guided and GPS assisted technologies to fire a variety of short to long range interception solutions, often missile based - the next gen we're working on developing now basically):

Acoustic Interceptor
UNIT_ACOUSTIC_INTERCEPTOR
TECH_ACOUSTOPHORESIS
(Creates disrupting sound waves that 'grab' and throw or divert aircraft, often just driving them directly into a crash - Acoustophoresis is basically Sound Telekinetics)

Directed Energy Interceptor
UNIT_DE_INTERCEPTOR
TECH_ION_BEAMS
(A return to the simple blow 'em out of the sky approach, but with super high powered ion beams. Faster to get to the kill than somewhat weakly locking on and taking control of the aircraft's tragectory.)

Electromagnetic Interceptor
UNIT_ELECTROMAGNETIC_INTERCEPTOR
TECH_HYPERMAGNETICS
(Encase approaching aircraft in an electromagnetic tractor beam that throws the craft wherever the beam operator wishes, much faster to lock the target than the Acoustic Interceptor is - Capable of diverting a lot of incoming firepower so begins to offer some Collateral defense for the entire tile's units.)

Mobile Shield Generator
UNIT_MOBILE_SHIELD_GENERATOR
TECH_ADVANCED_SHIELDING
(Creates invisible shields of varying sizes wherever it wishes to establish them, within range at least, such as in flight paths of enemy craft and to help strongly protect the plot's units against Collateral)

Gravitronic Interceptor
UNIT_GRAVITRONIC_INTERCEPTOR
TECH_WEAPONIZED_GRAVITY_FIELDS
(Manipulates gravity so as to intercept anything that approaches with hostility and throw it into crushing gravitational vortexes almost impossible to avoid. Capable of twisting gravitation fields in the region to intercept, deflect, and refract the trajectories of projectiles, rays, beams and so on.)

Chrono Interceptor
UNIT_CHRONO_INTERCEPTOR
TECH_STABLE_TIME_LOOPS
(Although it uses a variety of interception techniques, applying the best tool for the job, if anything under its protection is damaged in the slightest, it simply triggers a stable time loop and goes back to change the result with increasing awareness and adjusting strategies until it succeeds and thereafter exits the loop. Almost completely flawless.)

Undo Engine
UNIT_UNDO_ENGINE
TECH_TRUTH_MANIPULATION
(When all else fails, just change reality itself so that the threat no longer exists. This is less a vehicle and more a form of raw intelligent energy with the power to undo and alter events that have taken place with few limits.)
 
Last edited:
Further plans in the works. More units for the Rocketeer unit chain. These are primarily defined as foot soldiers with extremely heavy, fairly long range, somewhat slow to recover between weapons uses, often designed to enable the soldier to take down very large targets. There are already a number of these at varying stages, but much of the line, rather than being unusual side-upgrades or alternatives for more core soldier types, could be further built out so that it becomes a more steady upgrade path of its own, with its own niche(s) in strategic play that stabilize the general reasons to train and employ them. I am also considering them capable of surprising variations throughout their upgrade stages that result from the differences in the forms of weaponry they employ. One version may be very good against a certain unit type while its upgrade might find that particular type to be overall terrible for them to face, but there ARE reliable standards you can pretty much rely on. It's just that you might want to pay attention to some of the subtle differences or be taken off guard, overlook a unique weakness, or miss opportunities you might not realize you have with a new upgrade form.

Generally, they are weak to smaller forms of firepower due to their long recovery periods. They do a lot of damage with each blast but take a long time between blasts. This is mostly reflected in what unit types they have benefits and penalties towards. They tend to do well on hills and make a good niche for hill attack units and later for hill defense as well. This is because in such a case the land can often be used against the enemy, causing rockslides and having places to hunker down and find strong concealment can be a big factor for these types.

