Discussion on Late Game Military Units

[Stalker0]

There was a recent discussion about late game military units and their resource chains, so I thought it was a worthy place to look at it here.

As you progress from the modern era through information, the military chains tend to shake up a bit as far as resources go:

Rocket Artillery (Iron) EDIT: Originally had Alum as a mistake
Fighter/Bomber (Oil) -> Jet Fighter/Stealth Bomber (Alum)
Helicopter Gunship (Alum)
Nuclear Sub (Alum)
Tanks (Oil) -> Modern Armor (Oil)
Carrier (Oil)
Cruise Missile (Oil)
Xcom (none)
Missile Cruiser (none)
Mobile Sam (none)
Mech Inf (none)
Bazooka (none)
Giant Death Robot (uranium)
Nuclear Bomb/Nuclear Missile (uranium)

Here are some of the things I've noted in my late game warring:

1) Rocket Artillery and Bazooka's tend to fill a similar niche at this point (both ranged units that have a bonus vs tanks), even overlapping with the helicopter some as well. I wonder if the two should become a merged line at this point....and remove the resource requirement. In a world of cruise missiles, speed 5 tanks, air bombings, and units that can paradrop...range 3 just isn't that impressive anymore.

2) Nuclear Missiles are expensive at 2 uranium, and don't do significantly more than the bomb. I could see cause to lower them to 1 uranium.

3) The Air Transition from Oil to Alum is an odd one, as both resources are still active in the late game and its one of those real world oddities as well. Does it make sense for planes to stay on oil?

4) I personally have found tanks and modern armor fairly weak overall, one because there are so many units that counter them (rocket artill, bazooka, helicopter all get bonuses against them....heck almost everything seems to at this point in the game), and two compared to bombers they don't seem that strong. Mech Infantry and Xcoms I think outwit Modern Armor.

5) Xcoms are surprising good units. With survivalist 3 (which you are almost certainly going to have by default on units this late in the game) they are extraordinarily durable, have a better march than march (and can get medic!), and are extremely flexible.

They can't offensively go toe to toe with equivalent units, but they often don't have to. They can surround and isolate weaker cities, or just neutralize key strategic resources.

Some have argued for a strategic resource for them. I can see the argument considering their power, though on the other hand, they are one of the few units that can project power quickly in the very late game....when you are often trying to stave off a VC. There is something to be said for leaving them as is.

6)I think Cruise Missiles are too expensive for what they are. Their power is very strong...but a one shot unit doesn't hold up. Good units in smart hands will last many turns. If they are going to keep the strategic cost, I think they should be much cheaper to build. You are effectively trading strategic resources for an initial rush of power with a low hammer cost, which I think is a fair trade.

7) Some have argued for a reduction in the Stealth Bomber's evasion, and I would agree. What is the point of late game interception with these guys around?

8) GDR, just fine as heck! I think the uranium requirement is fine on the "ultimate unit".

 

[Funak]

Rocket Artillery costs Iron, not Aluminium.


I think of Stealth-bombers are supposed to replace the normal heavy bombers they should probably share the same resource, and they should probably be able to be stationed on Aircraft carriers.

 

[BliTTzZ]

Rocket Artillery (Alum)

It requires Iron.

1) Rocket Artillery and Bazooka's tend to fill a similar niche at this point (both ranged units that have a bonus vs tanks), even overlapping with the helicopter some as well. I wonder if the two should become a merged line at this point....and remove the resource requirement. In a world of cruise missiles, speed 5 tanks, air bombings, and units that can paradrop...range 3 just isn't that impressive anymore.

- I think Rocket Artillery fine as it is. May be it needs to be more specialized, compared to Bazooka and Helicopter. May be change the (100) bonus vs tanks to additional range. So this way it will become more potent at sieging cities.

- Helis resource requirement could swap back to oil. I'm also curious why they lost their ability to move after attack, like other mounted-archery units in the chain.

2) Nuclear Missiles are expensive at 2 uranium, and don't do significantly more than the bomb. I could see cause to lower them to 1 uranium.

