Combat Roles

[Thalassicus]

My concept for the battlefield "Recon" line is when we want to specialize in detection at the expense of other capabilities. Withdraw improves survival odds, but breaking ranks makes units behind the Vanguard vulnerable, so it wouldn't be good for protecting high-value targets like Catapults. The Ranger and Guerrilla promotions are better at holding ground.

From my experience with the original Scouting promotions I feel two ranks are enough for battlefield reconnaissance. It's not until the very late game such a weak combat unit can get a third promotion anyway. The previous incarnation gave an always-heal effect at the third rank, so I feel it's appropriate for this line to have access to March as the third promotion instead. As GoodRevrnd said it doesn't really help units like this much anyway. I'd personally find more use in picking up Medic for this type of unit.

Attempts to withdraw from melee or embarked combat.

^ I swapped the embarked withdrawal to Recon 2 to combine it with the melee version, so it makes more sense.

Think of it as fast and maneuverable light ships out-running enemies before total destruction, while heavily-laden transports can't escape as easily. Since none of the other effects of the Recon promotions help at sea, nor in actual combat, I'm okay with this withdrawal capability. As mitsho pointed out the embarked withdrawal's main use is to help scouts survive Barbarian triremes.

 

[Txurce]

Like GoodRevrnd pointed out, from a realism perspective think of the defensive embarkation as explorers with highly fast and maneuverable light ships that can out-run their enemies before total destruction. Heavier-armed troops can't escape as easily and get slaughtered. Since none of the Recon promotions help at sea, nor in actual combat, I'm okay with a defensive embarkation effect on Recon 1. As mitsho pointed out it lets scouts survive Barbarian triremes.

This rule can be exploited by having a vanguard of barracks-promoted units protect a seaborne invasion fleet for two turns... something the AI will never, ever do. It doesn't make the game more fun - just easier. Sending out a scout and hoping it survives is a lot more exciting than surviving a barb trireme and then running for safety, given how horrible the AI is at pursuing defensible vessels.

On top of the Civ 5 core rule about vulnerability at sea, that's a lot of negatives on the other side of the ledger. But I suspect that this is one of those cases that's not about pros and cons!

On a side note, what about Polynesian warriors and scouts and settlers without the promotion? Let's face it - those vessels are at least as capable of evading triremes. But if they get it, Polynesia risks becoming OP.

 

[Thalassicus]

I was revising my post... perfectionist.

The capability to build units with this out of the box is now delayed until the late Medieval period. I don't think the sea invasion scenario is very likely - I get naval superiority with ships before sending in transports. Even so, I actually like the thought of vanguard units serving a similar role at sea as well. Sometimes the fun factor for the human outweighs AI considerations.

 

[Txurce]

I was revising my post... perfectionist.

The capability to build units with this out of the box is now delayed until the late Medieval period. I don't think the sea invasion scenario is very likely - I get naval superiority with ships before sending in transports. Even so, I actually like the thought of vanguard units serving a similar role at sea as well. Sometimes the fun factor for the human outweighs AI considerations.

That the "sea invasion scenario" precludes the need to establish naval superiority is my point... but I'll quit debating the fun vs easy factor regarding cannon-fodder units becoming uniquely tough seaborne units, because it's clearly a matter of preference

Can't scouts earn this promotion prior to the late-medieval period?

 

[Thalassicus]

I think it's good to go for naval superiority (unless we're on Pangaea). I start with an early trireme taking potshots at barbarians. It's a great source of great general points, production and gold bonuses from the goldenages they produce, strong siege units, safe passage of transports, and so on. I find naval warfare exciting and I'm always looking for new ways to add variety to the mix.

As mitsho pointed out, the main use of embarked withdrawal is helping scouts survive Barbarian triremes. It might also be useful on archipelago maps. On continents maps I haven't encountered a situation where it'd be useful for mainline troops, since land movement is faster, so generic use of naval transport is rare (with exceptions like Elizabeth or Harald). This situational usefulness is the basis of utility promotions.

 

[Txurce]

As mitsho pointed out, the main use of embarked withdrawal is helping scouts survive Barbarian triremes. It might also be useful on archipelago maps. Land movement is faster than at sea (with the exception of Elizabeth or Harald) so naval transport is very rare. On continents maps I have not personally encountered a situation where embarked withdrawal would have helped mainline troops, since the seas are cleared of enemy ships early in wars.

Speaking post-discussion (I'm fine with it all), this beings up a comment and a question:

I recently staged an invasion where I thought I had cleared out the local enemy ships, and then lost four transports before landing!

Do vanguard units have Songhai-style embarked or Slinger-style retreat? It occurred to me that the latter fit better with the evasive approach you cited.

 

[Thalassicus]

They have both. There's lots of little details, and the easiest way to see these things is to try it out ingame.

 

[Txurce]

Scouts are unchanged - weak in combat, no sight bonus, and start with "ignore terrain" as an attribute that does not persist when upgraded... However, due to their very low cost Scouts will still be useful as city garrisons.

