Do you think current unit upgrade paths are fine?

[Art Morte]

Light cavalry is really bad, imo.
Ranged is good up until cannons, the gap and range reduction between them and machine guns is lame.

Some of the naval stuff is kinda bad, but that plays a minor role anyway.

 

[unpossible251]

The OP argued against "cluttering" the game with too many incremental upgrades, like in civ5 with musket>rifle>greatwar>infantry. I take his / her point, but disagree - particularly about the light cav, scout, and bombard lines.

Light cav are particularly problematic because there's only a limited window during Classical when they can do anything - as soon as pikemen come online, they're pretty much useless. Then you get to military science, and get another tiny window before AT (which the AI spams) take them off again.

I'd suggest following history, and add a new late medieval / early renaissance tech called "kingpinning" which is, to give a very brief overview, a selective stock breeding technique first developed by Bedouins, and later concurrently developed by English, Spanish, Arab and Mongol farmers. Kingpinning developed horses and ponies (and sheep, cattle & goats too - hello, pastures!) in line with traits the breeders wanted - leading to thoroughbreads, draft horses, arabs, andalusians, steepe ponies, and others. These breeds may have been faster, or stronger, or smarter, needed less feed, or better adapted to the climate - whatever the case, it all happened about 1000 AD in our world, and really should be brought in as a new "raider" unit between horsemen and cavalry.

the scout class also needs a stepping stone, which should clearly be the "explorer" unit that would come online with caravels (oh and by the way, caravels and scouts should be the only ocean capable units until square rigging opens up the sea for all). Catapaults also get very brittle by late medieval, and really need a trebuchet upgrade just so Knights can't get the one hit kill of your cherished level 3 city killer.

These major ones aside, though, I quite like lots and lots of cheaper, incremental upgrades.

 

[kaspergm]

the scout class also needs a stepping stone, which should clearly be the "explorer" unit that would come online with caravels (oh and by the way, caravels and scouts should be the only ocean capable units until square rigging opens up the sea for all). Catapaults also get very brittle by late medieval, and really need a trebuchet upgrade just so Knights can't get the one hit kill of your cherished level 3 city killer.

These major ones aside, though, I quite like lots and lots of cheaper, incremental upgrades.

Get the MOAR units mod (and the core only addon, if you want), if you don't already have it. It adds pretty much exactly the units you mention here.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

But that's not what they're doing. They creating a new unit which comes after the pikeman and will exist at the same time as the musketman. That's the problem.

-Wasn't aware that it was for certain an Addition rather than a Replacement. To be honest, I've only slightly followed all the R & F discussions and speculations because I play on a Mac and so probably won't see a Playable Version of R & F until sometime around Mayday - we still don't even have the 'Fall Patch' yet!

As for the rest of your post, I entirely agree, but having that many different units doesn't fit into the theme of Civ6, which is to have units be valid for 2 eras. Personally, I like that structure because it creates natural cycles in which your army is strong and weak depending on its composition. And it gives units enough time to be useful before they obsolete. If you don't like that design direction, you should check out MOAR Units.

The reason that Civ VI goes for 2 - Era units is that the Game System was never tested for play-balance. Consequently, the ability to Build units/buildings, etc is 'way behind the ability to Research units, buildings, etc. In my personal experience (only 400 hours and counting...) I'm generally building units a full Era behind what I'm researching, and have finished the entire Tech and Civics Trees before the 350th turn, if the game lasts even that long. The fundamental Imbalance of the game systems is not corrected by limiting the Unit Build/Upgrade choices, it just adds to the frustration with the entire system.

But that's just my opinion - plenty of people seem to like the game as it stands, but I've removed the entire game from my computer three times in frustration and so far have only finished one game - and dropped most before the 100th turn because I was bored or mildly nauseated by the way the game played.

It could have been so much better...

 

[dagriggstar]

Does anyone actually like the idea of separate siege and ranged classes ? Especially once you hit Renaissance I just kind of feel like you would be equally likely to want to use artillery against enemy units as enemy fortifications.

 

[mitsho]

I like the simplicity. Just saying...

Although I would switch* the galley and the quadrireme's place. The ranged naval unit should come before the melee one as the first ship needs to be able to interact with land, i.e. bombard slingers and assist the land units in taking out a barb camp, take a goody hut while exploring and so on... (*I don't care about the name or what makes historical sense, just make it work whether by switching the eras, names or abilities).

