Combat Roles

[Txurce]

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.

Your first paragraph effectively illustrates the natural end of the need for a Vanguard class - just as Rifles signal the natural end of range units. There's nothing wrong with the demise of either.

Your second paragraph strikes me as conflicted ("a rapid deploy assault unit for conquerors that isn't overpowered", "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"). The word "assault" isn't in the Vanguard job description, and knocking out artillery, etc, is definitely significant offensive damage.

Again, my point is not to drop the paratrooper as the last link (although I don't think it's needed). It's that it should be just as weak relative to its time as the rest of the Vanguard line.

 

[Tomice]

Just 2 quick thoughts:

- If vanguards can enter mountain tops, won't they be invulnerable by melee? Would the need for ranged units to really kill them not make them quite overpowered?

- Aren't the promotions in the recon line a bit overpowered? Three significant advantages already with recon 1? Sounds like more than enough effects to make 3 promotions out of it (If you keep all of them as they are).

 

[Txurce]

Vanguard Units have 33% lower cost and 25% lower strength than their main-army counterparts. This is a starting point which will be adjusted based on gameplay testing.

I'm playing 9.1.7 and just discovered that a Levy and a Skirmisher have the same base strength as a Pikeman and Musketman. This strikes me as the essence of the general problem with the earlier Militia unit.

I can't imagine why I would ever build a Pikeman, unless up against the odd AI who builds a large amount of horse units. A Levy would serve the same purpose as a Pikeman for me - to promote for terrain and cover, and serve as a shield for siege units - for a lower price.

The same is probably true for Muskets and Skirmishers, even though Skirmishers come a bit later in the tech tree. I doubt I would opt for a Musket just because it will one day upgrade to a Rifle. (I'd rather they were available at the same time, anyway, and that if you felt a mirror unit for the Rifleman was needed, to then add one.

Given their versatility, I would put these two Vanguard units 2 strength points lower than their Melee equivalents - at a strength/cost ration much closer to what you now have for Light Infantry/Infantry.

Also, I disliked the Scout's ignore-mountains promotion even more than I thought I would. It's not just too easy... it didn't feel like Civ5 to me.

 

[bwoww78]

I'm playing 9.1.7 and just discovered that a Levy and a Skirmisher have the same base strength as a Pikeman and Musketman. This strikes me as the essence of the general problem with the earlier Militia unit.

I can't imagine why I would ever build a Pikeman, unless up against the odd AI who builds a large amount of horse units. A Levy would serve the same purpose as a Pikeman for me - to promote for terrain and cover, and serve as a shield for siege units - for a lower price.

The same is probably true for Muskets and Skirmishers, even though Skirmishers come a bit later in the tech tree. I doubt I would opt for a Musket just because it will one day upgrade to a Rifle. (I'd rather they were available at the same time, anyway, and that if you felt a mirror unit for the Rifleman was needed, to then add one.

Given their versatility, I would put these two Vanguard units 2 strength points lower than their Melee equivalents - at a strength/cost ration much closer to what you now have for Light Infantry/Infantry.

Also, I disliked the Scout's ignore-mountains promotion even more than I thought I would. It's not just too easy... it didn't feel like Civ5 to me.

I would agree after some playthrough that getting the ignore mountains promotion so early had a significant effect on gameplay towards being overpowered.

 

[Jorlem]

I would agree after some playthrough that getting the ignore mountains promotion so early had a significant effect on gameplay towards being overpowered.

Instead of just flat out ignoring mountains, could the promotion be set to just make it very difficult? Something along the lines of needing to use up all remaining movement to move into or out of a hex with a mountain. This way, getting through a single mountain hex would take an extra two turns, one to enter the mountain hex, another to leave the mountain hex, and only on the third turn could the unit continue onward. When moving along mountain ranges, each mountain hex would add an extra turn to the amount of time it takes to go on.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I'm playing 9.1.7 and just discovered that a Levy and a Skirmisher have the same base strength as a Pikeman and Musketman. This strikes me as the essence of the general problem with the earlier Militia unit.

I can't imagine why I would ever build a Pikeman, unless up against the odd AI who builds a large amount of horse units. A Levy would serve the same purpose as a Pikeman for me - to promote for terrain and cover, and serve as a shield for siege units - for a lower price.

The same is probably true for Muskets and Skirmishers, even though Skirmishers come a bit later in the tech tree. I doubt I would opt for a Musket just because it will one day upgrade to a Rifle. (I'd rather they were available at the same time, anyway, and that if you felt a mirror unit for the Rifleman was needed, to then add one.

Given their versatility, I would put these two Vanguard units 2 strength points lower than their Melee equivalents - at a strength/cost ration much closer to what you now have for Light Infantry/Infantry.

Also, I disliked the Scout's ignore-mountains promotion even more than I thought I would. It's not just too easy... it didn't feel like Civ5 to me.

