Combat Roles

[Sneaks]

Tanks are always theoretically good, but I as well pretty much never build them outside of Panzers. I usually end up with a couple if I upgrade Cavalry, but as with most non-artillery, combat strength is so high in industrial+ that the moderate differences between unit types vs eachother become rather unimportant to me. Adding in aircraft that can do what tanks do, but better, and they tend to fall off the importance scale.

 

[Thalassicus]

I don't have much experience with modern-era warfare so the feedback is especially useful here! If the modern Mobile, Vanguard, and Artillery units are not useful, does everyone build just modern Melee + Air? If this is the case, I could reduce the power of the Ranger and Bomber.

 

[Zaldron]

I don't have much experience with modern-era warfare so the feedback is especially useful here! If the modern Mobile, Vanguard, and Artillery units are not useful, does everyone build just modern Melee + Air? If this is the case, I could reduce the power of the Ranger and Bomber.

This is exactly what I do (melee+air), but I *will* throw in a couple artillery for when a target may be just a bit too far for my planes.

 

[Txurce]

I don't have much experience with modern-era warfare so the feedback is especially useful here! If the modern Mobile, Vanguard, and Artillery units are not useful, does everyone build just modern Melee + Air? If this is the case, I could reduce the power of the Ranger and Bomber.

Reducing the Ranger's power would change little - I recently played two games testing this very point by only using Vanguard units. If Bombers have a qualitative edge, it's in that the AI doesn't defend against them as well as it would against artillery.

The problem that overshadows all others here is that Bombers can be built in excessive numbers, and then mustered at a single point. There's nothing we can do about the latter, but there's no reason why the strategics creep couldn't be reversed by having a lot less aluminum available. How much less? The logical answer is basically the same ratio applied to horse and iron units.

Tanks have a definite window where they could dominate the battlefield before air power takes over. More of a difference between them and MI would help.

 

[Thalassicus]

Remember if you got the rough-terrain Guerrilla promotions in your vanguard-only games, it included the healing and +75% defense bonus bugs (the Guerrilla promotions accidentally had the old Survivalism bonuses on top of the new bonuses). This made such units nearly invulnerable.

I discussed the merits of aircraft to solve the Late-game AI unit clogging problem in January, which led to the decision to increase the importance of air power for AIs. Before that time the AIs did not build aircraft. If you feel the recent -20% reduction in bomber strength is not enough and the map clogging concern was overrated, I can shift things back further in favor of land units. Overall though... I like the inflationary approach to aircraft, where 2 air units are approximately equal in value to 1 land unit. I don't want to change that aspect of air power.

 

[Txurce]

Remember if you got the rough-terrain Guerrilla promotions in your vanguard-only games, it included the healing and +75% defense bonus bugs (the Guerrilla promotions accidentally had the old Survivalism bonuses on top of the new bonuses). This made such units nearly invulnerable.

I discussed the merits of aircraft to solve the Late-game AI unit clogging problem in January, which led to the decision to increase the importance of air power for AIs. Before that time the AIs did not build aircraft. If you feel the recent -20% reduction in bomber strength is not enough and the map clogging concern was overrated, I can shift things back further in favor of land units. Overall though... I like the inflationary approach to aircraft, where 2 air units are approximately equal in value to 1 land unit. I don't want to change that aspect of air power.

I don't recall exactly what bonuses I used for vanguard units, except that I went for double cover (given their role as siege shields). Once I get past my planned K/B/O testing, I'll check again with regard to the revised Vanguard promotions.

I'm with you regarding your view of air power. I was just saying why I think air power dominates at the end: we can send too many to hit one spot. And the simple fix to that is a lot less aluminum.

 

[Thalassicus]

What about limiting the number of air units to say... 5 per tile? Civ 4 did this.

 

[Txurce]

What about limiting the number of air units to say... 5 per tile? Civ 4 did this.

That would be a major improvement. You just saw my air power in that save I sent you - I think I had over 20 planes in one city. Don't you think that means there's a little too much aluminum in the game? Having raised that point, you may well be able to fix it by limiting the air unit capacity of each city. I didn't know you could do that.

 

[Thalassicus]

My goals are:

• Air power equally important to ground power.
• 2 air units are equally important as 1 ground unit.

The three things we can adjust are:

1. Abundance of oil.
2. Abundance of aluminum.
3. Proportional value between one bomber, tank, and ship.

20 planes is #2, but not enough information alone. We need all 3 points draw conclusions. Resource abundance is easiest to identify and control... the second goal leads to more aluminum on the map. It also makes sense realistically (aluminum is much more plentiful than oil).

