Civ7 Modern Age Unit Lineups.

Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,687
Here are Modern Age Unit lineups.





Unit
Tier 0
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Scout
Scout​
N/A​
N/A​
N/A​
InfantryLine Infantry------------------------------------------------------Rifle InfantryAssault Infantry
CavalryCuirassier------------------------------------------------------LandshipTank
RangedField Cannon------------------------------------------------------FieldgunAntitank Gun
ArtilleryMortar------------------------------------------------------HowitzerSelf Propelled Artillery
Generic Warship(Xebec) (Frigate)IroncladCruiserDestroyer
Battleship(Ships of the Line)+-------------------------------------------------------DreadnoughtBattleship
Recon or Attack PlaneN/AN/ABushplaneAttack Plane
FighterN/AN/ABiplane FighterStreamlined Fighter
BomberN/AN/ABiplane BomberStrategic Bomber
Aircraft CarrierN/AN/AN/AAircraft Carrier#
1734493085175.png


So far this satisfy me quite much. No more pseudo units like 'A regiment of Machine Guns' 'An Antitank Regiment', and Antiaircraft doctrines are now tied with Commanders rather than individual AA guns. (AA never deployed as homogeneous units). In addition, Aircraft Carrier is now Commander class, and now an upgrade of Fleet Commander (hopefully, infact they should! even not every navy in the world has a real CVs) This because Infantry and Cavalry classes are now converged from the beginning (too bad there's no helicopters now). But some units, in fact, too many units are very off to me.. and here are some or too many critics
1. Tier 0 unit names are VERY off to me. Only Field Cannons are correcty placed where it is. right off the bat. and properly modelled rather than cartoonist Civ6.
- First units of Infantry linege in this Age is 'Line Infantry'. A die-hard tradition from Civ6. now with emblem being Rifle marksman badge rather than crossing muskets, it is very off to me.
And @Boris Gudenuf NEVER agrees with 'Line Infantry' nomeclature, instead Fusilier should be chosen instead.
Firaxis may have a reason to keep Line Infantry name. But the reason should be that French UU is named 'Fusilier' and that's an acceptable compromise. This because 'Fusilier' covers the entirety of basic French infantry even to this day. Imperial Guard? Naah.
And so far this French UU Infantry still wear tallskin cap which was Imperial Guard (and also generic Grenadiers) headwear, instead they should wear shako, maybe with golden trim and Tricolour plumes.
and generic Linear Infantry now became in tone with 18th Century. this appeals to Boris kun more. but not everyone gets 18th Century uniform, some got Napoleonics instead.
- Second, There are Cuirassiers being 'The Last Horsemen'. Proper name should be either Line Cavalry or Carabiniers. This because NOT EVERY ONE employs Cuirassiers, and even a country that does, cuirassiers only comprised of a fraction of cavalry forces. More of Shock Cavalry even in 18th Century were aromrless, and many weren't even historically began as cuirassiers.
And US Army NEVER raise any!.
- Artillery still diverged. with no real points of convergence anywhere. Civ6 tradition dies hard. and even becomes more stiff here--Ranged is 'Field' piece (and thus 'lightweight), while Siege is 'Heavy' piece. More details come soon.
- Siege choice is Mortar. Not really to argue about BUT..... the 18th Century is when Howitzer-as siege artillery- shines.
And this is 18th Century Howitzer looks like
Howitzer 3d.gif

And it has better ranges than a mortar. while not neccessary replacing ones however.
And Howitzer means that a gun can be elevated higher than a Cannon.

And About a mysterious ship showed at Airoch's page
7_ships37.jpg

^ To me it may not even be a unit at all. but rather a new quarter (fishing boat). yet it also looked very anachronistics to me. it is clearly Caravela Latina. a premier explorer boat of 14-15th Century, firmly Age 2. (And not even last long, replaced by Galleon of similiar size (but still larger).
In Age 3 it can only be a Xebec. But the size showing here doesn't indicate pirate capabilities AT ALL.
But before a final game comes out, i'd keep this speculation that it is Tier0 warship while actually it shouldn't be.

UPDATED: It was Age2 and 3 scout embarked. and yes he rides Caravela Latina or Xebec at sea. not a proper warship.