Here's the line in full, once it has been implemented (New Units):
Ancient Rocketeer -> Ancient Hand Cannon -> (Hand Cannon) -> (Hand Mortar) -> (Sauterelle) -> (Mortarman) -> Bazooka -> SAM Infantry -> Anti-Tank -> (Suppression Infantry) -> (Laser Infantry) -> (Sonic Blasters) -> (Space SAM Infantry becomes: Ion Infantry) -> (Cyberkineticist) -> (Disintegration Infantry) -> (Anti-Matter Rocketeer) -> (Warp Infantry) -> (Invoker)

Breaking down the NEW units:
>Hand Cannon
>UNIT_HAND_CANNON
>TECH_GUNPOWDER

We have the Ancient one, but that was based on a later actual gunpowder based design. It was generally considered a somewhat poor and unreliable weapon at the time and the stats will reflect that it wasn't REALLY coming into its own as a highly effective unit type. But it's there in part to provide a stable upgrade path that doesn't force the unit into the awkward requirement to have its role in the army rethought entirely after upgrading. It still has a strong benefit in certain applications, like attacking hill positions where landslides and avalanches can be very useful.


>Hand Mortar
>UNIT_HAND_MORTAR
>TECH_GRAND_WAR
Larger, two-handed launcher of an explosive. Still a little awkward, slow, inaccurate, and capable of mishap, but the ability to lob at long range does help with countering some fortification benefits when used to attack.


>Sauterelle
>UNIT_SAUTERELLE
>TECH_TRENCH_WARFARE
The Arbalète sauterelle type A, or simply Sauterelle (French for grasshopper), was a bomb-throwing crossbow used by French and British forces on the Western Front during World War I. It was designed to throw a hand grenade in a high trajectory into enemy trenches. Somewhat weak still but getting better at getting past fortification benefits.


>Mortarman
>UNIT_MORTARMAN
>TECH_ADVANCED_METALLURGY + TECH_TRENCH_WARFARE
Every kid I ever knew growing up had 'army men' sets. And those sets included this guy on his knee with a tube facing downrange. Funny we don't have these Mortar operators as units in CivIV and never have... considering how strongly they factored into things for quite some time in WWII+ warfare eras. These are finally starting to be pretty decent and are very good at penetrating the fortified. Obviously, although they are given to have more small arms rifles and so on, they are a little vulnerable when they come under direct attack from numerous standard soldiers.


>Suppression Infantry
>UNIT_SUPPRESSION_INFANTRY
>TECH_MICROWAVE_WEAPONRY
I will admit that while we have designed effective microwave beam weaponry, heat rays basically, and mounted them on vehicles, we have yet to really give foot soldiers a version of their own to carry and employ. However, I also think it's only a matter of time before we do. Whether at war or in non-lethal crowd control, the abilities these weapons offer, particularly in targeting pilots and onsite machine operators, or large amounts of immediate enemies at close range are quite impressive. When folks get hit by these weapons, they feel nothing but pain. It's almost impossible to continue to operate the vehicle you are in and crashes become hard to avoid, and even the normal functioning of electronics can be disrupted by these beams. It may not seem like a hugely powerful weapon, but I predict they are going to become more and more strategically valid for certain situations to the point that we'll soon have 'bazooka-like' shoulder-mounted soldier deployed versions. And that's what this unit is.


>Laser Infantry
>UNIT_LASER_INFANTRY
>TECH_WEAPONIZED_LASERS
Truly damaging lasers are fairly large devices at first, and aren't likely to be rifle or pistol-sized as you might imagine from Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica. They're very good at taking down targets at long range, slipping through any visible panels to blast out the retinas of pilots, heating up explosives to turn the destructive power of enemy weapons against themselves, and melting down electronic circuits with great accuracy. Just too bad it is such a large weapon system for a foot soldier. Maybe down the road we'll get some smaller laser weapons with this much strength.


>Sonic Blasters
>UNIT_SONIC_BLASTERS
>TECH_ACOUSTIC_WEAPONRY
Once we really figure out just how damaging perfectly gauged sonic discharges can be at tearing apart nearly any material as long as the weapon knows what material it is looking to dismantle, weapons like these will emerge to rip apart large targets at long range, even with wide-angle blasts that can collect quite a few targets of the same type into its field of devastation. Unfortunately, it will be a little slow as the targets will need to be evaluated and the weapon set to destroy them specifically, as different targets require differing frequencies.