The value of units is what I want to alter. You'll remember how I've discussed elsewhere how I like armies comprised of a few elite, powerful units and a swarm of less powerful units. In the modern era aircraft become the swarm, and ground units the elites. This is why I want to reduce aircraft power instead of reducing abundance. In addition to the recent -20% bomber strength nerfs, another way to do this might be buffing anti-air units.

This discussion is really helping me figure out exactly what my goals are with modern warfare... I haven't really given it much focus until now, since it comes later in the game.

 

[Malachi256]

After watching some of "WWII in HD" (a documentary), it reminded me just how important air power is in modern warfare, and it made me wish things were different in Civ 5. I realize a lot of this is outside the scope of this mod, but here goes anyway:

1. Operational range of air units should be substantially reduced, especially on the first generation air units. Not sure exactly what it is right now, but it's too much.

2a. Number of planes you can put in a city should be significantly reduced - default city should be able to have 3 or 4.

2b. I would add an "airport" building that doubles that capacity, and increases airplane production in the city by X%. Possibly give "military base" an additional 2 plane capacity or something as well.

3. Forts would act as airstrips. They could support 3-5 planes or so. The war in the Pacific in WWII was largely about airstrips. A modern offensive would rely heavily on building forward fort positions to allow for extension of air power.

4. I would buff the power of all air units in the game. I also wouldn't mind giving them two different kinds of attacks - an aggressive attack (Where normal, non-anti-aircraft units can hurt them) and a cautious attack (heavily penalized damage, but the unit can't be hurt as long as there are not anti-air threats).

5. Finally, all ground units in forest and jungle would have a substantial defensive boost from air attacks. You could probably argue that the boost should be 'good' for forest, and 'great' for jungle.


I'm not saying any of this should be added, but it was just something that went through my mind when I was watching the WWII film =)

 

[Thalassicus]

The sad thing is #s 1-3 were all in Civ 4... not sure why things like airstrips and airports were left out. Just ran out of development time I guess?

 

[Txurce]

My goals are:

• Air power equally important to ground power.
• 2 air units are equally important as 1 ground unit.

For the sake of broadening the discussion, consider dropping number #2 in particular, given the increasing dominance of air power from WW2 on. Of course an adjustment would have to be made elsewhere so ground units would still have a meaningful role.

The three things we can adjust are:

1. Abundance of oil.
2. Abundance of aluminum.
3. Proportional value between one bomber, tank, and ship.

20 planes is #2, but not enough information alone. We need all 3 points draw conclusions. Resource abundance is easiest to identify and control... the second goal leads to more aluminum on the map. It also makes sense realistically (aluminum is much more plentiful than oil).

The proportional availability of aluminum vs oil is realistically correct... but we do tinker with iron and horses for better gameplay.

Ships don't have proportional value in the late game, and shouldn't given the AI's inability to use them. Bombers are (and should be) much more effective than tanks vs cities.

The value of units is what I want to alter. You'll remember how I've discussed elsewhere how I like armies comprised of a few elite, powerful units and a swarm of less powerful units. In the modern era aircraft become the swarm, and ground units the elites. This is why I want to reduce aircraft power instead of reducing abundance. In addition to the recent -20% bomber strength nerfs, another way to do this might be buffing anti-air units.

I agree with your logic, but could argue that the bombers are the (results-based) elite unit, and the ground troops the swarm. It also runs smack into the realism issue of bombers being more powerful than they would be if you nerf them further. And I think it would require more nerfing than 9.5 reduces: you lowered them 20% or so, but to me that means I would have had 16 planes instead of 20 - still more than enough to roll right through the AI.

That's why I prefer to look for alternatives. The simple one is to reduce aluminum, but there are definitely others. The AI does build AA, so buffing them is an excellent idea. (I'd build them myself if this were the case.) For more alternatives:

Operational range of air units should be substantially reduced.

Number of planes you can put in a city should be significantly reduced - default city should be able to have 3 or 4.

My guess is that all three of these proposals, or even 2, would make a huge difference.

It may even allow another of Malachi's suggestions: to buff the power of all air units in the game, for the sake of realism. I'm not pushing this hard, but there is something to be said for accepting the reality of an era. We haven't brought up what follows air power, for example: nukes. They change things all over again, and also need a counter for the sake of game play.

Once we get past air power, though, and situations as unbalanced as the one I emailed you, we can more clearly focus on the ground units mix.

 

[Tomice]

I think reducing the range of air units also reduces fun and flexibility. This is IMO the last resort.

Limiting planes per city would probably be best as first step.

