CEP: Armies

[Ahriman]

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.

But then things that effect "soldier" units (like the Zulu UA, particular promotions, the forge) are very narrow.

And the in-game UI talks about melee, not "soldier".

I think that land units should all be melee, gunpowder, siege, archer, mounted, or armor.

 

[mystikx21]

You can adjust the Zulu UA or the forge to effect more things.

The big one seems to be Alhambra's free rough terrain bonus may not apply. I think it should work now that vanguards are getting the same promotions for terrain, but I haven't checked. Before with the terrain defensive promotions, it did not work on vanguards.

 

[Thalassicus]

@Ahriman
In short, I only see two ways to do what you want. The first method is technically infeasible due to how promotions are assigned to combat classes, and the second method would result in some units becoming useless in some games. One approach is impossible, and the other is not desirable.

 

[mystikx21]

As an FYI on lancers in CEP, in case anyone hadn't gotten a chance to test them out.

The "first strike" consumes a movement point.
The first strike AND the attack strength bonus (and the strength bonus) are possibly redundant overkill (they also get 6 XP when attacking).

It also looked like ironclads had double city bonuses in the UI.

 

[Ahriman]

@Ahriman
In short, that's not feasible because of technical limitations with the way promotions are designed.

It certainly is possible once we accept that there is no need for spearmen and swordsmen to have different access to promotions, that there is no need to have unit bonuses that work against spearmen but don't work against swordsmen, and that anything that boosts swordsman production should also boost spearman production. [As it works in vanilla.]

 

[Thalassicus]

@Ahriman
I plan to treat vanguards and soldiers identically for building effects, leader uniques, combat bonuses, and so on. The differences are base combat strength, cost, and earnable promotions.

I recognize we've had this discussion before over the past few years (mainly with specialists). I want everything to have at least a little value everywhere, while you're okay with things having no value in certain situations. This is a personal preference we disagree about, but there's other things we can agree on. I've made significant concessions to move towards your viewpoint, by merging unit lines and removing defense bonuses, so let's try the current compromise a while. I want to shift our energy to the leader enhancements. We've been talking about this a whole week.

 

[Ahriman]

I want everything to have at least a little value everywhere, while you're okay with things having no value in certain situations

I don't really see this as a relevant description of our disagreement here...

BUT:

Let's try the current compromise a while

Sure, that's fine, I just wanted to point out another consequence of the system (confusion over classes).

I want to shift our energy to the leader enhancements.

Sure. There have been a lot of various proposals on various things. I've expressed some of my views so I was trying to practice shutting up about them. Is there anything in particular you're still looking for ideas on?

 

[Thalassicus]

To the best of my understanding, you're asking for unmodded spears and swords? I might have misunderstood...

In vanilla, if I have enough iron and my opponent has no horses, there's no reason to build spears. I want everything to have at least a little value in every situation. The simplest way to do this is giving units exclusive abilities with broad usefulness. Archers are ranged, horses move fast, and spears can heal.

It's like our discussion about specialists a few years ago. I wanted an incentive for one specialist in every city, while you were okay with specialists having no value in most cities. This is just a personal preference we feel differently about. We did it my way at first, so I'm trying out your view in BNW for a while. We might not both be entirely happy with this compromise for vanguards, but hopefully it's a middle ground we can each accept until we can revisit the discussion later.

 

[Ahriman]

In vanilla, if I have enough iron and my opponent has no horses, there's no reason to build spears.

But that isn't really how it works, you've defined away the constraint. The answer to why build spears is: because I don't have iron working yet, or don't have enough iron. It isn't really a fair comparison to assume away the strategic resource constraint. A big part of the design of the mod was to make strategic resources meaningful.

Clearly everything can't always be useful. If I'm on a map that is almost entirely land and some lakes, then a navy isn't going to be useful. So yes, in such circumstances, there's no reason to build ships. But.... that doesn't mean we need to give ships some extra special ability so that they're useful even on maps without much ocean. Saying "no ocean" defines away the constraint, just as saying "if strategic resources don't matter" defines away the constraint on swordsmen.

Similarly, we don't need to give spears some extra ability so that they're useful even if we manage through luck or skill to get lots of iron. I think it's totally fine that spears are weaker, resourceless swordsmen.

hopefully it's a middle ground we can each accept until we can revisit the discussion later.

Sure, I'll try a more military oriented game and see how it plays.
[Though... Shadowrun returns just got released. So....next week maybe.]