Onto Tier 2
So far no more silly 'homogeneous regiment of Machineguns'. But MGs should be graphical representation addons to Infantrymen of two last tiers. not replacing but appearing RIGHT NEXT TO.
Still Nomeclature is not what I can agree with. Not mentioning that Boris strongly disapproves diverged 'Field' and 'Siege' Artillery lineage after this point.
1. Fieldgun. This will complicate localizations REAL GOOD. Since 'Cannon' and 'Guns' are SAME word in many European languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Germans.....). For them, Field Cannon and Field Guns 'Are one and same'. especially 'Cannon' and 'Guns' are either 'Canon' or 'Kanone'.
Proper name should be 'Quick Firing Gun'. Which is much more descriptive. as it says this aritllery piece uses finish-load cartridges just like small arms. Which can be loaded in a single simple movement.
If this doesn't contribute to 'quick firing' quality enough. It comes with recoil dampener to keep the entire piece in place. only barrel jerkes backwards when fired. effectively eliminates repositioning times.
^ This is why it should be called 'Quick Firing Gun', and the Brits are rights about it.
2. Howitzer. and FXis means THIS
7_artillery1.jpg

Actually this is a throwback to Civ2. where 'Howitzer' means modern artillery with recoil dampener. The name applied here because it was actually a direct evolution of Enlightenment Era Howitzers discussed earlier.
Not really an okay nomeclature to me. well Artillery is still better name.
And this gun shows here uses the same shells and propellants and Dreadnoughts and Superdreadnoughts.
3. Both Fieldgun and Howitzers are enabled with Industrialization technology. it can be shifted earlier to enable factory and railroadings however.
The proper enalbing technology should be Smokeless Propellants. (also enables Rifle Infantry)
4. I don't understand why Landship should appear? This weapon is rather like Helepolises of the Classical Era (or Age 1), the very materials that became Collossus of Rhodes.
It didn't shown up in Civ6 AT ALL. What is this thing represents actually? and it upgrades from cuirassier even!
Not what I nor Boris can approve. Too slow to meet with Cavalry needs. (only as fast as a man's step). Made to solve ONE problem - to cross No Man's Land and take enemy trench lines. and this venture was the most successful of the First World War.
These weapons were not used again after that. only became museum piece. the 'Mobile' iterations came sometimes after. to be precise the first 'tanks' that acheves cavalry quality shown up in late 1920s. the most successful was Vickers 6ton
Vickers-6tons_typeB_siam.png

^ This thing is not slow, while tanks of 1910s were very slow and not really reliable.
4. At Sea
4.1 This 'Dreadnought' showing here is actually 'Pre Dreadnought', or 'Semi Dreadnoughts' (Two were made in Japan, the first BB to be made there). The name isn't really correct and capabilities are significantly different, also placement isn't really right much, especially with Original Dreadnought classes, while itself outclassed everyone in the World, however, by the 1914 they were outclassed by Super Dreadnoughts. which essentially a staple to Battleships of Civ franchise.
Civ6 Brazillian UU 'Minas Gerais' is 'Dreadnought' also.
7_dreadnought2.jpg


4.2 There's another naval unit. I don't know if it's submarine or cruiser.

5. In the Sky. There also three separate classes of aircrafts, Fighter, Bomber, and another light plane I don't know what it is. Bushplane or Attack Craft?
To me I think there MAY be 'Bushplane' which the final evolutions will be Attack Helicopters.

Tier 4. There's Battleship as unit. It shown up about the time it is about to be obsolete. and it represents Post-Treaty Battleships. the likes of Iowa, Bismarc, Richielieu, King George class, and more famously. Yamato.
But... mmm an interesting subject is that... there's Antitank gun. This could be an answer to converged Infantry class. Advantageous against AFVs, but shouldn't be bad against footsloggers.
In the end however. it became a generic Field Artillery as ATGM shown up in 60-70s completely replaced this one. Even before that, many Antitank guns were made as large caliber (90-100 or slightly bigger) Dual Purpose QF Field Guns. Particularly the Soviet Bloc loves 100mm Antitank field guns.
My opinion is 'indifferent'. because it is also descriptive, showing its capabilities. though it ended evolution stage as a generic field gun, and this included Mobile Gun System things carried by late generations armored cars, which dropped 'Antitank' name from 'guns' altogether.
^ 100mm Field Gun M1944 BS3. Later became all purpose artillery.