I do admit I missed the discussion around late-game land unit clogging. What was the reason for the 2:1 ratio between air and ground? Do you feel the AI needs something it can build with its surplus hammers without overfilling the map?

 

[Thalassicus]

I agree with your logic, but could argue that the bombers are the (results-based) elite unit, and the ground troops the swarm.

This might be the case at the present time but it is not the goal. The number of land units is limited by 1upt, while air units are stackable, so it's important for ground units to be limited in quantity.

I do admit I missed the discussion around late-game land unit clogging. What was the reason for the 2:1 ratio between air and ground? Do you feel the AI needs something it can build with its surplus hammers without overfilling the map?

Yes, this is one of the reasons air units are good for AIs. There's also three more:

• No stacking restriction.
• No pathfinding or battle line issues.
• Less worry about promotions.

These are all areas where humans outperform the AI. This is highlighted best with cruise missiles... no worry about healing, pathing, stacking, experience or so on. Instead of adding an early V2 missile, I made aircraft weaker and more abundant, similar to missiles. The reason I chose this alternative is I like working within the existing structure of the game wherever possible, and try to avoid adding new units/buildings to solve problems unless absolutely necessary. In this case there was a similar unit available, so I don't feel it's necessary.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I don't like reducing operational range. I think reducing the number of planes stacking per city is a good idea though, with options to increase through certain buildings (like military base). It seems like limited city air units had to be intended in some way otherwise why have carriers with a low cap of 3 and unlimited in cities? Doesn't make a lot of sense. One thing you could do to slow down the steamroll is not to allow basing air units in cities under resistance.

 

[Txurce]

One thing you could do to slow down the steamroll is not to allow basing air units in cities under resistance.

This doesn't make sense from a realism perspective - they're occupied - and it would stop an air-based offensive dead in its tracks, given how long resistance lasts in VEM.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Well, that's sort of true. It crossed my mind and is probably something that should be skipped over until we can change resistance timers.

 

[Txurce]

Well, that's sort of true. It crossed my mind and is probably something that should be skipped over until we can change resistance timers.

The good news is that there are enough ways to nerf air power on which we all agree.

 

[Dunkah]

It was proven in WWII that bombers were not enough to kill cities. Bombers have the ability to turn the buildings themselves into ruins but as was proven in Stalingrad and Berlin among other places, if you have a determined enemy that wants to hold the city it doesn't matter how much you drop bombs on the city.

During operation Cobra, (Normandy break out), Bombers absolutely destroyed the German lines, as well as parts of the US lines. So they were very effective against individual units dug in. When they were accurate enough to get to them.

It was debated all through history if carpet and or fire bombing was simply a terrorist startegy to kill civilians and destroy production. (Production was simply moved to other hidden locations so it didn't really hurt that all that much either).

Aircraft should either kill tanks fairly easily or do nothing. 50/50 chance, (they were either on target or off). Perhaps make them invisible in trees and vulenearable in the open.

Tanks on the other hand were unstoppable unless you had some kind of anti tank capabilities. That is how they should play out in Civ. Infantry and Mech infantry should have to swarm tanks to kill them and should die in droves trying to stop them. Tanks should be very powerful!

IMHO Simply making tanks, (and the anti tank ability) much more powerfull should make them more viable to players.

If you ever saw the film Saving Private Ryan, the scene when the tanks are approaching and the ground is shaking and everyone is looking at one another wide eyed. Tanks are scary things. In Civ no one bothers to even build them. They need to be much more powerful, and an emphasis on Anti Tank boosted. Appropriately enough the tank is finally killed by a fighter as it tries to cross the bridge.

1. Bombers should kill population and buildings if used against cities, not effect the defendability of it.
2. Tanks should be all powerful, but vulnerable to anti tank ability.
3. Anti Tank should be a promotion choice all units of the era can take.
4. Fighters/Bombers should have anti tank abilities but somehow be inaccurate.
5. Modern Aircraft should be much more accurate.
6. Dedicated Anti Tank guns should be powerful vs. Tanks but useless against other types of units.
7. Anti Air Guns should be powerful against planes and bombers but useless against other types of units.

Again you could use promotions to make Anti Air good againsts tanks, (German 88). You could also make promotions to make Them good against infantry, (quad 50's).

 

[Tomice]

I suggested long ago that modern units have just the same rock-paper-scissor relationship as ancient units. Thal reduced hard-counters due to AI limitations, however, and I understand it. It seems to be way easier for the human player to use hard-counters well, while the AI profits if every unit is somewhat useful against any foe.

If this helps as additional argument, Blizzard avoids hardcounters (rock-paper-scissor) in Starcraft, while low-budget strategy titles usually have them.