 

[Aurelesk]

The path is OKish. In fact, we have enough units (just miss one light cavalry maybe), but they're not that well distributed across the eras. Some units needs to appear sooner and sometimes later to fill the gaps.
So, we have :

• Base game: Melee (Warrior) (→ Scout and Slinger), 0 GPT
• Ancient: Heavy cavalry (Heavy Chariot) & Anti-cavalry (Spearman) (→ Archer), 1 GPT
• Classical: Light cavalry (Horseman) & Melee (Swordsman) (→ Catapult), 2 GPT
• Medieval: Heavy cavalry (Knight) & Anti-cavalry (Pikeman) (→ Scout2:Explorer & Crossbowman), 3 GPT
• Renaissance: Light cavalry (Cavalry) & Melee (Musketman) (→ Bombard), 4 GPT
• Industrial: Heavy cavalry (Tank) & Anti-cavalry (AT Crew) (→ Ranger & Field Cannon), 5 GPT
• Modern: Light cavalry (Helicopter) & Melee (Infantry) (→ Artillery), 6 GPT
• Atomic: Heavy cavalry (Modern Armor) & Anti-cavalry (Modern AT) (→ Scout4aratroopers & Machine Gun), 7 GPT
• Information: Light cavalry (UAV) & Melee (Mechanized Infantry) (→ Rocket Artillery), 8 GPT
• Maybe give bonus Combat Strength to Modern Armor and Modern AT when reaching Future Techs the first time to be as good as UAV / Mechanized Infantry.

Yeah, it's just a wheel : Melee > Heavy cavalry > Anti-cavalry > Light cavalry > Melee

Gameplay wise, it's more balanced I suppose, but don't make any sense history wise: Tank started to be a thing in the early 1900s, not at the industrial era!

I am not saying that it's the best way to balance the game, nor that the game will be more balanced. That's not even a suggestion, just a fantasy. Just to show how the units can be a little better distributed across the eras (without adding the Pike and Shot!). No idea if this is better or worst than the actual distribution.

I must admit that I do almost all my conquest during the first 3 era with Archer-rush and Knight-rush, that's it. I just know that Horseman have a short window and I don't use Catapult.

 

[masda_gib]

I agree with suggestions here to
a) make light cav a scout upgrade line (here upgrade line, not promotion line)
b) make all siege units (catapults) support units that give some city attack capabilities. That would end this stupid competition with ranged units

EDIT: and c) maybe change the distinction Melee/Anticav into Basic/EliteTroops. Basic being cheap spear units and Elite being stronger, expensive Sword units (which in modern ages become 'Special Forces')

 

[Xur]

The fact that XP/promotions scales with gamespeed, makes most toptier promotions irrelevant. I dont think I ever had a unit reach last promotion on marathon.

The worst kind of buffs to a unit is those where you feel forced to visit a mountain or some other stupid feature with ALL your units. Remove that entirely please...

Edit::: Guess Im tired.... misunderstood OP.

 

[kaspergm]

The worst kind of buffs to a unit is those where you feel forced to visit a mountain or some other stupid feature with ALL your units. Remove that entirely please...

Off or on topic, I agree strongly with this!

 

[Lord Lakely]

No, I don't like the current upgrade paths. Not nearly enough units. Firaxis/2K games should work on extending the early game timeline more, since the early game is so important and it's over before you know it.

One unit per type, per era should be what they're doing.

For example more sensible upgrade path for melee infantry (for example) would be: clubman/spearman (ancient) => swordsman/pikeman (classical) => Zweihander/Halberdier (medieval) => arquebus/pike&shot (renaissance) => Fusilier/Lancer (industrial) => shock trooper/AT (modern) => marine/AA (atomic) => mech infantry/SAM (information)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Does anyone actually like the idea of separate siege and ranged classes ? Especially once you hit Renaissance I just kind of feel like you would be equally likely to want to use artillery against enemy units as enemy fortifications.

The Big Change in warfare took place with the introduction of effective gunpowder weapons in all Classes of troops, and it tended to be towards increased Simplification of Types of Units.

