Choose your upgrade

[Snarf054]

Bring back rubber. Too many units use oil.

 

[Atlas627]

The problem is that for some unknown reason, tanks in particular are vastly superior to every other option; AT units utterly fail in their role and making them the no resource line is a bleak prospect.
Modern Era:
Tank 80, 4 move
Infantry 70, 2
AT Crew 70, 2
Now if you get into the details of it, infantry and AT crews should be base strength 75; this would solve some but not all problems. Why they got balanced to 70 at launch is unknown to me, but it is what it is.
This leads to the following situation:
Tanks: fight infantry at +10, AT Crew at +0
Infantry: Fight tanks at -10, AT crew at +10
AT Crew: Fight tanks at +0, infantry at -10.
BTW: The cost delta between AT crews and tanks is only 20%. (400 vs 480.)
This leads to the outcome where tanks can never fight at a combat disadvantage, but infantry can; so you should basically only use oil for tanks. Plus they are extremely quick.
Someone without oil, who will only discover this in the modern era, can never beat a peer opponent with oil, because an oil unit hard counters the resource less unit line; further, you can't build artillery so you won't be taking any cities (and their associated oil fields) anyways.

Thought Anti-Cavalry units got a buff to their anti-cavalry bonus, but I can't find it anywhere in the code. Should they get one, considering they are trying to fight a more mobile opponent anyway?

Edit: Speaking of mobility, did Anti-Tank and their upgrade get +1 Move?

 

[Sostratus]

Thought Anti-Cavalry units got a buff to their anti-cavalry bonus, but I can't find it anywhere in the code. Should they get one, considering they are trying to fight a more mobile opponent anyway?

It appears to be a typo in the Unit Ability tooltip. The tooltip shows +14 while the combat preview (and results) show +10.
Hence it wasn't in patch notes.

What anticav units mostly suffer from, actually, is not bonus vs mounted but reduced base strength.
I've written this before so I'll be brief, but there is a clear pattern in the game where units go up 10 strength per era. This is on a scale of
25/35/45/55/65/75/85 for the ancient to atomic/info (the last upgrades are sort of clumped together.)
There are some adjustments for each class too; namely, ranged units are 5 lower than the era standard, and have -10 compared to their . (This makes them weaker on defense. Also ranged units were super OP in past games.)
Heavy cav have extra strength (+3-5) while light cav tends to have reduced strength.
The warrior and slinger seem to have a -5str attached because they are available turn 1.

Okay, where is this going: Ask yourself why pikes are at 41 instead of 45. It doesn't make sense - pike and shot are at 55. Spearman vs chariot is the same as if you had 45 pikes vs knights. It's not unbalanced there, why would it be here? I'm going to skip over the entire problem they had where pikes used to cost more than knights too.
Then we get to the modern era. The melee line almost perfectly fits the trend, except at infantry. Infantry and AT crew are at 70 instead of 75. This is why tanks are so dominant - the trend suggests a tank is actually right on target for strength. I strongly suspect infantry are weaker because there's no rifleman unit (but see than redcoats and gardes imperiale are at 65, exactly 10 over muskets) and somehow they thought this would create balance. This odd deviation actually affects other units too, like machine guns (they should be 80/70.)

But while they boosted mech infantry early on from 80 to 85, back on trend, they never touched modern AT, who is stuck at just 80.

What they most desperately need to do is push pikes to 45 and AT crew/modern AT to 75/85.. Remember that +10 bonus vs mounted is a +50% multiplier. In civ5, anticav had a +50% multiple too. It's not the multiplier but the base unit; because those examples are so weak against everything, they won't survive to fight cav in the first place. They made a great backbone for unit strengths; they need only stick to it.

Edit: Speaking of mobility, did Anti-Tank and their upgrade get +1 Move?

AFAIK, no. I mean they have redeploy as a tier 3 promo still but that's it.

 

[Atlas627]

It appears to be a typo in the Unit Ability tooltip. The tooltip shows +14 while the combat preview (and results) show +10.
Hence it wasn't in patch notes.

Ah, well that's certainly silly.

What anticav units mostly suffer from, actually, is not bonus vs mounted but reduced base strength.
I've written this before so I'll be brief, but there is a clear pattern in the game where units go up 10 strength per era. This is on a scale of
25/35/45/55/65/75/85 for the ancient to atomic/info (the last upgrades are sort of clumped together.)
There are some adjustments for each class too; namely, ranged units are 5 lower than the era standard, and have -10 compared to their . (This makes them weaker on defense. Also ranged units were super OP in past games.)
Heavy cav have extra strength (+3-5) while light cav tends to have reduced strength.
The warrior and slinger seem to have a -5str attached because they are available turn 1.

Okay, where is this going: Ask yourself why pikes are at 41 instead of 45. It doesn't make sense - pike and shot are at 55. Spearman vs chariot is the same as if you had 45 pikes vs knights. It's not unbalanced there, why would it be here? I'm going to skip over the entire problem they had where pikes used to cost more than knights too.
Then we get to the modern era. The melee line almost perfectly fits the trend, except at infantry. Infantry and AT crew are at 70 instead of 75. This is why tanks are so dominant - the trend suggests a tank is actually right on target for strength. I strongly suspect infantry are weaker because there's no rifleman unit (but see than redcoats and gardes imperiale are at 65, exactly 10 over muskets) and somehow they thought this would create balance. This odd deviation actually affects other units too, like machine guns (they should be 80/70.)

But while they boosted mech infantry early on from 80 to 85, back on trend, they never touched modern AT, who is stuck at just 80.

What they most desperately need to do is push pikes to 45 and AT crew/modern AT to 75/85.. Remember that +10 bonus vs mounted is a +50% multiplier. In civ5, anticav had a +50% multiple too. It's not the multiplier but the base unit; because those examples are so weak against everything, they won't survive to fight cav in the first place. They made a great backbone for unit strengths; they need only stick to it.


AFAIK, no. I mean they have redeploy as a tier 3 promo still but that's it.

I'm not sure why Pikes have reduced strength (maybe so they lose to Swordsmen?), but I can see an argument for Tanks being better than other units of the era: they can end the game quickly for a Domination victory. Infantry would be good for that type of offense instead of Tanks if Anti-Tanks were stronger against Tanks (Rock-Paper-Scissors), and is probably why Infantry still require Oil. Also, for all of the theme arguments, I think Infantry is supposed to be motorized. They use the Oil to get from place to place and then fight on foot once they get there.

I think what Anti-Cav need is for that +14 bonus vs Cavalry to actually exist. Seems strange that they updated the tooltip but not the bonus itself.

 

[The_Quasar]

Perhaps Infantry should be +1 movement, as a result of the oil requirement?