Embarkation isn't available until the classical era when we have the 2nd promotion anyway. It's somewhat useful for later in the game though... which might be a good thing, since units with Recon 1-2 will be rather weak in land combat. I can also change the withdraw likelihood. It's currently at a maximum of 80%, which drops based on terrain and the movement speed of the attacker. Something else I could do is the Viking land/sea transition movement bonus instead of defensive embarkation.

I also realized the same thing you did (defense doesn't make sense for a helicopter) so I changed it back to a paratrooper. I'm not really happy with that as a front-line unit either from a realism perspective, but I do think the paradrop promotion fits great for the vanguard role from a gameplay perspective. I'd like a different name for the Paratrooper, but I'm not sure what to call it, if anyone has ideas.

The Scout adjustments strike me as the most sensible approach.

Vanguard units withdrawing rather than having embark defense seems more balanced to me. Adding the Viking transition bonus to "embark" makes sense to me, though, and as you said makes the units more valuable later in the game (when you're more likely to want this promotion).

Modern-day armies don't have vanguards (Special Forces don't do quite the same thing), but paratroopers (although infrequently used in RL) are probably the closest equivalent. I'm satisfied with them taking on a role that realistically no longer has much of a function (and keeping their name).

 

[Txurce]

Similar to the utility promotions for the melee & ranged classes, I also plan on some side-promotions:

• Recon 1
  +1 sight range
  Ignores borders and terrain cost
  Can traverse mountains and ice
• Recon 2
  +1 movement
  Attempts to withdraw from melee or embarked combat
• Medic
  Heals nearby units
• March
  Heals self every turn
• Survivalism
  +1 healing outside friendly territory
  No movement cost to pillage

My goal is Ranger and Guerrilla should be best for general use, with utility promotions as occasional side-strategies.

Again, I like the withdrawal version of embarkation - I was going to suggest it yesterday as an afterthought, then decided to shut up.

I have a possible concern with Recon 1 - specifically traversing mountains. The use of mountains as bottlenecks is one of the more enjoyable aspects of Civ5 for me. I worry that this potential flanking of an impregnable position will subvert that... if not with a Levy, then maybe with a later, more powerful unit (like a paratrooper, unless their combat strength is also being nerfed).

And yes, I know I should play with them first. But I'm finishing a project today, and only have time to speculate right now!

 

[Seek]

Again, I like the withdrawal version of embarkation - I was going to suggest it yesterday as an afterthought, then decided to shut up.

I have a possible concern with Recon 1 - specifically traversing mountains. The use of mountains as bottlenecks is one of the more enjoyable aspects of Civ5 for me. I worry that this potential flanking of an impregnable position will subvert that... if not with a Levy, then maybe with a later, more powerful unit (like a paratrooper, unless their combat strength is also being nerfed).

I agree on both points, and would add that the ignore borders is fairly game-changing also. Recon I essentially lets the unit move *anywhere* which imo lessens the fun in exploring somewhat.

 

[Txurce]

I agree on both points, and would add that the ignore borders is fairly game-changing also. Recon I essentially lets the unit move *anywhere* which imo lessens the fun in exploring somewhat.

Totally agree regarding "ignore borders." This doesn't make realistic sense to me - it's not a lone Scout or Spy - and also threatens to make the game too easy. The promotion may be fine with only +1 sight, or possibly add +1 movement as well, since withdrawal may be strong enough on its own for Recon 2.

 

[bwoww78]

Totally agree regarding "ignore borders." This doesn't make realistic sense to me - it's not a lone Scout or Spy - and also threatens to make the game too easy. The promotion may be fine with only +1 sight, or possibly add +1 movement as well, since withdrawal may be strong enough on its own for Recon 2.

This is not "exactly" combat related, but along the lines of the recon 1 ignore borders/terrain comments, I'd also agree they are potentially game changing (with caveat of no play-testing so far---but I've got a Rome game in my queue!) I'd point out that the element advanced positioning into enemy territory "pre-war" that the open borders "spy" side of that promotion could be accomplished separately by a civilian unit. For example, I also use the city state diplomacy mod and have found that messengers, diplomats, etc. that have the open borders perk are a great way to get a view of enemy positioning in their territory while still being realistically vulnerable to attack/capture.

I know it's pushing VEM's goal of limiting addition of new units, but having a specific SPY unit (could change names/price per era) is a super fun element of the game. CSD uses a great person (merchant I believe) mechanic to produce the units, so it's not out of current modding capabilities. I know it's not CSD's intent, but that function of civilian ignores open borders makes the game very interesting and jives with both elements of the recon 1 promotion (as is). [note: naval units with open borders promotions are a different animal and I think work great now as they are in VEM]

In short, I agree with txurce on the promotion issues and would (humbly) propose the addition of a civilian spy line to your unit changes with CSD's GP unit production mechanism as a model.

 

[bwoww78]

This is not "exactly" combat related, but along the lines of the recon 1 ignore borders/terrain comments, I'd also agree they are potentially game changing (with caveat of no play-testing so far---but I've got a Rome game in my queue!) I'd point out that the element advanced positioning into enemy territory "pre-war" that the open borders "spy" side of that promotion could be accomplished separately by a civilian unit. For example, I also use the city state diplomacy mod and have found that messengers, diplomats, etc. that have the open borders perk are a great way to get a view of enemy positioning in their territory while still being realistically vulnerable to attack/capture.