>Ion Infantry
>UNIT_SPACE_SAM_INFANTRY
>Move to TECH_ION_BEAMS
Replaces Space Sam Infantry mostly in that it uses a huge shoulder-mounted Ion Cannon. In such a small package (since these things are as miniaturized as possible for a foot soldier and usually can only be mounted on a vehicle due to the size requirements), they blast and then take quite a bit of time to recover. Sure, they generally destroy anything in the path of the blast and are terrific at armor penetration, but the slow recovery and very direct laser-like target focus can be weaknesses that some units can exploit.


>Cyberkineticist
>UNIT_CYBERKINETICIST
>TECH_BINARY_PYSCHOKINESIS
This ability to invoke a fairly true Telekinesis effect to tear apart targets, throw things at targets, push/pull targets to force crashes, rip off doors in hostile space, and so on, is assumed here to require both a biological brain function as well as a technological one, since the biological can connect to the aspect of reality where thought is in control of the physical world, but the technological speed of processing is needed to truly reliably tap into that ability in a useful way. This cyborg is very committed to this function and purpose and he's nearly magical in what he can achieve, but it takes some time to think about what he wishes to do before he can actually do it, so actually works with many of the same benefits and penalties, pros and cons, that so many footsoldier types up to this point using large heavy weapons miniaturized for shoulder mounting have been working with. So yes, the form and method changes dramatically, but the final results aren't all that different, just dramatically improved in this form.


>Disintegration Infantry
>UNIT_DISINTEGRATION_INFANTRY
>TECH_WEAPONIZED_DISINTEGRATION
Sometimes the older ways are superior when the older methods get an upgrade like this. Disintegration tech is so strong as a weapon, that going back to shoulder mounted beam weapons actually makes sense here because no form of armor can maintain integrity when faced with this strike, and the speed of it has improved to the point that it is actually superior to the telekinetics, particularly in taking down very very big targets.


>Anti-Matter Rocketeer
>UNIT_ANTIMATTER_ROCKETEER
>TECH_ANTIMATTER_ROCKET
Going back even further still to rockets (although with major improvements to how they are carried in massive boxes off the shoulders and automated targeting systems) makes sense at this stage because when these rockets hit, they create a stronger disintegration effect in a massive blast zone, completely wiping out any physical matter/energy within the blast zone with an absolute negation effect. Being able to put this ability on a couple of foot soldiers makes for a very easily overlooked mega-threat.


>Warp Infantry
>UNIT_WARP_INFANTRY
>TECH_GALACTIC_WARFARE + TECH_SPACE_CREASING
Perhaps this is best to be envisioned as the next generation of telekinetic. This guy warps and twists space and time itself into knots and creases and folds, capable of tearing apart nearly anything it encounters if it has the time to generate the focus into the effect that can make it happen. Little can resist but if the target isn't all that weak to geometric manipulation of its essence, it might be tough for this unit to defeat.


>Invoker
>UNIT_INVOKER
>TECH_MATERIALIZATION
Another upgrade to the Telekinetic and Warp Infantry concepts, this guy is pretty much a wizard in the way we think of wizards. He's able to manifest nearly any energetic effect, and outright programs things directly into existence, and potentially even OUT of existence. Getting the job done still takes some thought and going through some process (such as 'casting spells' would require) and that can make him a little slow at making nearly anything happen. That can be his undoing. How much of this is tech-based and how much is not is more a matter of the beliefs of the culture that achieves this status on the tech tree, since their collective beliefs are now powerfully influencing reality to reflect those assumptions. Therefore, you can see this as an AI tapping into the thought control over the essence of physics itself and reprogramming reality to shape itself as it wishes, or as a wizard casting spells based on arcane knowledge and means of categorizing and manipulating all the forces in the universe, or as a matter transmutational device mounted on a footsoldier who employs it to create all the same potential range of effects. View him as you wish and perhaps we can create a wide variety of unit arts based on some choices players make down the road, though it'll need something more specifically defined to start with.
 
After reviewing the Standard Archery units, aside from some adjustments to stats and the aforementioned War Slinger unit which would be an upgrade step between Slinger and Archer, I also believe we should add:

>Composite Longbowman
>UNIT_COMPOSITE_LONGBOWMAN
>TECH_CLOCKWORKS
Nothing too special, just a small strength bump for the standard Longbowman.
 