The main difference is ICBMs can wipe cities out of the map completely. But imho, it's not worth 2 uranium. It's better to just drop one Atomic Bomb on the city and then finish with Nuclear Missile.

3) The Air Transition from Oil to Alum is an odd one, as both resources are still active in the late game and its one of those real world oddities as well. Does it make sense for planes to stay on oil?

Yeah, it does. Especially when X-COMs need aluminum requirement, imho.

4) I personally have found tanks and modern armor fairly weak overall, one because there are so many units that counter them (rocket artill, bazooka, helicopter all get bonuses against them....heck almost everything seems to at this point in the game), and two compared to bombers they don't seem that strong. Mech Infantry and Xcoms I think outwit Modern Armor.

- +1 for Mechanized Infantry and +1 or even +2 for Modern Armor. So better manouverability for infatry units on the front lines and tanks could perform raids on the enemy territory to pillage strategic resources, roads or fortresses more effectively.

Some have argued for a strategic resource for them. I can see the argument considering their power, though on the other hand, they are one of the few units that can project power quickly in the very late game....when you are often trying to stave off a VC. There is something to be said for leaving them as is.

I think they still require some kind of resource, be it Iron or Aluminum.
Or just nerf their Skyranger range drop plus make them a little bit more specialized towards diversions but not direct combat with Modern Armor or Mech Inf.

6)I think Cruise Missiles are too expensive for what they are. Their power is very strong...but a one shot unit doesn't hold up. Good units in smart hands will last many turns. If they are going to keep the strategic cost, I think they should be much cheaper to build. You are effectively trading strategic resources for an initial rush of power with a low hammer cost, which I think is a fair trade.

Agree with you on this point. But if their cost will drop then they should be researched with more advanced tech. I think in Radar instead of Rocketry.

7) Some have argued for a reduction in the Stealth Bomber's evasion, and I would agree. What is the point of late game interception with these guys around?

Totally agree. It's not easy to shoot down all other planes, but these guys just become invicible. The only real way to destroy them is just nuke the city they are based in. In compensation you could base it on carriers like other planes.

Also what do you think about Missile Cruisers? Don't you think they also need Iron requirements? I mean Destroyers by no means don't deserve it, but MCs have better overall capabilites plus also can carry nuclear weapons.

 

[Txurce]

2) Nuclear Missiles are expensive at 2 uranium, and don't do significantly more than the bomb. I could see cause to lower them to 1 uranium.

5) Xcoms are surprising good units. With survivalist 3 (which you are almost certainly going to have by default on units this late in the game) they are extraordinarily durable, have a better march than march (and can get medic!), and are extremely flexible...

Some have argued for a strategic resource for them...

6)I think Cruise Missiles are too expensive for what they are. Their power is very strong...but a one shot unit doesn't hold up. Good units in smart hands will last many turns. If they are going to keep the strategic cost, I think they should be much cheaper to build. You are effectively trading strategic resources for an initial rush of power with a low hammer cost, which I think is a fair trade.

Particularly agree with adjusting these..

 

[Funak]

I don't like the idea of putting a resource requirement on a meleeship like that actually, the missile cruiser is fine as it is.

X-com could definitely use an aluminum requirement, maybe a minor increase in CS to compensate for the increased cost. I'm not bothered that much by their range, they can't attack the same turn they land anyways.

Why do rocket artillery receive a bonus versus tanks anyways? They should be the long-range bonus versus cities unit, having them massacre tanks as well makes little sense.

 

[Txurce]

Why do rocket artillery receive a bonus versus tanks anyways? They should be the long-range bonus versus cities unit, having them massacre tanks as well makes little sense.

Strongly agree.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't like the idea of putting a resource requirement on a meleeship like that actually, the missile cruiser is fine as it is.

Honestly I think the MC is on the weak side right now. Its CS is very low for units of its era, the interception is pointless vs stealth bombers right now, it can carry nukes but so can subs.