^ Stryker Mobile Gun System. FXis actually studied this combat vehicle to the core and use this one to back the reasons to keep Ranged and Siege separate class. While not appearing in this game. it could appears in an expansion.


EDIT: Original post is not completed. and i have to edit because it is very long.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Xebec, they destroyed one in the stream today. It was an embarked Explorer.
 
I still haven't stepped through the last bit of the stream yet. I'm pretty sure there's a rollover of the Siamese elephant unit and other things I haven't got to yet.

Tired :D
Late at night. I know. I myself had to go to bed after a full hour of streamling because it was very late at night (2.00 AM, the time I left Twitch to bed).
 
xebec scout.PNG

The Xebec embarked scout
 
I guess I'm the only one who doesn't care too much about the details of unit tiers and all that? Like, it's just flavor assigned to a ladder of increasing combat strength. When a tank is just a stronger knight, I struggle to get emotionally attached to ideas of whether modernity should have this or that tank and how early or late the models represented should be.

I'm more interested in what the unit classes do and whether the same domain of combat (e.g. land) will actually feel different between eras. Just adding another domain doesn't do it for me and I still find it odd that commanders carry over when so many more long-term aspects of history (e.g. pantheons) don't. I think if commanders had different promotions each era (maybe keep the commendations, they're more general and would incentivize putting more thought into upgrading commanders), then combat could feel more distinct. I think it's one of the better things Humankind did; there's a notable change from early melee combat to frontline infantry becoming ranged to the introducing of suppressive fire and other status effects in modern combat.
 
Agree with above, weird design to make commander promotions ageless while other things restart
Commander promotions and Leader abilities don't reset between Ages; it would be pretty frustrating and would feel pointless otherwise from a gameplay perspective.

Civics sort of recycle between Ages, but they have always done that, being replaced by improved versions. I don't think that feels like a loss of progress the way losing unit promotions would.
 
Commander promotions and Leader abilities don't reset between Ages; it would be pretty frustrating and would feel pointless otherwise from a gameplay perspective.

No doubt that's why they're doing it, but I think I'd rather that we not have immortal commanders from earlier ages sticking around. A system where Commander promotions get converted into Military Legacy points at the end of the age might help avoid late age promotions feeling useless, while allowing for a more complete reset on how combat works from age-to-age.

Leader abilities being for the whole game make more sense to me.
 
Leader abilities being for the whole game make more sense to me.
Why can't you just extend whatever rationale you use for leaders to commanders? It's that civ's general traditions of militarism being extended to a new age.
 
Whatever logic was previously used to justify immortal units whose promotions persisted for the whole game (through conversions to more advanced equipment) can be applied to Commanders -- think of them not as an individual person, but as a unit of command staff that changes over time but maintains their esprit de corps.
 
I really liked the change of promotions only to commanders and keeping them forever.

With each unit being promoted, you are unlikely to even use much of the promotions system on a game if you not warring a lot through it. And it is a hassle to keep those units around and upgrading them even if you're not using them at all to keep those promotions, and fairly easy to lose them in battle by a mistake.
Whatever logic was previously used to justify immortal units whose promotions persisted for the whole game (through conversions to more advanced equipment) can be applied to Commanders -- think of them not as an individual person, but as a unit of command staff that changes over time but maintains their esprit de corps.
A logic that also works with the idea that if the commander is killed it can be rebuild/respawn with the promotions it had, which implies the knowledge there isn't on that singular unit itself.
 
I really liked the change of promotions only to commanders and keeping them forever.

With each unit being promoted, you are unlikely to even use much of the promotions system on a game if you not warring a lot through it. And it is a hassle to keep those units around and upgrading them even if you're not using them at all to keep those promotions, and fairly easy to lose them in battle by a mistake.

A logic that also works with the idea that if the commander is killed it can be rebuild/respawn with the promotions it had, which implies the knowledge there isn't on that singular unit itself.
Reskilling.. you mean?
 
I mean that any carryover commanders must be re-promoted at the beginning of a new age. as if you want promotion tree to change so to meet with the changing warfare.
No, those traditions hold on so you need to get more experience or new commanders( if you want to get new bonuses)
 
No, those traditions hold on so you need to get more experience or new commanders( if you want to get new bonuses)
Obsolete trees retained. with this... from modder's perspective, he will not win as many new promotions as he should because he will reach max level fast.
 
Back
Top Bottom