I'm probably late to the party here, but I couldn't find other discussion on it. Has there been any talk on the potential inaccuracy of what bonuses the various melee units provide? It's balanced as it is I'm sure, but historically it seems odd how the unit bonuses are arranged. Just a game, of course, and I don't know the full history of what brought the melee units to where they are bonus wise, but spears being so useless against axes feels... wrong. And swords feel strange as well. I don't mean to insult the work put into the mod at all, just not sure where to ask why the bonuses are what they are to put my mind to rest on it.

Ultimately all below is useless since the game is balanced, but below would be my thoughts with no background in balancing c2c.
Would axes not have more city attack than a mace, i.e. breaking down fortifications? Spears a first strike against melee? Swords a bonus against light units and maces a bonus against armored units? The latter doesn't exist, exactly, so maybe that's ultimately what lead the bonuses to where they are in that swords don't have much of a true purpose in this realm.

Let me know if this was the wrong thread or something.
 
Would axes not have more city attack than a mace, i.e. breaking down fortifications? Spears a first strike against melee? Swords a bonus against light units and maces a bonus against armored units? The latter doesn't exist, exactly, so maybe that's ultimately what lead the bonuses to where they are in that swords don't have much of a true purpose in this realm.
That's pretty close to how I've balanced units in MToS, a C2C modmod.
We do have armour and puncture unit stats btw, they are just unused in C2C currently.
 
I'm probably late to the party here, but I couldn't find other discussion on it. Has there been any talk on the potential inaccuracy of what bonuses the various melee units provide? It's balanced as it is I'm sure, but historically it seems odd how the unit bonuses are arranged. Just a game, of course, and I don't know the full history of what brought the melee units to where they are bonus wise, but spears being so useless against axes feels... wrong. And swords feel strange as well. I don't mean to insult the work put into the mod at all, just not sure where to ask why the bonuses are what they are to put my mind to rest on it.

Ultimately all below is useless since the game is balanced, but below would be my thoughts with no background in balancing c2c.
Would axes not have more city attack than a mace, i.e. breaking down fortifications? Spears a first strike against melee? Swords a bonus against light units and maces a bonus against armored units? The latter doesn't exist, exactly, so maybe that's ultimately what lead the bonuses to where they are in that swords don't have much of a true purpose in this realm.

Let me know if this was the wrong thread or something.
Certainly the right thread.

Having done a lot of sparring with mock weapons, I see a lot of inconsistencies in the original vanilla balance scheme where spears are weak but counter mounted units, Mounted counters all other melee but is not so great at attacking cities, swords are stronger than other melee, enough to fight mounted effectively, particularly when attacking, but primarily is for attacking cities, axes are anti-melee but fail against mounted and are insufficient as city attackers, archers are bad in the field unless on a hill and terrible as attackers but very strong at defending cities.

Maintaining this scheme of balance, while adding further elements, such as throwing units, mace units, strike teams and power mounts and so on, has been the goal of this and all mods C2C has been built on and I'm not planning on changing that fact.

So while I can see from a historical perspective, and perhaps a reality-based perspective, that the game itself is a little inaccurate in how it represents certain units (spears are pretty much an outright dominant force in battle with melee in fact, where in our mod we have them as keenly weak against most melee) the effort is to make each unit a necessary tool to be used in a specific manner and for a purpose, such that each core unit cannot be ignored and go unused lest you leave yourself open to a major weakness or fail to take advantage of opportunities you have. This requires a touch of game unreality, which thankfully for the sanity of most, goes largely unnoticeable.

Some of that reality will be infused later into the equipment mod, where certain aspects of units will be able to vary and we can express some deeper insights into the warfare qualities of various weapons and armors. That's a later stage thing to be developed. In the meantime, I'm quite happy to maintain some adherence to the original vanilla rock-paper-scissors setup they established while building room for a deeper scheme. At this point, my greater concern is balance itself.
 
Certainly the right thread.