If stealth bombers lose some evasion they may come back a bit, but otherwise I find them pretty lackluster.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

I would argue that we should get rid of Atomic Bombs as they come before Bomb Shelters. [Bomb Shelters reduce the dmg your Planes take].
You've been building your Cities all game only to have them Nuked. Or you can lose up to 10 Air Units to 1 ABomb.

The Evasion Promotions give X% reduction when Intercepted. So at 100, Intercepting them would do nothing. We could allow Stealth Bombers on Carriers since they only have 10 Range and not 20.

I find it strange that Rocket Artillery have a bonus vs Tanks. Better Tanks having the upper-hand against them.

I would say the same thing about Bazookas, but than you would have to give Mech Infantry some Anti-Tank Promotions.

WI we give Mech Infantry: Ignore Terrain Cost. Or make them eligible for Armor Plating Promotions.

We could make XComs weaker.

If Carriers cost a Resource, Missile Cruisers should too. They should be eligible for the Carriers' Promotions.

 

[Strigvir]

X-Com definitely is too OP, on top of being a meme unit. Even without access to normal promotions an ability to drop them at the center of enemy territory is too good. They definitely should have a strategic resource cost.
Rocket Arty has too low CS to matter in information era.
Stealth bombers should be just normal bombers with higher CS and higher range. I really don't dig them not being able to be transported and be immune against interception.
Not very related to the thread, but why Airports can airlift unit regardless of range as long as there is another Airport but even Stealth Bombers' rebase is of limited range? It doesn't contribute to anything and makes rebasing needlessly annoying.

 

[ExpiredReign]

To my way of thinking ALL the units that carry other units shouldn't have a resource requirement.

• Carrier's only role is to carry planes, all of which already req. Oil
• Nuclear sub needs Alum. but it too carries nuclear missiles which need Uran. Also the choice of Alum. for both types of sub is weird! Double the resource reqs if you want to use it as it is intended.
• Missile cruiser is good because it doesn't need any resource but it is now a melee unit which goes against it's role as a carrier of missiles, if it is close enough to engage a unit by melee, it is too close.
• Cruiser could quite easily go to Coal instead of Oil making it take the place of the vanilla Ironclad. We currently use Coal for other purposes in VP but it is pretty easy to get on all map types. Our Ironclad uses nothing.
• We should make more of a distinction between Rocket Art. & Bazookas. I agree with removing bonuses to Rocket art. on tanks, they should be more for siege, not taking out advanced units.
• Armored cars currently need Oil, which seems odd as they (on paper, as I have yet to use them in game) don't strike me as a high-end unit. Mech Inf. are basically the melee version of these ranged units. Dropping the Oil from them would make sense.

 

[BliTTzZ]

I don't like the idea of putting a resource requirement on a meleeship like that actually, the missile cruiser is fine as it is.

Honestly I think the MC is on the weak side right now. Its CS is very low for units of its era, the interception is pointless vs stealth bombers right now, it can carry nukes but so can subs.

65 is enough, imho. Nuke Sub is at 40/70, Battleship has 35/60, etc...
Right now it's like jack of all trades: submarine hunter, AA defense, cruise missile launchers platform.
I think it could've been more interesting if Destroyer had an upgrade to better version of itself. With more powerful AA and anti-sub capabilites. While Battleship's upgrade would be Missile Cruiser, with Ranged attack and better stats with also payload full of cruise missiles.

Another way to make MC more valuable is to buff cruise missile stats/decrease production cost. Also removing MC's ability to carry Nuclear Missiles and increasing it's payload from 3 to 4. So adding Iron requirement will be justified.

X-com could definitely use an aluminum requirement, maybe a minor increase in CS to compensate for the increased cost. I'm not bothered that much by their range, they can't attack the same turn they land anyways.

1 Aluminum cost and also something like 25% paradrop range nerf from 40 to 30 hexes. It's too easy to just drop X-COMs all around the map on the precious Uranium/Aluminum mines and pillage on the same turn.

Why do rocket artillery receive a bonus versus tanks anyways? They should be the long-range bonus versus cities unit, having them massacre tanks as well makes little sense.