So, the Anti-Wall class of equipment and techniques ('Siege') started out very specialized: Battering Rams, Towers, Sambuca, Catapelta, Ballistae, Trebuchaes were all very specialized for dealing with large, immobile targets. Alexander and his father used Catapults against a field foe exactly twice (once each) - both in very special situations - and the Roman Imperial Army had light Ballistae that could accompany troops into the field, but appear to have had mostly a Morale Effect (something about a three foot long iron dart whistling past your head makes people Nervous) rather than a purely Military Effect.

The first Bombards were the same: they took hours to reload, so were totally useless against anything or anyone not nailed in place, but they quite simply made all previous stone fortifications Obsolete: no Medieval or Classical vertical 'curtain walls or towers remained vertical for long once a Bombard set up in front of them.

Once gunpowder artillery became reasonably reliable (early Bombards had a distressing and too-frequent tendency to Catastrophically Fail by blowing up in their owners' faces when fired) they became light enough to move and be useful on the battlefield. Early (16th - 17th century) artillery came in a bewildering variety of sizes, but quickly became classified as:
Light or Battalion Guns firing projectiles weighing from 1.5 to about 4 pounds
'Battery' (Field) Guns and Howitzers firing projectiles weighing up to about 12 pounds (twice that for low-velocity howitzers)
Siege Guns, the most effective of which fired 24 - 32 pound projectiles BUT, with effort, could still be moved around the battlefield. Notably, Marlborough's artillery commander, Brigadier Blood (great, great name for an artilleryman, by the way!) massed and moved up 22 24 pounders onto the battlefield at Ramillies and literally blew a hole right through the middle of the French Army. Frederick the Great used 24 pounders to support his infantry attack at Leuthen, and referred to them as his "Dogs of War"

Which means, in a nutshell, that Siege Equipment was no longer limited to Siege actions once you had 'Field Cannon'.

There was a tendency, especially in the late 17th - early 18th century, to mass all the Siege Guns and digging equipment into a Siege Train, which is why I included it in my Suggestions, but it really lost a lot of its meaning in less than 100 years, and by the 19th century and especially the 20th century (late Industrial through Atomic Eras) Artillery did it all: weapons up to Soviet 'High Power' 203mm howitzers could blast fortifications from a distance, flatten field defenses and units, or, in extreme cases, be brought up and fire Directly at individual bunkers from a couple hundred meters away (which the US Army in 1944 also did with 155mm 'Long Tom' heavy cannon). No separate units for 'siege' work are required

If asked (which you didn't, but what are Forums for, Eh? here's my 'line-up' of the Ranged - Siege Lines:

Siege (All Support Units - no separate Combat Factors if Melee Attacked)
Battering Ram (Ancient)
Siege Tower (Ancient - Classical)
Catapult (Classical)
Bombard (Renaissance)

Ranged
Slinger (Starting Unit)
Archer (Ancient)
Crossbowman Medieval)
Field Cannon (late Renaissance - Industrial)
NOTE: also about this time, an Incremental Upgrade or Promotion for your Melee (Gunpowder) units of 'Battalion Guns' adding + Melee Factors
Artillery (Modern Era)
Rocket Artillery Systems (Information Era) (Yes I know 'rocket artillery' dates 'way back and was used extensively in WWII/Atomic Era, but the long-range accurate rocket/missile systems only became worthwhile with computers to calculate their guidance in the late 1970s - early 1980s: I know because I was teaching those systems at the US Army Artillery School at Fort Sill in 1980!)

 

[Equilin]

Each unit in civ represents a very large group of soldiers i believe. Way too big to do minor customizations or add detailed parts to make it works so they ended up with this.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Actually, from a purely Historical point of view, Replacing the Musketman with Pike and Shot makes perfect sense: the matchlock musket and its predecessors were Never used as separate units, because they had, as I've mentioned before, virtually no melee factor for either defense or attack.

Hmm, I believe Musketman represents this type of guys - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musketeer and they were used without pikes very often.

EDIT: Actually, there's a big gap between general pike abandon (17th century) and muskets abandon (19th century).

IMHO, Pike and Shot deserve their separate place in the game.

 

[nzcamel]

Each unit in civ represents a very large group of soldiers i believe. Way too big to do minor customizations or add detailed parts to make it works so they ended up with this.

I don't think what you're saying is relevant to this discussion.