Having done a lot of sparring with mock weapons, I see a lot of inconsistencies in the original vanilla balance scheme where spears are weak but counter mounted units, Mounted counters all other melee but is not so great at attacking cities, swords are stronger than other melee, enough to fight mounted effectively, particularly when attacking, but primarily is for attacking cities, axes are anti-melee but fail against mounted and are insufficient as city attackers, archers are bad in the field unless on a hill and terrible as attackers but very strong at defending cities.

Maintaining this scheme of balance, while adding further elements, such as throwing units, mace units, strike teams and power mounts and so on, has been the goal of this and all mods C2C has been built on and I'm not planning on changing that fact.

So while I can see from a historical perspective, and perhaps a reality-based perspective, that the game itself is a little inaccurate in how it represents certain units (spears are pretty much an outright dominant force in battle with melee in fact, where in our mod we have them as keenly weak against most melee) the effort is to make each unit a necessary tool to be used in a specific manner and for a purpose, such that each core unit cannot be ignored and go unused lest you leave yourself open to a major weakness or fail to take advantage of opportunities you have. This requires a touch of game unreality, which thankfully for the sanity of most, goes largely unnoticeable.

Some of that reality will be infused later into the equipment mod, where certain aspects of units will be able to vary and we can express some deeper insights into the warfare qualities of various weapons and armors. That's a later stage thing to be developed. In the meantime, I'm quite happy to maintain some adherence to the original vanilla rock-paper-scissors setup they established while building room for a deeper scheme. At this point, my greater concern is balance itself.

WMA and amateur military history is where I got my observations as well.

That's completely understandable that the goal was never to change the accuracy of the melee system so far, I can respect that. As it stands I may look into modding at some point if I ever have the time to try and softly shift the balance on my own end. Though with the sheer number of things going on in this mod I doubt I'll ever have the will.

I look forward to when the equipment mod is introduced fully, it seems very promising so far and it will be great to see that fully fleshed out.

That's pretty close to how I've balanced units in MToS, a C2C modmod.
We do have armour and puncture unit stats btw, they are just unused in C2C currently.

Interesting, I did see your mod in the modmods section but didn't see much information on any unit balance in the primary post. Thanks for letting me know, I'll check it out.
 
WMA and amateur military history is where I got my observations as well.

That's completely understandable that the goal was never to change the accuracy of the melee system so far, I can respect that. As it stands I may look into modding at some point if I ever have the time to try and softly shift the balance on my own end. Though with the sheer number of things going on in this mod I doubt I'll ever have the will.

I look forward to when the equipment mod is introduced fully, it seems very promising so far and it will be great to see that fully fleshed out.



Interesting, I did see your mod in the modmods section but didn't see much information on any unit balance in the primary post. Thanks for letting me know, I'll check it out.
You may be interested in checking out how the plan is shaping up for the current rebalancing effort. It certainly is maintaining some vanilla adherence, but I think it's doing it in some more interesting ways. For most of the setup, I could defend it all with 'reasons'. For example;
Why is a sword unit going to often beat a spear unit?: Because a spear's initial thrust can be deflected by the shield or parried by the sword and once you get inside the reach of the tip of the spear, the sword is a much more wieldy and lethal weapon at that range.
Why is an axe going to often beat a spear unit?: Because axes were often employed, like two handed claymores, to chop off the tips of the spears held in a tight warfare formation. Yes, in individual combat a spear will, in reality, basically get a first strike on the axe wielder, which can often end the fight right there. But in group combat, the axes approach with some caution and often try to damage the weapons they face, and are usually quite good at it, which was one reason why polearms kept plating further and further down the shaft in later designs.
Why are spears so good against mounted? Because they can be set for charge and are often very good, when used in this manner, at dismounting foes and killing the mounts, and mounted generally relies on that charge. This may not be too realistic when you are speaking about mounted archers but we don't have THAT much resolution into reality with this system while keeping it fairly in balance as a game. The idea that the spear is good at reaching the mounted wielder in such a way that it counters the benefit of having the 'higher ground' or being somehow set back from the blades of the enemy is what gives the impression of the spear having benefit here.

I could go on with justifications... lol. Basically that's what it mainly requires, the ability to be able to logic out the why behind these established modifiers while also making sure those modifiers create a system of intriguing checks and balances.

