Combat Roles

[Thalassicus]

Rangers are the old mech infantry... if that makes sense. These were the only changes from the original implementation:

• The vanguard unit now has 4 moves, up from 3.
• The melee unit now has paradrop, instead of the vanguard unit.
• Names swapped.

I didn't increase the movement of both units.

 

[Txurce]

Rangers have identical stats to the original Mechanized Infantry (cost, strength, etc). The only change is the vanguard unit now has 4 moves, up from 3.

That's essentially what I said. The old Infantry and MI (2) and (3) are now the new Ranger (3) and MI (4). I don't see the reason for this - especially in light of the resultant nerf to tanks and artillery.

 

[Thalassicus]

In this case I'm comparing as a difference from previous version of the mod, not to vanilla. Paratroopers have been 3 since November. There were concerns they were too slow after Tanks increased to 5, so I increased this unit to 4. I'll put together a table to explain it better.

 

[Txurce]

In this case I'm comparing as a difference from previous version of the mod, not to vanilla. Paratroopers have been 3 since November. They still weren't helpful, so I increased the speed to 4.

Yeah, but they aren't the rarely-used Paratroopers anymore - they're a new melee unit. And regardless of what they were, MI is now 4. It would seem to me that this calls out for a movement and/or range buff for tanks and artillery... or that you could drop the movement back to 2 and 3. The latter seems easier, and scales better with map size.

 

[Thalassicus]

This might explain it better:

The changes to gameplay between versions .10 and .11 are highlighted in green.

The speed of the modern melee unit is unchanged from when it was named "Mech Infantry." GoodRevrnd stated in post #67 he felt the vanguard unit was not fast enough to be relevant in modern warfare. This +1 is in response to that. Tanks were increased +1 by firaxis a few patches ago, so the two buffs cancel out for those particular units.

 

[Txurce]

This might explain it better... between versions .10 and .11 beta, the gameplay changes to the unit itself are highlighted in green:

I understand what you mean about how "paratroopers aren't paratroopers anymore," but you're looking at it from the perspective of the unit name. The name doesn't actually have any gameplay effect. The gameplay changes to unit formerly represented by Mechanized Infantry are:

• Can paradrop 5 tiles.
• Different tech unlock.

Actually, I wasn't focusing on names, other than for identification purposes. But I do see that since MI replaces Infantry in v10, the "old" Infantry shouldn't be part of this discussion.

So let me narrow my question: why is the current, Vanguard MI at 4 moves instead of 3? In every other era, the Vanguard speed matches that of the Melee unit (2). By speeding it up to 4, you are nerfing tanks and modern armor (units whose value were already debatable).

 

[Thalassicus]

I base movement off mobile unit speed, since mobile units (mounted and armor) are the secondary detection unit. If we compare each era's Vanguard with the era's Mobile unit:

Promotion Ranks
0 - Mobile faster
1 - Mobile faster
2 - Equal speed
3 - Equal speed
4 - Mobile faster
5 - Mobile faster
6 - Equal speed
7+ Equal speed

(This is only for Medieval eras and up.)

I feel the role of a Vanguard as a detector would be diminished if mobile units were consistently faster than vanguard units. Tanks and the modern vanguard both increased +1 since v7.5 (my usual baseline for recent weeks). I do agree 4 to 5 is less of a change (25%) than 3 to 4 (20%), but I feel the 5% difference isn't a terribly big nerf for tanks. Overall they're better than v7.5. If we compare a 3-promotion vanguard unit and tank:

 

[Txurce]

In each era the vanguard class has the same speed as that era's mounted unit, at rank 2 promotions apiece.

I do agree 4 to 5 is less of a change (25%) than 3 to 4 (20%), but I feel the 5% difference isn't a terribly big nerf for tanks. Overall they're better than v7.5.

I have played 3-4 games with Vanguard units, and do not choose the Recon promotion with my first three promotions, except for the very occasional true "scout." Why not compare units straight out of the box?

Regardless of how you compare them, why are you giving MI an extra move out of the box?

Tanks aren't a 4 - they're a 5, because they were universally viewed as worthless at 4, and the devs deservedly buffed them. You've now basically taken away that buff. Again, I don't see why.

 

[Thalassicus]

The mainline vanguard promotions (Trenches and Guerrilla) both increase movement at rank 2. It's not necessary to get recon for this bonus. Comparing them straight out of the box does not realistically portray average combat situations, where there's typically ~50% of combat bonuses.

