Combat Roles

[Txurce]

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!

Exactly my story, too. I may have built one or two when the mod had them strong as rocks, but that was more because I had to build something. If they could fight the same turn, I would use them steadily, if only for entertainment purposes.

 

[Herb0815]

ATM you can use paras to quickly destroy strat ressources, roads and rails and force the enemy to divide units from the main battle line to deal with them. Establishing a 2nd front in the back of the enemy is also rly funny. I think giving them the ability to attack after drop would improve them even more.

Another topic: "I´m the only one that things Fighters should get a slight buff?"

They are only good vs other Fighters or Bombers. So you can´t use them efficiently if you have a tech lead or no one teched to Bombers jet, as they suck vs ground and sea units. (They make the same dmg vs their era ground units as longbowmen, yea it is 1. Longbowmen will have +1 range by that time and maybe logistics making them able to make 2 dmg without being dmg.)

Even worse another unit does the same job resource free and at a lower hammer cost, the anti aircraft gun.

So I think it would be a good idea to make Fighters better vs Artillery so that there is a reason to build them beside to counter the bomber, that comes later.

 

[Txurce]

ATM you can use paras to quickly destroy strat ressources, roads and rails and force the enemy to divide units from the main battle line to deal with them. Establishing a 2nd front in the back of the enemy is also rly funny. I think giving them the ability to attack after drop would improve them even more.

Another topic: "I´m the only one that things Fighters should get a slight buff?"

They are only good vs other Fighters or Bombers. So you can´t use them efficiently if you have a tech lead or no one teched to Bombers jet, as they suck vs ground and sea units. (They make the same dmg vs their era ground units as longbowmen, yea it is 1. Longbowmen will have +1 range by that time and maybe logistics making them able to make 2 dmg without being dmg.)

Even worse another unit does the same job resource free and at a lower hammer cost, the anti aircraft gun.

So I think it would be a good idea to make Fighters better vs Artillery so that there is a reason to build them beside to counter the bomber, that comes later.

They're also pretty good at reducing a city's defenses - especially when you have a tech lead. I've seen the AI break open a deadlocked conflict this way more than once.

 

[Thalassicus]

Does anyone have suggestions for unit artwork to use for the 3 new vanguard units? I don't really know what's available out there. I remember someone posting a picture of one possible unit skin mod, but can't seem to find the post now...

@SgtCiv
Thanks for the promotion suggestion, that's really helpful! The name "Trenches" is shorter and gets the same concept across. Entrenchment goes back as far as there is recorded history... in the Battle of Nicopolis during Julius Caesar's civil war the defending force built two trenches on either side of the infantry, hindering flanking attempts and winning the battle.

@GoodRevrnd
The difference between vanilla mech infantry and the Ranger proposal is a 5-tile paradrop range. As others have pointed out we cannot attack after paradropping, so it's not really much of a change from the mech infantry unit.

 

[Jorlem]

They're also pretty good at reducing a city's defenses - especially when you have a tech lead. I've seen the AI break open a deadlocked conflict this way more than once.

Yeah, but bombers are so much better at hurting cities, and they come soon enough after fighters that I don't usually build fighters unless an AI already has them, or bombers.
Would it be possible to bring back the airship from Civ 4, as a sort of protobomber? It would give the fighters something to counter when they come onto the scene, which would be nice.

Or, would it be possible to give fighters the ability to do recon flights? I loved being able to use them to huge swaths of the AI civs territory, which was the main reason I used to build these in earlier versions of Civ.

Also, regarding Paratroopers, can they be changed to allow for attacking immediately after paradropping? As is, once they paradrop they are usually out of range of great generals and they can't usually get bonuses for being next to allied units. Plus they are weaker than most contemporary units, and they can barely do anything before they are attacked and destroyed, as they can't jump out once they are in enemy territory. Usually, the only paratroopers I ever have are the ones given to me by city states.

 

[Thalassicus]

To the best of my understanding, it's not possible to add new unit models to the game right now, due to problems with the modding tools.

I also liked the recon flights of fighters. They sorta replaced that with a massive sight range in Civ V. There's not really anything we can do about how units attack, move, or perform their missions... all that stuff is in the game core only Firaxis has access to. We can only adjust the numbers or copy things from other units, which is what I've been doing.

