So with this in mind, do vanguard units also need the defense bonus?
they are resourceless, so there is a reason to build them. They get specialized promotions, another reason to build them. Why do they also need a higher base defense?
CEP: Armies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
So with this in mind, do vanguard units also need the defense bonus?
they are resourceless, so there is a reason to build them. They get specialized promotions, another reason to build them. Why do they also need a higher base defense?
ExpiredReign
Deity
I reckon I'm going to need a few more games with these changes to fully see the scope.
Arguing over strengths and bonuses or buffs and nerfs or promotions and upgrades is doing my head in.
I don't profess to be in the same category as most of you vociferous bunch when it comes to these things but I know one thing.
CivUp/GEM or CEP makes my Civ V game enjoyable. I keep coming back to it even when I think, "vanilla is okay".
We have a winner here.
Arguing over strengths and bonuses or buffs and nerfs or promotions and upgrades is doing my head in.
I don't profess to be in the same category as most of you vociferous bunch when it comes to these things but I know one thing.
CivUp/GEM or CEP makes my Civ V game enjoyable. I keep coming back to it even when I think, "vanilla is okay".
We have a winner here.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I believe everything should have equal value in different ways. This is the best kind of balance. If resourceless units are just weak swords/horses, we can ignore them in games with plenty of strategic resources. This reduces our choice of units to build.
Every unit, building, policy, and leader should have value for different things. This is very important to me.
Every unit, building, policy, and leader should have value for different things. This is very important to me.
Sounds promising enough to test for now. Most of the remaining issues are tweaking unit stats and costs that can be done here (UU upgrade paths and upgrade promotions probably the biggest issue).
Spears were definitely a little light at 9 in the couple of test games. 10-11 would work. Pikes seemed okay where they were. Militia I didn't get much use out of as I had the vanilla 20+ iron problem and so had about a dozen longswords. Hard to say how useful the militia is if iron is everywhere.
Spears were definitely a little light at 9 in the couple of test games. 10-11 would work. Pikes seemed okay where they were. Militia I didn't get much use out of as I had the vanilla 20+ iron problem and so had about a dozen longswords. Hard to say how useful the militia is if iron is everywhere.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Ok, but we do this because we have to, not because we want to. They aren't very good at it.
It's not so much disliking units with a defense bonus, it's disliking units that don't have offensive power.
What do you mean by this?
This sounds promising, but I would not like to see arquebus/musket/rifle/infantry converted into defensive units.
I thought the whole point was to make resources rare enough that we didn't have games like this? The whole design we had was that strategic resource units *were* supposed to be better.
Lissindiel
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 48
Since I still use Google translate to make my posts readable, making a good explanation will be a problem. But okay, tell me if I fail somewhere in my post - I'll try to fix that.
Defense isn't about sitting on a hill and catching cannonballs with a stupid smile on the face (this is what vanguards do now). Being good at defense also means being able to kill invading enemy units. Vanilla spears can do that, vanguards - well, you know. Offense too isn't about strength numbers - it's an ability to invade enemy territory and stay alive while sity garrison is shooting at you. If you wanted to make spears a defensive unit, you could just remove "siege" and "cover" promos from them. They already are weaker than swords in vanilla and they're not taking sity attacks too well, so that would be enough to make them defense-only. And I still don't understand, why have you given them mobility and sight promos - these just break vanguards even more. Vanguards are the common infantry line - they shouldn't run like horses or have ITC. Or be useless.
I'm against letting vanguards to keep sight and mobility promos or have scouts in their unit line. As I've said before, mobility don't mix well with defense - unit will either be too strong, because it's faster than enemy, or too weak, because it can't kill the enemy. I, however, would like to have some kind of fast recon unit for exploration and barbarian killing. Have you thought about extending scout line and changing scouts into something with low defense but high attack vs barbarians and high sight & mobility? These units will be useful early for exploration and intercepting barbarians, and they can probably evolve into the helicopters later.
As for the medics: is it possible to make them non combat units like Great Generals? AI at least knows how to use those.
albie_123
Modding In Secret
I'm very happy with the compromise, for the record. Still unsure about the movement promos on all vanguards but willing to test them out.
Also, Lissindiel, you're actually either quite good at English or just very, very lucky with google translate.
Also, Lissindiel, you're actually either quite good at English or just very, very lucky with google translate.
That was my point as well. My take is that if i can push the building side of the game to get strategic resources than i get to be rewarded by having lots of powerful units. It doesn't make the game boring, its just a focus on building as opposed to army composition. Different strokes and all of that.