Is your concern specifically about tanks vs vanguard, or tank usefulness in general? The easiest way to improve tanks in general is buffing tanks themselves. If we compare these two options:

• Buffing tanks
• Nerfing modern vanguard

These are inverses, but not contrapositives. In other words... nerfing the vanguard is not the opposite of buffing the tank. Nerfing all other units and cities is the opposite of buffing the tank. If the vanguard and tank units were both weak, the best solution is to buff them both.

 

[Txurce]

The mainline vanguard promotions (Trenches and Guerrilla) both increase movement at rank 2. It's not necessary to get recon for this bonus. Comparing them straight out of the box does not realistically portray average combat situations, where there's typically ~50% of combat bonuses.

Is your concern specifically about tanks vs vanguard, or tank usefulness in general? The easiest way to improve tanks in general is buffing tanks themselves. If we compare these two options:

• Buffing tanks
• Nerfing modern vanguard

These are inverses, but not contrapositives. In other words... nerfing the vanguard is not the opposite of buffing the tank. Nerfing all other units and cities is the opposite of buffing the tank. If the vanguard and tank units were both weak, the best solution is to buff them both.

Like my good friend Ahriman, I have always disagreed with comparisons that involve unpredictable promotions (as they are in this case... I don't play the way you do). But never mind that. MI can still be promoted +1 at rank 2 - so why buff them to a starting 4? The need to buff tanks and artillery to any degree would be moot if you left them starting at 3.

 

[Thalassicus]

I don't believe there's a need to buff tanks. As shown in the "Promotion Ranks" table above, the speed comparison of mobile to vanguard units is consistent in every era.

 

[Txurce]

I don't believe there's a need to buff tanks. As shown in the "Promotion Ranks" table above, the speed comparison of mobile to vanguard units is consistent in every era.

As far as I know, there are no mobile units in the modern era. But more to the point, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you buffed MI to 4 moves.

 

[Thalassicus]

<Row>
    <UnitType>UNIT_CAVALRY</UnitType>
    <FlavorType>FLAVOR_MOBILE</FlavorType>
    <Flavor>7</Flavor>
</Row>
<Row>
    <UnitType>UNIT_TANK</UnitType>
    <FlavorType>FLAVOR_MOBILE</FlavorType>
    <Flavor>10</Flavor>
</Row>

Mounted and armored units are mobile units. I designed a consistent speed comparison between mobile and vanguard units for each era (post #107). GoodRevrnd realized I made a mistake in the modern era in post #67.

 

[Txurce]

<Row>
    <UnitType>UNIT_CAVALRY</UnitType>
    <FlavorType>FLAVOR_MOBILE</FlavorType>
    <Flavor>7</Flavor>
</Row>
<Row>
    <UnitType>UNIT_TANK</UnitType>
    <FlavorType>FLAVOR_MOBILE</FlavorType>
    <Flavor>10</Flavor>
</Row>

Mounted and armored units are mobile units. I designed a consistent speed comparison between mobile and vanguard units for each era (posts #107 and #111).

Now I follow that you are comparing MI to tanks.

The reality is that there is no need for a Vanguard-type detector in the modern era (game or RL), except perhaps for what we originally called a Ranger unit (the paratrooper). Tanks are faster than MI in RL. That in addition they are a perennially underused unit, and that making MI start at 4 also nerfs artillery, indicates to me that basing movement on Unit Class consistency isn't the best idea in this case.

For what it's worth, this is based on playing with both units. Tanks become not worth building, except promoting cavalry. I much preferred VEM when tanks felt like an elite unit.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

<Row>
    <UnitType>UNIT_CAVALRY</UnitType>
    <FlavorType>FLAVOR_MOBILE</FlavorType>
    <Flavor>7</Flavor>
</Row>
<Row>
    <UnitType>UNIT_TANK</UnitType>
    <FlavorType>FLAVOR_MOBILE</FlavorType>
    <Flavor>10</Flavor>
</Row>

Mounted and armored units are mobile units. I designed a consistent speed comparison between mobile and vanguard units for each era (post #107). GoodRevrnd realized I made a mistake in the modern era in post #67.

To be fair, that was a different discussion at the time. I was particularly focused on move speed 2 paradroppers as vanguards. Now we're talking about MS4 with a +1 promotion 95% of the time = MS5 which completely changes the dynamic. I really think the (current) MI need to be dropped back down to a MS3 base. But I also think Rangers / MI completely muddle roles too much. I haven't posted much lately since I've been playing less the last week or two but mostly I really have yet to form a solid opinion on what should be done.