May be removing it's bonus against tanks but adding additional range, for example?

Rocket Arty has too low CS to matter in information era.

80 is low? When everything else has 70-80 / (not including GDR). It's quite decent, to be honest.

Not very related to the thread, but why Airports can airlift unit regardless of range as long as there is another Airport but even Stealth Bombers' rebase is of limited range? It doesn't contribute to anything and makes rebasing needlessly annoying.

You're suggesting to change it's unlimited range for something like 20-40 hexes? I'm really curious if it's codable.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think that the Missile Cruiser really has a good niche right now. Honestly, by this late in the game naval units don't have a lot of use to me. Their strength doesn't compare with cities and other units at this point (65 strength vs 100 strength cities, 80-100 strength other units).

However, I think if we do adjust these two things:

1) Stealth Bombers can be on carriers
2) Stealth Bomber evasion is reduced.

Then the unit regains a niche. Carriers become viable units again late game, so their protection is once again important. So sub hunting becomes a thing again. And the Interception of the MC finds a use again.

Another, likely controversial option, would be to consolidate the carrier, destroyer, and battleship lines into the Missile "Carrier" (rename of the MC). Basically a melee unit that can carry aircraft and missiles, with some AA capabilities, but maybe a weaker bonus vs subs. Effectively naval warfare drops down to MCs and Nuclear Subs along with Cruise Missiles and Aircraft duking it out on the water, which is still a fair amount of variety considering all of the other units you still have to work with at this point.

I also wonder if Modern Armor should get blitz by default. I feel like this unit needs something. Mech Inf aren't that much weaker, Rocket Art are better vs cities, bombers better vs units, Xcoms far more mobile and significantly stronger than them on defense, Helicopters are highly mobile with a strong ranged attack....I don't think this unit brings enough. But I think a CS upgrade is the wrong way to go, it just needs more flexibility. With blitz it can attack more rapidly than any other equivalent unit, which is a strong power, and I think represents the "boots on the ground" aspect vs air bombing.

1 Aluminum cost and also something like 25% paradrop range nerf from 40 to 30 hexes. It's too easy to just drop X-COMs all around the map on the precious Uranium/Aluminum mines and pillage on the same turn.

If you give Xcom a resource it doesn't need any other changes. That is a massive change on its own, Xcoms go from very spammable unit to a key strategic resource.

Lastly, talking about late game aircraft always makes me think of this quote in Alpha Centauri (still the best quoted game of all time as far as I am concerned):


"Airpower rests at the apex of the first triad of victory, for it combines mobility, flexibility, and initiative."

--Colonel Carazon Santiago

 

[saamohod]

Why do rocket artillery receive a bonus versus tanks anyways? They should be the long-range bonus versus cities unit, having them massacre tanks as well makes little sense.

This.
As far as my military knowledge lets me judge, rocket artillery has no designated anti-armour role. What was the reason of giving it bonus vs tanks is beyond me.

 

[Greggy08]

I don't think that the Missile Cruiser really has a good niche right now. Honestly, by this late in the game naval units don't have a lot of use to me. Their strength doesn't compare with cities and other units at this point (65 strength vs 100 strength cities, 80-100 strength other units).

However, I think if we do adjust these two things:

1) Stealth Bombers can be on carriers
2) Stealth Bomber evasion is reduced.



I also wonder if Modern Armor should get blitz by default. I feel like this unit needs something. Mech Inf aren't that much weaker, Rocket Art are better vs cities, bombers better vs units, Xcoms far more mobile and significantly stronger than them on defense, Helicopters are highly mobile with a strong ranged attack....I don't think this unit brings enough. But I think a CS upgrade is the wrong way to go, it just needs more flexibility. With blitz it can attack more rapidly than any other equivalent unit, which is a strong power, and I think represents the "boots on the ground" aspect vs air bombing.



If you give Xcom a resource it doesn't need any other changes. That is a massive change on its own, Xcoms go from very spammable unit to a key strategic resource.