Vanguards don't get offensive promotions, that's why you would still build Pikemen--especially if you didn't have access to iron. I don't have a comment on combat strength yet, other than just Skirmisher/Musketman being equal. I rarely build musketmen anyway and this would probably be a nail in the coffin for that unit for me.

As far as mountains, I never thought it was a big deal because I never saw many mountains in a significant way until this very last game. There was a continent wide range with only 3 breaks in it so I went well looky here and just rode the range all the way down for massive scouting. It did feel OP, and the fact that it was on the first promotion means that later in the game I could have a very large force instantly cross it to be a threat.

 

[Txurce]

Vanguards don't get offensive promotions, that's why you would still build Pikemen--especially if you didn't have access to iron. I don't have a comment on combat strength yet, other than just Skirmisher/Musketman being equal. I rarely build musketmen anyway and this would probably be a nail in the coffin for that unit for me.

Maybe we play differently. I have never built a Pikeman for offense. I use them offensively only to take a redlined city - something a Levy can do just as well - or to pick off the stray range or artillery unit. If I don't have access to iron, I'd build horse units!

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Maybe we play differently. I have never built a Pikeman for offense. I use them offensively only to take a redlined city - something a Levy can do just as well - or to pick off the stray range or artillery unit. If I don't have access to iron, I'd build horse units!

Ya but horses also get -25% city attack. Not too big a deal with knights if you're somewhat ahead anyway, but otherwise it's a killer. Also I'm not disagreeing about nerfing Vanguard combat strength. I just don't have an opinion about it yet. I do agree with you (maybe it was in other thread) that LS needs to be rebuffed to 18 though.

 

[Seek]

When the last patch was announced I thought the nerf was warrented and I figured the LS would be set at 17 and was subsequently surprised to see it at 16. With the buff to swords, making LS 17 seems very reasonable to start, maybe moving to 18 later if necessary.

 

[Thalassicus]

Paratrooper is the intended final unit - I forgot to change the name back. Skirmishers were also 1 strength point higher than intended: 75% of (25 - 16) / 2 + 16 = 15 base strength.


@GoodRevrnd
In post #7 you said the stacking bonuses are powerful in late game, and should be nerfed. In post #40 you stated they're less valuable in late game, and should be buffed. Which way should I go... up or down?

There's also statements the Recon line is 1) situational and likely ignored after the renaissance, and 2) too powerful and should be changed. With opinions going both ways...


@Txurce
Anti-tank, anti-air, and anti-mounted footsoldiers are the "specialized" role after the ancient era. Specialized troops are built for special circumstances. In addition to countering mobile units, many leaders have UUs in the upgrade path:

• Alexander
• Bismark
• Darius
• Isabella
• Napoleon
• Suleiman

Vanguard units are currently -25% compared to mainline "Melee Role" troops (longswords, muskets, rifles, etc). This is base strength, so final strength with combat modifiers is proportionately lower as well. Vanguard promotions are also less powerful than their mainline counterparts. With average combat bonuses (great general, promotion, adjacent unit) it's 58 Infantry vs 46 Light Infantry, and 18 Sword vs 16 Levy. They're consistently weaker - even with the higher era required for Levies. This is on the defense, since Vanguard units also have no attack bonuses.

One of my goals is always to make things feel really powerful, even when they're actually rather balanced.

I could drop it to -33% strength and -50% cost, though I'm concerned with such low base strength they might not be worth the investment for the front lines... especially with their weaker promotions and no attack capabilities.

The mountain effect has been in the mod for scouts several months now, and it's only useful for me about once a game or so. It usually shaves off 1-2 turns for the scout. I find it really fun to send them exploring mountains, and it lets us reveal those annoying little patches of unreachable land, but doesn't really have much gameplay impact.


@Jorlem
The CanMoveImpassible option is a true/false toggle.

@GoodRevrnd
Melee and siege units are also the only land units with the powerful +35% vs cities promotion.

@Seek
I could buff longswords again. With them at 17 we'd have a sword-longsword midpoint of 15, so 15 * 75% = 11 strength Levies. If we drop Vanguard units to 66% the strength of Melee units, Levies would remain at 15 * 66% = 10 strength. GoodRevrnd also feels Muskets are underpowered, so we could improve both longswords and muskets to 17 strength. That'd give a musket-rifle midpoint of 21 strength, so 21 * 75% = 16 strength Skirmishers.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Don't change the % strength of Vanguard yet imo.

I was saying that recon is less valuable later in the game, but that does NOT change the fact that being able to easily stack two movement promotions is OP. This was the case back when you had +1 move @ Recon 1 (or was it G/R 1?). Either way, this is not an issue when you have the +1 movement and level II on both Recon and G/R.

The mountain effect has been in the mod for scouts several months now, and it's only useful for me about once a game or so. It usually shaves off 1-2 turns for the scout. I find it really fun to send them exploring mountains, and it lets us reveal those annoying little patches of unreachable land, but doesn't really have much gameplay impact.