By all means, please take a bit to review the planning work done so far: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...VoIGJPc0q0t9Y_LKgAo1xbFXk/edit#gid=1352941261

If you have any questions about what you see, I'm more than happy to have discussions on any of it and perhaps you can influence a thing or two. (That goes for you as well @Toffer90 ! This is the time to review and comment as the plans are coming together.)
 
You may be interested in checking out how the plan is shaping up for the current rebalancing effort. It certainly is maintaining some vanilla adherence, but I think it's doing it in some more interesting ways. For most of the setup, I could defend it all with 'reasons'. For example;
Why is a sword unit going to often beat a spear unit?: Because a spear's initial thrust can be deflected by the shield or parried by the sword and once you get inside the reach of the tip of the spear, the sword is a much more wieldy and lethal weapon at that range.
Why is an axe going to often beat a spear unit?: Because axes were often employed, like two handed claymores, to chop off the tips of the spears held in a tight warfare formation. Yes, in individual combat a spear will, in reality, basically get a first strike on the axe wielder, which can often end the fight right there. But in group combat, the axes approach with some caution and often try to damage the weapons they face, and are usually quite good at it, which was one reason why polearms kept plating further and further down the shaft in later designs.
Why are spears so good against mounted? Because they can be set for charge and are often very good, when used in this manner, at dismounting foes and killing the mounts, and mounted generally relies on that charge. This may not be too realistic when you are speaking about mounted archers but we don't have THAT much resolution into reality with this system while keeping it fairly in balance as a game. The idea that the spear is good at reaching the mounted wielder in such a way that it counters the benefit of having the 'higher ground' or being somehow set back from the blades of the enemy is what gives the impression of the spear having benefit here.

I could go on with justifications... lol. Basically that's what it mainly requires, the ability to be able to logic out the why behind these established modifiers while also making sure those modifiers create a system of intriguing checks and balances.

By all means, please take a bit to review the planning work done so far: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...VoIGJPc0q0t9Y_LKgAo1xbFXk/edit#gid=1352941261

If you have any questions about what you see, I'm more than happy to have discussions on any of it and perhaps you can influence a thing or two. (That goes for you as well @Toffer90 ! This is the time to review and comment as the plans are coming together.)

Interesting, and the reasons are definitely there for a lot of things even now, but they just aren't totally satisfying.

My two cents would be that I'd have to disagree with some of your reasons with spears, for example, their benefits only increase in large battles where an axe has to close not just one spear but several at a time. In a one on one, I often feel like a sword (weakly) beats a spear. In a skirmish with a couple people, spears are just too fast and too hard to close in on and can cover eachother too effectively. The plating was mostly for keeping the head of the polearm firmly joined, and to add weight, but preventing sundering is a reasonable benefit.

Horseback I agree, horse archers really are kind of a special situation, since stationary melee fighters simply cannot fight horse archers reasonably. I feel like that should be more reflected in withdrawl chances than anything. Against a melee cavalry charge a brace of spears is basically a death sentence though. Overall cavalry should (and do?) have crazy withdraw chances, and normal archers probably should too.

I had a paragraph of stuff but just to summarize:
(where all units below are assumed to have equal strength at an equal tier)
Archers
iFirstStrikes 2
iCityDefense 50
iHillsDefense 25
VS Animal 25

Spears
VS Melee 25, Reach
VS Melee +1 First Strike, Reach
VS Mounted 25(50), Brings to their level, (brace)
VS Mounted Defense (50)0, (brace against a charge) or nonexistent, just throwing stuff out there honestly

Maces
City Attack 25, balance?
VS higher base strength 50, offsets armor improvements, gives lower tier civs a fighting chance
VS archer 25, shields or armor

Axes
City Attack 25/50, due to chopping action famous to axes
VS higher base strength 25, offsets armor improvements, axes have pretty good impact and top weighting compared to a sword, doesn't just bounce off full plate but can potentially cause concussions

Swords
VS Melee 25, they simply outclass and outmaneuver everything but a spear in an equal fight
VS Archer 25, shields? and later armor

Cavalry
Pretty much all of these should have crazy withdraw chances, but horse archers especially.