Like all of these suggestions, most of all the modern armor one. Blitz would be a really good promotion to make them good at defeating siege and ranged enemies.

Stealth bombs NEEDS to drop the anti-interception promotion and to be carried on ships.

If you give XCOMs a resource, they're fine as they are.

I think also that rocket artillery should drop the bonus vs tanks, and gain more CS vs cities or maybe vs ships, or just +1 range.

Finally I think that MCs should be ranged, as they carry missiles and you don't want to engage combat and risk to lose them.

 

[merill]

Finally I think that MCs should be ranged, as they carry missiles and you don't want to engage combat and risk to lose them.

I didn't see why, they don't have big guns. Use their missiles if you want to attack.
Maybe it's a guided missile problem? not enough punch?

 

[Txurce]

I don't think that the Missile Cruiser really has a good niche right now. Honestly, by this late in the game naval units don't have a lot of use to me. Their strength doesn't compare with cities and other units at this point (65 strength vs 100 strength cities, 80-100 strength other units).

However, I think if we do adjust these two things:

1) Stealth Bombers can be on carriers
2) Stealth Bomber evasion is reduced.

Then the unit regains a niche. Carriers become viable units again late game, so their protection is once again important. So sub hunting becomes a thing again. And the Interception of the MC finds a use again.

Another, likely controversial option, would be to consolidate the carrier, destroyer, and battleship lines into the Missile "Carrier" (rename of the MC). Basically a melee unit that can carry aircraft and missiles, with some AA capabilities, but maybe a weaker bonus vs subs. Effectively naval warfare drops down to MCs and Nuclear Subs along with Cruise Missiles and Aircraft duking it out on the water, which is still a fair amount of variety considering all of the other units you still have to work with at this point.

I also wonder if Modern Armor should get blitz by default. I feel like this unit needs something. Mech Inf aren't that much weaker, Rocket Art are better vs cities, bombers better vs units, Xcoms far more mobile and significantly stronger than them on defense, Helicopters are highly mobile with a strong ranged attack....I don't think this unit brings enough. But I think a CS upgrade is the wrong way to go, it just needs more flexibility. With blitz it can attack more rapidly than any other equivalent unit, which is a strong power, and I think represents the "boots on the ground" aspect vs air bombing.

If you give Xcom a resource it doesn't need any other changes. That is a massive change on its own, Xcoms go from very spammable unit to a key strategic resource.

Commenting on what I ahven't already:

Your solution for MCs works, but it's kinda roundabout, and has the negative that, afaik, Stealth bombers can't use ACs in real life.

Blitz for MA is a simple fix, and feels right.

I mention "feel" because it occurred to me that most, if not all, post WW2 units have never been used in conventional warfare. What's MA's role today? No one can say, for sure. Given the dampening effect of nuclear weapons, most of these units are in the same fantasy level as xcom units. Thinning them out is one way to go, except this is a game, and a lot of people will want to keep the shiniest of their toys. So maybe we shouldn't worry at all about whether Stealth bombers can take off from carriers, etc, and instead balance the post WW2 military universe as if it were a (speculative) game of its own.

 

[Stalker0]

So maybe we shouldn't worry at all about whether Stealth bombers can take off from carriers

I think this is one where gameplay should trump realism. Since stealth bombers are on the same field with XCOM space marines and Giant Death Robots, I think we can be a little loose to allow stealth bombers to work from carriers. And hey, I'm sure navy's are working on versions that can!

 

[merill]

I think this is one where gameplay should trump realism. Since stealth bombers are on the same field with XCOM space marines and Giant Death Robots, I think we can be a little loose to allow stealth bombers to work from carriers. And hey, I'm sure navy's are working on versions that can!

Of course!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_Carrier-Launched_Airborne_Surveillance_and_Strike

 

[Txurce]

I think this is one where gameplay should trump realism. Since stealth bombers are on the same field with XCOM space marines and Giant Death Robots, I think we can be a little loose to allow stealth bombers to work from carriers. And hey, I'm sure navy's are working on versions that can!

Yep -- that's what my last paragraph was all about.