There's several other options I could do with fighters, though. I could reduce their land attack penalty from -75% to say... 50 or 25. I could reduce the cost of fighters, or make bombers use 2 aluminum while fighters use 1. Anything along these lines is possible (cost, range, strength, promotions, etc).

 

[Jorlem]

Hmm... Could you make it so they are stronger against units, but about the same vs cities? That way they wouldn't take away from the bomber's main role, but would still be useful. Also, does the fighter's interception command only protect the city it is based in, or does it protect nearby tiles too? I can't recall.

 

[Txurce]

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.

I just played a game with China - a civ that has no melee UU's - and played a Conquest game where I built zero melee units. As part of that experiment, I also fielded no horse units until Cavalry and Lancers were available, so as to defend more of my by-then far-flung empire. Instead I used the Vanguard line. This worked out much the way I expected: the somewhat weaker units held up as siege and range cover, and could take redlined cities without any problem - while providing the advantage of lower shield costs. About the only disadvantage that I encountered was having to decide whether to research Civil Service or Metal Casting first (Levy vs Smithy).

On a related note, some AI are building Levies, and in general seem to field more balanced armies, although the balance tilts to siege units by the arrival of cannon.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

On a related note, some AI are building Levies, and in general seem to field more balanced armies, although the balance tilts to siege units by the arrival of cannon.

My current game (which i think is still .9.1.10) I was noticing much more balanced armies across the board as well.

 

[Thalassicus]

I've been steadily working on improving the AI "flavor" values the AI uses to figure out what to build. I'm glad to hear it seems to be working out well.

@Txurce
It does depend on unique units. With China it's entirely possible to rely on solely range and vanguard - something that obviously wouldn't be ideal for a civ like Rome or Japan. I like the variety. After all, some leaders can play without conquest, while others are built entirely around conquest. I want the capability to play even conquest leaders in fundamentally different ways, if that makes sense. I think the variety in playstyles adds excitement to the game.

In general for leaders without ranged UUs, while it's feasible to play without melee units, I'm not sure it would be the fastest strategy. Conquering with catapults+levies requires about an early Medieval level of tech progress, and by that point I've often captured a few cities. The best option for killing cities before then is Siege-promoted swordsmen. For leaders with ranged UUs I usually don't build strategic units much (if at all), before or after the Vanguard addition. Not many leaders have such UUs however.

Something else to point out is techs unlocking Vanguard units are generally not military-focused technologies. This is intended to provide the tension you encountered between Civil Service and Metal Casting. If one tech path is an obvious choice, it's less interesting, after all.

 

[Txurce]

I want the capability to play even conquest leaders in fundamentally different ways, if that makes sense. I think the variety in playstyles adds excitement to the game.

In general for leaders without ranged UUs, while it's feasible to play without melee units, I'm not sure it would be the fastest strategy. Conquering with catapults+levies requires about an early Medieval level of tech progress, and by that point I've often captured a few cities.

I'm in my third game, and agree that adding the Vanguard line gives at least the sense of expanded choices. It's a clear improvement. Pikemen and muskets are a bit marginalized, but the ultimate goal of artillery makes it more likely that they'll be researched ahead of their Vanguard equivalents.

If anything seems unbalanced, it's the Same Old Thing: the defense bonus of the Vanguard units. Playing on Emperor, I just encountered a Skirmisher with three Guerrilla promotions. He was absurdly hard to kill. This doesn't feel right for a cheap basic unit.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

If anything seems unbalanced, it's the Same Old Thing: the defense bonus of the Vanguard units. Playing on Emperor, I just encountered a Skirmisher with three Guerrilla promotions. He was absurdly hard to kill. This doesn't feel right for a cheap basic unit.

Vanguard: [+25%] ranged defense, [-25%] melee defense. Lightweight mobile infantry easily able to dodge, outmaneuver and seek cover from arrows and artillery but easily routed by overwhelming ground forces that catch them. Alleviates the hunker down syndrome of them a bit. If you want to smoke them out safely with ranged units it will take you a while or you can just quickly dispatch them with melee and pay a small hp price on your core assault units.

 

[Txurce]

Vanguard: [+25%] ranged defense, [-25%] melee defense. Lightweight mobile infantry easily able to dodge, outmaneuver and seek cover from arrows and artillery but easily routed by overwhelming ground forces that catch them. Alleviates the hunker down syndrome of them a bit. If you want to smoke them out safely with ranged units it will take you a while or you can just quickly dispatch them with melee and pay a small hp price on your core assault units.