I think Txurce has sort of the wrong idea w/ modern Vanguard being a detector--I think as MI they serve a role of support and damage soak (medic and cover!) at questionable usefulness for conquerors, and cheap defense for everyone else--but he's right that a detector class is pretty useless at this point. I think if we want to balance the current implementation I'd go with 3MS MI and possibly buff tanks effectiveness versus them, which I realize you've said before you don't like specific bonuses versus certain units/types.

I still vote for my Vanguard -> Special Forces omni promotion line idea, though (even if nobody else liked it ).

 

[Txurce]

1. I really think the (current) MI need to be dropped back down to a MS3 base. But I also think Rangers / MI completely muddle roles too much.

2. I think Txurce has sort of the wrong idea w/ modern Vanguard being a detector--I think as MI they serve a role of support and damage soak (medic and cover!) at questionable usefulness for conquerors, and cheap defense for everyone else--but he's right that a detector class is pretty useless at this point.

3. I still vote for my Vanguard -> Special Forces omni promotion line idea, though (even if nobody else liked it ).

1. I agree on both points.

2. I was quoting Thal in calling the modern Vanguard a detector. Again, I think the only possible role for a Vanguard unit in the modern era is what you called "Special Forces."

3. I was in favor of this at the time, but preferred calling the units "Rangers."

 

[Thalassicus]

I do think tanks are worth building. They have double the attack strength of infantry or mechanized infantry, and likewise when comparing modern armor to rangers. That's a tremendous combat advantage! Tanks and modern armor also move 70-100% faster than rangers, depending on promotions.

The "Siege" and "Ranged" roles in the modern era merge bombers and mobile artillery. Do you feel these roles are underrepresented in modern warfare?

 

[Txurce]

I do think tanks are worth building. They have double the attack strength of infantry or mechanized infantry, and likewise when comparing modern armor to rangers. That's a tremendous combat advantage! Tanks and modern armor also move 70-100% faster than rangers, depending on promotions.

The "Siege" and "Ranged" roles in the modern era merge bombers and mobile artillery. Do you feel these roles are underrepresented in modern warfare?

No, I think a combination of artillery and bombers is deadly, especially since the AI doesn't defend against bombers most of the time.

In fact, I think they dominate modern warfare, so that MI - be it the old Melee version or the new Vanguard - mostly serve as cover, and pretty good at picking off stray units. I like having tanks to hit far-off targets. if they're that much stronger than MI... and also have move after attack... then there probably is enough of a difference.

 

[Dunkah]

I would like to see a customizable tank unit in the game. (Perhaps the ability to pick 2 promotions right off the bat).

In real life Tanks take on many roles from Infantry Support, Anti-Tank to Recce, or Anti Air. Some light tanks like the Stuart were under armored, under gunned but Very fast and great verses Infantry lacking Anti Tank or Armor capabilities. A unit like the M-10 was under armored but upgunned. Used in an anti tank role, hit and run. Tigers and Stalins on the other hand were upgunned and uparmored at the cost of speed and mobility.

A range of Promotions would allow you to build either Offensive, Defensive, anti tank or speedy recce, anti infantry version of your tanks. Base speed and strength would be that of an infantry unit, then add on the promotions and you end up with a tank that only moves as fast as an infantry unit but is very strong or a fast unit that is just slightly more powerful than infantry.

The first two promos are free... giving your tank it's basic abilities, then add in the armory and citi promos, then combat after that...

Now that would be awesome! And fun!

Tiger/ Stalin/ Pershing/ Panther
Lg Bonus to Defense, Attack
No Speed bonus
Sm Anti Tank Bonus

Stuart/ T-60/ Mk III
Lg Bonus to Speed
No bonus to Defense or Attack
Bonus vs infantry or weak vs armor

Sherman/ Mk IV/ T-38
Sm Bonus to Speed
Sm Bonus to Attack, Defense
Terrain movement Bonus

M10/ Marder/ Hellcat/ ISU
Sm Bonus to Speed
Sm Bonus to Attack, Defense
Lg Anti ank Bonus

 

[Zaldron]

I do think tanks are worth building. They have double the attack strength of infantry or mechanized infantry, and likewise when comparing modern armor to rangers. That's a tremendous combat advantage! Tanks and modern armor also move 70-100% faster than rangers, depending on promotions.

The "Siege" and "Ranged" roles in the modern era merge bombers and mobile artillery. Do you feel these roles are underrepresented in modern warfare?

I've actually never built a tank. They require oil, while artillery and aircraft do a fantastic job of softening up the enemy. Mech infantry can be upgraded from my highly-promoted early-era units. MI (used to anyway) have only 10% less str than tanks, MI can use defensive bonuses to protect my artillery while tanks can't. I just never saw what gap tanks filled. Plus I always considered electronics a more desirable tech line than combustion.