Combat Roles

[Thalassicus]

I thought of Marine too, but as you point out, marines are part of the navy. The generic name doesn't bother me since all units are generic like "sword man" or "infantry".

The concept I'm trying to go for with Vanguard units is what's stated in the "Purpose" section: personnel deployed at the front of or ahead of the main army. While special forces sometimes fill this role, not all personnel in this role are special forces. It's like the "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" analogy. This is why names like special forces, paratroopers, commandos, or such don't really fit the concept.

 

[Txurce]

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..

Rangers is probably the most accurate term for what they are, but perhaps the similarly-named promotion would create confusion in some minds.

 

[Thalassicus]

(Moved to first post)

 

[Txurce]

I've created new art in v9.1.8 beta for the Ranger and Guerrilla promotions. Since gameplay decisions in this mod are explained, I figure it makes sense to talk about the artistic ones too.

The melee promotions are similar to military rank insignia used by most armed forces, so I searched for similar iconography. Another common theme is horizontal stripes like South Korea:

A flat line made sense for the flat-land Ranger promotions, and following the pattern of Shock/Drill, I added a small rounded hill on the top for Guerrilla. Shock and Drill have an angled chevron symbolizing the attack bonuses they have. Ranger and Guerrilla have no chevron, indicating their lack of an attack bonus.

Ingame I found a simple flat line looked too similar to equals or minus signs. I therefore added small points to the top symbolizing the crenelations of a guard tower. As we advance in ranks it resembles increasingly tall towers - one with an open roof, the other with a covered roof. I also added a slightly wider gap between the bars of the second rank to make it easily distinguishable at a glance. The towers represent the defense and detection roles of the vanguard.

Makes sense and looks right - thanks!

 

[GoodRevrnd]

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..

Which is why, if you go back to my post about it, I go into why the Vanguard's fundamental purpose doesn't really fit in the modern age in the limited fashion it exists in previous eras. The "paratrooper" -> Special Forces still fills the main Vanguard concept of first in but expands upon it for the modern era, giving up strength for mobility and customization. I know we tend to not like to change the purpose of unit lines, but it's not unprecedented or unreasonable considering how the unit mix changes for each era. The biggest and most obvious example is the major shift to all melee units with gunpowder. This has obviously been an ongoing problem for us anyway or we wouldn't have been discussing pikemen to death (and how changes to them effect EVERYTHING else) for the last two weeks.

 

[Thalassicus]

This mod makes bigger changes to combat than anything else, so I think it's great we're discussing it in depth.

I honestly haven't had much experience with warfare in the modern era - so your feedback here is helpful! The fundamental purpose of a vanguard is deploying first, or in front of the main army. You feel this applies to real modern armies, but there's no need for this in Civ's modern combat? Is there typically no front line in your modern wars, or does it just move too quickly to really form?

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I feel how it plays out in game is different. In earlier eras the enhanced mobility is much more valuable since your whole army rolls along at speed 2. You can get them to where they're going just plain faster and maneuver them to your flanks a lot easier for soaking damage and protecting squishies. They're also useful for the sight bonus to assist ranged and artillery.

In the modern era the speed on all units is ramped up so the "deploy first" role is greatly diminished (yes, even w/ paradrop). Cities are the same distance apart they've been all game. Being able to move into position at the same or barely faster speed than your bulk force with a purely defensive unit typically isn't worth much. All I'm saying is that if you expand their capability (promotions) in the modern era then they will better serve the Vanguard role in game, and in a more realistic sense as well.

 

[Seek]

I feel how it plays out in game is different. In earlier eras the enhanced mobility is much more valuable since your whole army rolls along at speed 2. You can get them to where they're going just plain faster and maneuver them to your flanks a lot easier for soaking damage and protecting squishies. They're also useful for the sight bonus to assist ranged and artillery.

In the modern era the speed on all units is ramped up so the "deploy first" role is greatly diminished (yes, even w/ paradrop). Cities are the same distance apart they've been all game. Being able to move into position at the same or barely faster speed than your bulk force with a purely defensive unit typically isn't worth much. All I'm saying is that if you expand their capability (promotions) in the modern era then they will better serve the Vanguard role in game, and in a more realistic sense as well.

Interesting summary. Do you think we should go with (amphibious) Marines then, to help speed them along?

 

[Thalassicus]

I do see what you mean there. Tanks move at a base speed of 5 which Soldiers only reach with a combination of R/G 2 (3+1+1).

However, giving them both melee and vanguard promotions is not technically feasible because of 2 design flaws in the game:

1. Instead of a table of unlimited size for prerequisites (as done for techs, policies, etc) promotions instead have a fixed 4 slots to indicate prerequisites. This means duplicate promotions like Blitz: one nearly-identical version of Blitz for each of land, air, and sea, just to fill out all 12 prerequisites. It's silly and runs into the second problem:
2. There's a limit of 200 promotions which can exist, due to a problem with the internal promotion database's fixed size of 200 rows. There's about 140 vanilla promotions so that leaves 60 to be added by mods. Duplicating all the melee promotions would run into this limit.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

No, I'd just make it a promotion available to them. My whole concept for the unit is an "underpowered" blank slate that you can spec into ANY role you want and has the advantage of rapid deployment (paradrop).