I know it's pushing VEM's goal of limiting addition of new units, but having a specific SPY unit (could change names/price per era) is a super fun element of the game. CSD uses a great person (merchant I believe) mechanic to produce the units, so it's not out of current modding capabilities. I know it's not CSD's intent, but that function of civilian ignores open borders makes the game very interesting and jives with both elements of the recon 1 promotion (as is). [note: naval units with open borders promotions are a different animal and I think work great now as they are in VEM]

In short, I agree with txurce on the promotion issues and would (humbly) propose the addition of a civilian spy line to your unit changes with CSD's GP unit production mechanism as a model.

As an after thought (and likely further outside scope of this mod but I still think a great idea) but the GP function of these civilian units could also potentially be used to improve (or detriment?) relations with the nation in which they are "used" or donated (gifted?). This has relation to reality in civilian military cooperation (thinking US/British special relationship). Just another idea.

Thanks for consideration!

 

[Zaldron]

Again, I like the withdrawal version of embarkation - I was going to suggest it yesterday as an afterthought, then decided to shut up.

I have a possible concern with Recon 1 - specifically traversing mountains. The use of mountains as bottlenecks is one of the more enjoyable aspects of Civ5 for me. I worry that this potential flanking of an impregnable position will subvert that... if not with a Levy, then maybe with a later, more powerful unit (like a paratrooper, unless their combat strength is also being nerfed).

And yes, I know I should play with them first. But I'm finishing a project today, and only have time to speculate right now!

Remember that paratroopers *can already* drop behind your lines with the paradrop ability.

 

[Txurce]

Remember that paratroopers *can already* drop behind your lines with the paradrop ability.

But not on a mountain - and not fight on the same turn. I'm thinking of a flanking unit on either side of a mountain pass - that sort of thing.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Rename Paratroopers to Special Forces, let them keep all Vanguard promotion lines as options and also add back in the basic unit promotions? I need to look at tech tree again, but I'd think strength between Infantry & Mech Inf and cost probably the same as Mech Inf.


Recon 1
+1 sight range
Ignores terrain cost

Recon 2
+1 movement
Attempts to withdraw from melee or embarked combat
Can traverse mountains and ice

Scrap defend while embarked.

 

[Txurce]

Rename Paratroopers to Special Forces, let them keep all Vanguard promotion lines as options and also add back in the basic unit promotions? I need to look at tech tree again, but I'd think strength between Infantry & Mech Inf and cost probably the same as Mech Inf.


Recon 1
+1 sight range
Ignores terrain cost

Recon 2
+1 movement
Attempts to withdraw from melee or embarked combat
Can traverse mountains and ice

Scrap defend while embarked.

Promotions aside, Vanguard units are supposed to be cheap, so this unit should cost meaningfully less than MI. Its attributes would then be scaled to the cost, so it wouldn't be an over-used bargain. That would probably make what you've described a bit OP for the class.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Wait a minute... I had a big explanation half typed out but this was all based on the Paratrooper being the final link, not the helicopter. Now I'm confused. I don't really think the Attack Helicopter (primary role armored assault, basically a modern high mobility pikeman; secondary role same as tank) should be filling the Vanguard role, especially when all promotions are defense oriented.

 

[Txurce]

Wait a minute... I had a big explanation half typed out but this was all based on the Paratrooper being the final link, not the helicopter. Now I'm confused. I don't really think the Attack Helicopter (primary role armored assault, basically a modern high mobility pikeman) should be filling the Vanguard role, especially when all promotions are defense oriented.

I think you're right, and that Thal is going to adjust this.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Back to my Paratrooper reasoning then...

The need for a Vanguard class is already greatly diminished in the Industrial era (and even Renaissance to a point). You don't have to worry about being unable to build your bread and butter unit due to lacking Iron. At this point they exist for low cost, recon and mobility if you don't have horses. Once you hit Modern era, all of these things become significantly less valuable. If you're a conqueror you mostly have your recon and mobility roles filled out with other specialty units (tanks, planes, helis) and low cost isn't as much of a priority as battle effectiveness per unit. If you're tall/peaceful you don't particularly need recon or mobility either, and while low cost is useful in a pinch, I would still favor Mech Inf for bread and butter defense, especially since you become unit soft capped at around 15 units.

Making the last link Special Forces (replacing Paratrooper) with all those promotions available does several things. It provides a sensible upgrade path for your existing Vanguards. It creates a rapid deploy assault unit for conquerors that isn't overpowered (tweaking strength obviously). It still allows for a modern recon unit that, while I stated isn't as important, still has its uses. I think the cost on these should rival Mech Inf because even though they will be weaker in strength, you're paying for versatility and mobility. It fits a theme. Special Forces are a first in unit to wreak havoc on supply lines, harass the enemy, create subversion, etc. In Civ they wouldn't be able to do full blown assaults on main units but they will be useful for holding ground, pillaging, killing weakened units and knocking out AT guns, AA/SAM, and Artillery.