I generally like it too, but I think the concern is it can be questionable on units with more viable combat roles. IDK though, really you're not going to have many units promoted to recon--even 2 would probably be pushing it.

 

[Txurce]

1. Anti-tank, anti-air, and anti-mounted footsoldiers are the "specialized" role after the ancient era. Specialized troops are built for special circumstances.

Vanguard units are currently -25% compared to mainline "Melee Role" troops (longswords, muskets, rifles, etc).

I could drop it to -33% strength and -50% cost, though I'm concerned with such low base strength they might not be worth the investment for the front lines... especially with their weaker promotions and no attack capabilities.

2. The mountain effect has been in the mod for scouts several months now, and it's only useful for me about once a game or so. It usually shaves off 1-2 turns for the scout. I find it really fun to send them exploring mountains, and it lets us reveal those annoying little patches of unreachable land, but doesn't really have much gameplay impact.

1. Prior to your Vanguard concept, I suggested either making Pikemen specialists, or Militia weaker. If Pikemen are viewed as specialists, then I would suggest differentiating them more from Levies. One option I mentioned was giving them a weaker base strength and a higher vs bonus. I also don't know why they cost more than a Levy, since they are generally not as desirable.

I didn't realize that you were comparing Vanguard units to Melee. In that case a 25% strength difference may be enough, although 33% may be more interesting. However, a Skirmisher has the same strength as a Musketman, and is available at about the same time.

2. The mountain effect can definitely have an effect with Levies, Skirmishers, etc. And by coincidence my Scout took a barb camp in my first 50 turns by parking himself on a mountain, where he could hit and heal. I believe a few other people agreed it was OP, but it's easy enough for anyone who thinks it's OP to not use it.

 

[healinbear]

I have also used the mountain goat ability of the scout to great effect standing on mountians to flank for warriors and the like. I usually use scouts to finish of barbarian camps for that 5 xp and I think it increases their moral. It's fun, and of course if viewed as over powered can easily not be used.

I don't remember seeing the AI taking a scout into my territory (without open borders agreement) nor have I seen them up in the mountains. They did flank one of my cities with units that were embarked, but I've never seen them attack a city with an embarked unit.

A lot of this discussion seems to be revolving around the level of power of the promotions. Another way to avoid the temptation of using an overpowered set of promotions is to turn the save promotions toggle off when you start a game, and simply not promote the unit. Or only advance along the defensive promotion trees.

 

[Thalassicus]

@Txurce
You have a reasonable point pike cost could be lowered, and I'll do so. I don't want Pikes as a hard counter because the AI handles soft counters better. In other words the exchange of (100% vs mounted) for (50% mounted + 25% defense) helps the AI.

I've made some changes to the Recon promotions based on feedback. See the website or the first post for details.

 

[Txurce]

@Txurce
You have a reasonable point pike cost could be lowered, and I'll do so. I don't want Pikes as a hard counter because the AI handles soft counters better. In other words the exchange of (100% vs mounted) for (50% mounted + 25% defense) helps the AI.

I've made some changes to the Recon promotions based on feedback. See the website or the first post for details.

I'm looking forward to finding out what "Suppression" is!

 

[Thalassicus]

Suppression is +35% vs Vanguard units, similar to promotions like Formation (35% vs mounted), Ambush (25/50% vs tanks), and Cover (25/50% vs ranged). These counter excessive spam of any single unit type. Suppression is available to melee and ranged units.

 

[Txurce]

Suppression is +35% vs Vanguard units, similar to other anti-spam measures like Formation (35% vs mounted), Ambush (25/50% vs tanks), and Cover (25/50% vs ranged).

In my first Vanguard game, the AI isn't building enough of them for it to be tempting, but it's a nice option to have.

EDIT: I like the rationale for the Soldier designation, and the various minor adjustments all seem to be in the right direction.

 

[Thalassicus]

Anti-spam promotions are only useful against human players. They're important for the AI, and multiplayer games.

 

[Txurce]

Anti-spam promotions are only useful against human players. They're important for the AI, and multiplayer games.

Yes, and even if the AI picks it up randomly, it can only help.

Now on to my second Vanguard game, and an experiment to test this directly. One of the conceptual questions I have regarding the Vanguard rationale now being aligned with Melee (as opposed to Spears and Pikes, for example), is that while a Levy could be the base unit Pikes used to be in an army where LS are elite assault troops, this link starts to fall apart when you reach Rifles. From then on, the Melee units are no longer elite assault - partly because they're resourceless, and partly because artillery soon changes the nature of conquest. I'll be curious to see how much need there is for melee units in the various eras.

 

[Seek]

The name "Soldier" seems a little bland to me - they're all soldiers!

"Marine" might be more fitting (they're often deployed by aircraft) but then I expect we would have to give them the amphibious promotion and that is probably not desirable. Although somewhat at odds with the fundamental concept behind the vanguard class, I agree with GoodRvrnd: Special Forces may be the best name. Then again, I had no problem with Paratrooper, so..