Honestly if the system really wanted to be realistic, having withdraw chances be a lot higher across the board would be my go to. It is rare for armies to fight to the death, and widdling eachother down is a major component. This could even play into size matters, in that small groups have very large withdraw chances, while larger groups have smaller and smaller withdraw chances. If that were to be implemented though that would probably have to be optional, wars are already long.

There are some of my thoughts, maybe they might give some ideas on different ways to proceed but they probably would not be balanced or necessarily even doable.
 
The units planned are good so far. It's it gets more "fantastical" (really low sci-fi) when we get Cosmic and beyond. The problem now is crime-fighting, disease-fighting, and educating units. Unless other units are supposed to fill these roles?
 
Interesting, and the reasons are definitely there for a lot of things even now, but they just aren't totally satisfying.

My two cents would be that I'd have to disagree with some of your reasons with spears, for example, their benefits only increase in large battles where an axe has to close not just one spear but several at a time. In a one on one, I often feel like a sword (weakly) beats a spear. In a skirmish with a couple people, spears are just too fast and too hard to close in on and can cover eachother too effectively. The plating was mostly for keeping the head of the polearm firmly joined, and to add weight, but preventing sundering is a reasonable benefit.

Horseback I agree, horse archers really are kind of a special situation, since stationary melee fighters simply cannot fight horse archers reasonably. I feel like that should be more reflected in withdrawl chances than anything. Against a melee cavalry charge a brace of spears is basically a death sentence though. Overall cavalry should (and do?) have crazy withdraw chances, and normal archers probably should too.

I had a paragraph of stuff but just to summarize:
(where all units below are assumed to have equal strength at an equal tier)
Archers
iFirstStrikes 2
iCityDefense 50
iHillsDefense 25
VS Animal 25

Spears
VS Melee 25, Reach
VS Melee +1 First Strike, Reach
VS Mounted 25(50), Brings to their level, (brace)
VS Mounted Defense (50)0, (brace against a charge) or nonexistent, just throwing stuff out there honestly

Maces
City Attack 25, balance?
VS higher base strength 50, offsets armor improvements, gives lower tier civs a fighting chance
VS archer 25, shields or armor

Axes
City Attack 25/50, due to chopping action famous to axes
VS higher base strength 25, offsets armor improvements, axes have pretty good impact and top weighting compared to a sword, doesn't just bounce off full plate but can potentially cause concussions

Swords
VS Melee 25, they simply outclass and outmaneuver everything but a spear in an equal fight
VS Archer 25, shields? and later armor

Cavalry
Pretty much all of these should have crazy withdraw chances, but horse archers especially.

Honestly if the system really wanted to be realistic, having withdraw chances be a lot higher across the board would be my go to. It is rare for armies to fight to the death, and widdling eachother down is a major component. This could even play into size matters, in that small groups have very large withdraw chances, while larger groups have smaller and smaller withdraw chances. If that were to be implemented though that would probably have to be optional, wars are already long.

There are some of my thoughts, maybe they might give some ideas on different ways to proceed but they probably would not be balanced or necessarily even doable.
It's interesting that some of your thinking is similar to how Toffer set up his take on things. Some of this will be better reflected in a more advanced equipment sense and some of it I think is asking for a little too much realism over simplicity for the sake of gameplay.

Swords, by the way, are getting city attack because it is assumed that the city environment is highly irregular and often close quarters, where a fast, light, close combat situation is as likely to be found as what you'd have in an open courtyard. Swords can swing and stab and make use of limited space better than most other medieval weapons. Much of the swords benefit stems from the shields they are assumed to have or parrying if it's a two-handed version.

Again, however, consider that the rationale is important only in so far as one can think of some for the reasons that it is such that it leans towards the setup being fairly realistic enough for the system to be believable while also being a clean set of counteractions for the sake of game structure. I do plan to somewhat toss that salad a bit when it comes to equipment, where finally we can actually consider how accurate or unwieldy weapons are, how good they are at puncturing armor and how damaging they are when they land a blow.

The units planned are good so far. It's it gets more "fantastical" (really low sci-fi) when we get Cosmic and beyond. The problem now is crime-fighting, disease-fighting, and educating units. Unless other units are supposed to fill these roles?
You may find that the planning stage hasn't gotten down to those rows yet. I realize there's more to be done there, particularly for the future stuff.
 