@Thal: hhmmmmmmmmm.... Guess we'll have to shelve it until dll day!

 

[Thalassicus]

There's other ways we could shift the light/elite infantry relationship in the modern era... hm...

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I don't know. Gonna have to think on it a bit. What happens to upgraded Vanguards if you axe all Vanguard promotions and just give Paratroopers normal infantry promotions?

 

[Thalassicus]

It's the same as when a Chariot Archer upgrades to a Knight: similar promotions swap like Guerrilla with Drill.

Here's an idea...

Mechanized Infantry
"Modern vanguard unit useful for city garrisons and absorbing damage on the front lines. Mechanized Infantry are stronger next to friendly military units."

Upgrades from Light Infantry
300 cost
38
7 /turn
4

In hostile territory mechanized infantry deploy ahead of other infantry, followed by more vulnerable, motorized infantry in trucks or on foot. Mech infantry have improved mobility and defense inside armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. They are the vanguard of infantry in the army.


Ranger
"Elite melee unit capable of paradropping up to 5 tiles from friendly territory."

Upgrades from Infantry, Foreign Legion
450 cost
50
16 /turn
3


"This name goes all the back to the Revolutionary war. They were re-established during War II and were used in some of hardest missions during that war. They are used mostly in unorthodox missions where success of normal infantry is not likely.

"They are highly trained down to lowest rank personnel in the unit. They can operate any where from a squad size to company size units, and vary from light to heavy weight infantry, but mostly they would fall into light to medium weight.

"Their key to success in most cases is that every man deploying on a mission knows every detail of the mission, using scaled terrain maps, so even a private can complete the mission if a leader is wounded or KIA'd."

 

[Txurce]

In my eyes, the modern-era Vanguard discussion tends to begin with "it doesn't really make sense, so..." and wind up with proposals to leave the unit a Vanguard mainly in name only. Just as there is no Vanguard unit before the Medieval era, so there doesn't have to be one in the modern era.

You could just leave Paratroopers as they were.

 

[Thalassicus]

Did anyone build paratroopers as they were? I've been trying to figure out a way to work them into things for a while... this seems like one possibility.

 

[SgtCiv]

Rangers is probably the most accurate term for what they are, but perhaps the similarly-named promotion would create confusion in some minds.

I served 8 years in the Army. If helps any I have noticed the debate over different unit names verses unit roles, so I thought I would share what I know that maybe help with any decisions.

Special Forces: Mostly only operate in small 8 or 9 man squad size units. With each member being specialized in one area. ie.. 1. Explosives 2. Medic 3. Communications 4. Weapons 5. Pathfinder and so on, but each man is trained in all areas. Some of their over all mission goals... 1. Move behind enemy lines to gather intel and train locals to defend and take care of themselves in a war zone 2. Specialized extraction and or localized kill missions.

Rangers: This name goes all the back to the Revolutionary war. They are highly trained down to lowest rank personnel in the unit. They can operate any where from a squad size to company size units. They were re-established during War II and was used in some of hardest missions during that war. They are used mostly in unorthodox missions where success of normal infantry is not likely. They can operate anywhere from light to heavy weight infantry units, but mostly they would fall into light to medium weight. They're key to success in most cases is that every man deploying on a mission knows every detail of the mission, using scaled terrain maps, so even a private can complete the mission if a leader is wounded or KIA'd.

So with this said, I would also recommend Rangers as the unit name. Their over all mission objects seems to fit your over all objective with the unit.

By the way - I don't play civ anymore without at least your MOD loaded. Thanks for all the hard work that you do to try and improve game play!!!!

 

[Thalassicus]

Thanks, I've changed the name! Can you think of any possible names for the "defense bonus in open terrain" promotion?

 

[SgtCiv]

Thanks, I've changed the name! Can you think of any possible names for the "defense bonus in open terrain" promotion?

Thal - the one that comes to me and seems to fit the best is "Entrenchment". I know that is long, but the definition fits the best. Unsupported forces best defense is to dig-in for cover. When I served, if we stopped for longer X period of time we would dig-in for added cover and depending on length of stay we would constantly improve the cover positions and field of fires.

edited: And to add a well trained unit can have a defensive position completed in a very short period of time. That type of training is learned from the very start - in basic training. Being able to build a fast cover position can depend sometimes on life or death.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I don't know if I'm a fan of that Mech Inf / Ranger change. It leaves no basic bread and butter unit. It certainly makes things interesting though, because that essentially means mech inf can keep up and support armor. G/R 2 = 5 movement, 3rd promotion medic... hmmmm. Very interesting indeed. Maybe since there is such a wide variety of units available in the modern era not having a basic one is okay. I'd get a lot of peoples' opinions on this first though.

My big question is what do all the Infantry upgrade to? Convert promotions to Vanguard Mech Inf? I think that would piss a lot of people off. Upgrading them all to Rangers seems broken though.

Maybe you could leave Mech Inf alone, add a new unit called Logistics Unit for the Vanguard (use mech inf art), and change Paratroopers to Ranger (3move), adding a few random intrinsic bonuses (no cost pillage, traverse ice/mtn, +% vs certain unit types).

 

[Seek]

Did anyone build paratroopers as they were?

I built one ... then found out they can't attack after paradrop. Haven't built one since. Just allowing that one thing would make them 100% better imo. City sniping ftw!