Ahriman
Tyrant
One thing might help is in not making the class rules too rigid and having some flexibility across tiers: spearmen could be stronger and more expensive and not defensive, because they come in the early game, and then pikemen could be more defensively oriented, because by that time there are other more offensive units available.
Purely defensive spearmen are a problem because that isn't a very useful role in the ancient era, whereas defensive units have more value by the time of the medieval era.
Purely defensive spearmen are a problem because that isn't a very useful role in the ancient era, whereas defensive units have more value by the time of the medieval era.
Naeven
Warlord
I totally agree with this. Also, by the time you get pikemen you should have more time to get Iron/Horses within your reach as well.
I think this is a decent point, maybe we could give swords/longswords foreign land bonus to make them more offensiv than vanguard.
On vanguard, home land bonus + a smaller rough / flat bonus than Iron gets could do the trick. Making both unit lines more equal against barbarians, but way better at their offensiv/defensiv roles as Lissindiel describes it.
MrL567
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 121
Zulu now can have the fastest Melee units in the game because Spearmen are now Vanguard lines. YOu have to go down one of the other vanguard lines, which leads to you getting the promotion for the extar move. Combined with the Ikanda boosts, you get very fast Zulu Spearmen with 4 MOVE! While this negates some if the offense, to makes the Zulu very powerful at Skirmish tactics.
Second moving defence bonuses up to pikes (in leiu of additional strength). Spears wouldn't need it at 11 strength anyway.
I'd say removing siege and cover could work to calcify the roles, if they're to play the defensive role of having healing and anti-mounted, but this may not be ideal in practice (to allow for offensive wars without iron). I'd prefer not to see too much role reduction by removing options.
I'd say removing siege and cover could work to calcify the roles, if they're to play the defensive role of having healing and anti-mounted, but this may not be ideal in practice (to allow for offensive wars without iron). I'd prefer not to see too much role reduction by removing options.
albie_123
Modding In Secret
With the new changes (with are now getting very close to vanilla ), I'm pretty happy, but now nothing upgrades to Airborne, which is a shame as they are very fun and flavorful units but not hugely worth producing.
), I'm pretty happy, but now nothing upgrades to Airborne, which is a shame as they are very fun and flavorful units but not hugely worth producing.
Ahriman
Tyrant
With the new changes (with are now getting very close to vanilla
They are worth producing when they upgrade to XCOM squads
albie_123
Modding In Secret
On that note, XCom are gunpowder while Airborne are vanguards. Maybe Airborne should be gunpowder as well? They don't really fit the 'defensive' role. Perhaps a Marine - Airborne - XCom line focusing on maneuverability and offensive attacks.
Also, Mobile SAMs - can they attack land units?
Also, Mobile SAMs - can they attack land units?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Vanguards aren't defensive anymore because most people seem to dislike defensive units.
jbmoll
Chieftain
I like defensive units!
Ahriman
Tyrant
I really don't think we need a vanguard class. It is very confusing when things that apply to "melee" units don't end up applying to spearmen and pikemen (Zulus!), and that something that applies to gunpowder units doesn't apply to skirmishers or airborne.
Delekhan
Prince
I agree with merging them, keep it simple. Plus the AI just uses vanguards like any other unit, throwing them into the meatgrinder and giving my ranged units free XP.
Now that they're regular soldiers they'll have solid combat strength, with the option of adding special vanguard-y promotions as needed. I like it
Now that they're regular soldiers they'll have solid combat strength, with the option of adding special vanguard-y promotions as needed. I like it
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I avoid the word "melee" because it's ambiguous. It can have multiple meanings:
If a building says it improves melee units, it does not improve horsemen or musketmen, despite the fact they fight in melee range with melee combat strength. This can easily confuse people.
This is why I call warriors/swords "soldier units" and spears/pikes "vanguard units." These terms are clear and precise. The combat class determines promotions (and building bonuses like the Stable), so they must be different combat classes, and we must have a different name for each combat class.
- Range 1 is "melee range."
- Warriors and soldiers are "melee combat class" units.
- All units but aircraft have "melee combat strength."
- Units which take damage from attacking are often called "melee units".
If a building says it improves melee units, it does not improve horsemen or musketmen, despite the fact they fight in melee range with melee combat strength. This can easily confuse people.
This is why I call warriors/swords "soldier units" and spears/pikes "vanguard units." These terms are clear and precise. The combat class determines promotions (and building bonuses like the Stable), so they must be different combat classes, and we must have a different name for each combat class.