Yeah, I've always favored something along these lines. However, I want to stress that overall the Vanguard units, from Levy to Soldier - hold up.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Yeah, I've always favored something along these lines. However, I want to stress that overall the Vanguard units, from Levy to Soldier - hold up.

I mean keep them the way they are and add that. I think it favors the AI a bit too since they're not big on setting up crazy ranged barrage lines like the human is. I also think it screws up vanguard vs vanguard combat though.

 

[Beelzibub]

There's several other options I could do with fighters, though. I could reduce their land attack penalty from -75% to say... 50 or 25. I could reduce the cost of fighters, or make bombers use 2 aluminum while fighters use 1. Anything along these lines is possible (cost, range, strength, promotions, etc).

One thing I'd love to see with fighters, although it probably isn't possible, would be for their attacks to reduce the targets movement in the following turn. This represents that although fighters would do little damage to an infantry unit, they could keep them pinned in cover and slow their advance. I seem to think that although very early (WWI maybe?) fighter planes tended to be mainly used for scouting, they would also be used strafing infantry positions for this purpose.

Another idea that is probably also impossible to implement would be for fighters to boost line of sight in cities where they are stationed and decrease the enemy's line of sight in the same region unless they too have fighters. This would represent that having control of the skies gives you a huge boost to battlefield recognaissance while limiting that of your oponent.

 

[Thalassicus]

The reason vanguard with the Guerrilla promotion were hard to kill was that promotion line accidentally had the old Survivalism bonuses for healing and defense. This should be fixed in .17 beta.

@GoodRevrnd
I do want to keep the units focused, without too many complicated bonuses on the base units. The class currently has +1 sight, +20% near friendlies, and +25% defense. I could change the last one to only ranged damage.

@Beelzibub
I could actually do the first effect you describe by adding a movement-penalty promotion for 1 turn. So the question is... should this be done? I haven't had enough experience with modern-era warfare to know for sure. Any thoughts on this subject from others?

 

[Txurce]

One thing I'd love to see with fighters, although it probably isn't possible, would be for their attacks to reduce the targets movement in the following turn. This represents that although fighters would do little damage to an infantry unit, they could keep them pinned in cover and slow their advance.

@Beelzibub
I could actually do the first effect you describe by adding a movement-penalty promotion for 1 turn. So the question is... should this be done? I haven't had enough experience with modern-era warfare to know for sure. Any thoughts on this subject from others?

What's the difference between planes keeping a unit pinned down and artillery doing it? How about melee units on higher ground? All of them would theoretically slow movement. It doesn't make sense to give it to one but not the others. I would be careful about buffing fighters in an inconsistent manner that will exclusively benefit the human player.

 

[Txurce]

I just finished my fastest conquest game with version 9.16, playing Songhai and and building only archers, cats, knights, and the entire Vanguard line (upgrading all, of course). It still feels like the Vanguard units make warring easier, but they do fit well with Songhai, and I am learning something from Thal's tips on warmongering!

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

I didn't know this officially made the beta version, but assume that's what happened when I promoted a crossbow back-to-back to rifle and then ranger. I had one major and one passing comment on the overall change:

Movement has ticked up one tile, seemingly including tanks. This is an unaddressed nerf to artillery, and shrinks the battlefield seemingly without reason.

Rangers are a true vanguard in RL, but would function that way in the mod only when paradropped. Otherwise they are a typical VEM Melee unit.

 

[Thalassicus]

Firaxis did the 5 change to tanks, and I haven't had enough experience with modern warfare yet to say whether the faster movement is good or not. It might nerf artillery, but does buff aircraft, since their advantage is mobility.

 

[Txurce]

Firaxis did the 5 change to tanks, and I haven't had enough experience with modern warfare yet to say whether the faster movement is good or not. It might nerf artillery, but does buff aircraft, since their advantage is mobility.

The faster movement I'm wondering about is VEM adding an extra move to Rangers and MI. If you didn't add it to tanks, then they were nerfed, too. Why do this, instead of leaving them at 3 and 2, respectively (plus whatever movement bonuses they've already earned)?