Maybe I can contribute?

Disease Fighters:

Cyberimmulogist
TECH_ACYBERIMM

Animadocter
TECH_ANIMA_MATERIALS

Cybertansformist
TECH_POSTHUMANISM

Crime Fighters:

Policeborg
TECH_CYBERNETICS

Social Engineer
TECH_PRECISION_SOCIAL_ENGINEERING

Educators:

Online Educator
TECH_MMO

Universal Educator
TECH_UNIVERSAL_TRANSLATOR

Mind Downloader
TECH_MIND_UPLOADING

Pollution Fighters:

Ecoengineer
TECH_ECOLOGICAL_ENGINEERING

Hyperecolgist
TECH_ENVIRONMENTAL_ECONOMICS

Gaia Ecologist
TECH_GAIA_ECOLOGY
 
Unit design/description should be very hard SF in beginning of Nanotech (and latter half of Information era).
That is Nanotech: Engineering Fiction - things possible with current understanding of physics and other sciences, but currently too challenging to do it now.
Transhuman: Hard SF - some new physics, but no things like Star Wars The Force or other sentient energy fields (mana/spirituality/life force/other reality bending just by using brain), but those could be simulated with technology.
That is transhuman commanding microbots/nanobots by thinking would be good enough wizardry.
Galactic: Medium SF - New physics. Artificial magic is slowly mastered, FTL enters scene.
Cosmic: Soft SF - All forms of exotic atoms/matter are slowly invented and used to build fantastical worlds, time travel enters scene.
Transcendental: Fantasy - Full blown reality warping is available, sentient energy fields are available, and can be made accessible for primitive beings.
 
In a one on one, I often feel like a sword (weakly) beats a spear.

Depends highly on gear setup; Lindybeige testing out untrained spearmen vs trained swordsmen .

IMO I'd take the existing game balancing over more 'realistic' rock-paper-scissors who-beats-what effects for the simple reason that this fundamentally is a game, and I'd call the existing interactions both close enough and not too complex to understand, but there is always a place for someone who wants to take things to the next level, and put the (massive) work into entirely redesigning all the weapon type interactions.
 
Maybe I can contribute?

Disease Fighters:

Cyberimmulogist
TECH_ACYBERIMM

Animadocter
TECH_ANIMA_MATERIALS

Cybertansformist
TECH_POSTHUMANISM

Crime Fighters:

Policeborg
TECH_CYBERNETICS

Social Engineer
TECH_PRECISION_SOCIAL_ENGINEERING

Educators:

Online Educator
TECH_MMO

Universal Educator
TECH_UNIVERSAL_TRANSLATOR

Mind Downloader
TECH_MIND_UPLOADING

Pollution Fighters:

Ecoengineer
TECH_ECOLOGICAL_ENGINEERING

Hyperecolgist
TECH_ENVIRONMENTAL_ECONOMICS

Gaia Ecologist
TECH_GAIA_ECOLOGY
I'll take each into consideration when I get down to those rows. Thank you! Some may fit quite well.

Unit design/description should be very hard SF in beginning of Nanotech (and latter half of Information era).
That is Nanotech: Engineering Fiction - things possible with current understanding of physics and other sciences, but currently too challenging to do it now.
Transhuman: Hard SF - some new physics, but no things like Star Wars The Force or other sentient energy fields (mana/spirituality/life force/other reality bending just by using brain), but those could be simulated with technology.
That is transhuman commanding microbots/nanobots by thinking would be good enough wizardry.
Galactic: Medium SF - New physics. Artificial magic is slowly mastered, FTL enters scene.
Cosmic: Soft SF - All forms of exotic atoms/matter are slowly invented and used to build fantastical worlds, time travel enters scene.
Transcendental: Fantasy - Full blown reality warping is available, sentient energy fields are available, and can be made accessible for primitive beings.
I'm pretty much just following the tech tree and what it's saying it unlocks and it's unfolding pretty well I think. Yes, it does get more and more fantastic as it goes, to truly mind-bending levels. Have you reviewed some of the initial design plans yet?

Man... getting the unit art for all this stuff is going to be something else.
 
Top Bottom