 

[stackpointer]

Is the plan still to have a different set of promotions once crossbowmen promote into gatling guns as implemented in GEM/CEP? I assume that the code to transfer promotions into the new promotion line with also be implemented?

 

[Thalassicus]

Shadowrun returns just got released.

It's good to take breaks and have variety in life.


@stackpointer
In a way, yes. Crossbows have attack-only promotions, while machine guns make sense as a defensive unit too, so I gave them promotions that affect both attack and defense.

I'm working on re-activating the promotion swap stuff too.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I would have to say, for me at least, the most helpful post in this entire discussion is this one:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12642685&postcount=80

Let's move on. Play some games and come back with real evidence based reasons for either making change or keeping the status quo.





Hmm. Shadowrun Returns. "Welcome to the sprawl."

 

[Lissindiel]

So, I've played half of a game on latest version, and still think vanguards aren't okay. Removing all mobility from their promos was fine (wether it's bug or not), leaving retreat promos - was not. Right now vanguards:

• Are still unkillable on open terrain.
• Not very useful at defense, because they run away from attack and leave ranged units uncovered.

Since iron is scarce now, we should be able to use vanguards as an alternative to "iron" infantry.

 

[Ahriman]

So, I've played half of a game on latest version, and still think vanguards aren't okay. Removing all mobility from their promos was fine (wether it's bug or not), leaving retreat promos - was not. Right now vanguards:

• Are still unkillable on open terrain.
• Not very useful at defense, because they run away from attack and leave ranged units uncovered.

Since iron is scarce now, we should be able to use vanguards as an alternative to "iron" infantry.

Strongly agree. The retreat promotion doesn't work for gameplay. It's much better left as a rare effect on the Incan slinger.

 

[Naeven]

What about attaching the retreat on scout only? Lost on upgrade.

 

[Lissindiel]

I don't understand why do we have scout in the vanguard-line in the first place.

 

[Delekhan]

I have to agree regarding the retreat promotion. I thought it was clever at first until 2 of my vanguards with 100% hp retreated in the same turn, leading the enemy's infantry straight to my artillery.

The slaughter that was visited upon my cannons still makes me wince. That shouldn't have happened.

And then there was the case of the Vanguard unit stacked with a Great General. Vanguard sees enemy, Vanguard retreats hysterically, leaving Great General on the tile alone with his pants down as the enemy unit rolls in.

The retreat promotion makes sense for a vulnerable unit like an archer, scout or settler. Probably not ideal for a unit meant to be used in defense to hold ground

 

[EricB]

Agree on removing the retreating ability from vanguards, even for scouts. It should be something that only Incan slingers can do.

I would suggest changing the Recon promotions to:

Recon 1: +1 sight
Recon 2: +1 sight and +1 movement

+2 sight for Recon 1 is a bit too powerful. I never want to get Recon 2 with the retreating option in there and just +1 movement. Later promotions should be more powerful than earlier promotions.

 

[mystikx21]

Movement increases just put us back where we started. Sight is fine (splitting it is also fine, +2 from one promo is very powerful, especially early to monitor barbs). We could put a minor healing effect on the unit itself (like survivalism did) instead of extra moves or retreat, or do things like free pillage moves.

 

[Drakir89]

I don't understand these complaints about the retreat promotion. It's optional right?
If you don't want your tank vanguards to retreat, give them another promotion instead? Am I missing something?

It's still useful for medic/scouting vanguards. Maybe too useful, but I personally don't think so.


Actually, I don't really understand why people want to get rid of the vanguards from GEM in the first place. I found them useful and fun to use, especially as part of a combined arms force. Sure you could just make an army of power units (soldiers) but it would be more expensive than the combined arms force, especially when taking losses (since you would lose expensive units instead of expendable vanguards). I loved having access to cheap, expandable units that I can scout hostile areas with or use to slow my enemies down. Being fast also makes them more expendable since reinforcements can reach the front faster. Despite all this, their low attacking strength means you always benefit from mixing in strong units with them. 2 archers and 4 vans is a tough force that will slowly wear you down, but 2 archers 2 vans 1 soldier will kill off your units quite quickly while still being hard to outflank.

If the problem is that vans give humans an advantage against the ai, the ai ended up getting strength promotions anyway in GEM, and I for one is happy for that trade. Give me flexible and interesting units and but force me use their utility effectively to overcome stronger (but dumber) foes.