Specifically since 1UPT, each unit has come to represent more soldiers as there are less units; so at least on land we're talking divisions and armies rather than the companies or batteries (yes ignore the combined units that are called armies etc in game); the only definite exception being scouts. But even they don't die immediately when attacked by another unit...so logically there's not just 100 men there Of course divisions and armies are made up of a mix of different units. You don't have a whole division of archers. They're a smaller group like a battalion attached to an army. So it's already unreal in that sense.

So I'm fine with some of the details that are being talked about being added.

 

[Staal]

cool ideas

I really like your suggestions, especially the part about make anti-cav etc a promotion branch of the melee-class.

However, don't you think that the units in Civ represent a much larger body of men? It would still be illogical to a maxim-promoted infantry core/army.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Hmm, I believe Musketman represents this type of guys - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musketeer and they were used without pikes very often.

EDIT: Actually, there's a big gap between general pike abandon (17th century) and muskets abandon (19th century).

IMHO, Pike and Shot deserve their separate place in the game.

While the wiki article is very good at including the non-European 'musket' armed units, it is not entirely accurate. Starting in the second sentence, for example, that muskets represented the majority of armies - that was only slightly true and only in the last 20 years of the use of the matchlock musket. The earlier Spanish Tercio, for example, never had more than about 1/3 handguns of any kind versus 2/3 pikes or (earlier) 'sword and buckler men'.
When muskets were sent off on their own in Europe, they were referred to as "Commanded Men' - because nobody not suicidal would volunteer for such a duty. Their other title by the time of the English Civil War was even more explicit: they were called "Forlorn Hopes" - representing a pretty definitive indication of their chance of surviving without the protection of pikes or Walls!
Even at the very end of the period - 1690 to 1705, pikes still represented 20 - 25% of a battalion-sized infantry unit, at least on paper. "At least on paper" is significant, because increasingly, the troops on the ground were throwing away the pikes as fast as they could because, as one officer put it:
"Any man who kills a Pikeman should be regarded as a Murderer, because he killed a poor defenseless fellow who would hurt no one not stupid enough to run upon his pike." Basically, the early flintlocks provided enough firepower that pikemen became just targets, and were quickly dispensed with.

General Pike Abandon took place between 1695 for sure, when the French noticed the battlefield at Neerwinden covered with discarded pikes because their own men had thrown them away to pick up discarded enemy muskets, and 1702, when the War of the Spanish Succession started and virtually all the French, British, Dutch, Danish, Prussian, and other German armies were firearm-only infantry: pikes were still only in general use by the Swedes, who had a peculiar tactical system, and the Spanish and Russian armies, who were simply backward. (Not my opinion only, but that of their contemporaries!)

...Specifically since 1UPT, each unit has come to represent more soldiers as there are less units; so at least on land we're talking divisions and armies rather than the companies or batteries (yes ignore the combined units that are called armies etc in game); the only definite exception being scouts. But even they don't die immediately when attacked by another unit...so logically there's not just 100 men there Of course divisions and armies are made up of a mix of different units. You don't have a whole division of archers. They're a smaller group like a battalion attached to an army. So it's already unreal in that sense.

So I'm fine with some of the details that are being talked about being added.

The units in Civ, to make any sense, have to represent a number of men that increases as you progress through the Eras. The average City State in Sumer from what little evidence we have seems to have provided an average of 600 - 2000 men. A single Infantry Regiment in World War Two was 2500 - 3500 men, and it was only one component of a Division, which was the basic 'strength counter' of an Army, and each Civ produced multiple Armies. Part of the problem comes from sloppy nomenclature: on the one hand, Civ refers to Slingers and Archers, which are individual troop types, on the other hand it refers to a Legion, which is a Unit of 1000 - 5000 men depending on which year of the Roman Empire or Republic you are trying to represent.

Basically, Ancient Units in the earliest states (Egypt, Sumer, Greece, Babylon) for which we have any written evidence, seem to have been raised in units of 50 - 400 men, with little or no evidence for any Permanent organization larger than that other than organizational titles that simply mean "Host" or "Everybody we could put onto the battlefield at one time". That means the only semi-historical Ancient Era unit you've got is the equivalent of a Industrial Era or later Company.

So, personally, I assume that my Ancient Era units represent a few hundred men each, Classical units are about a 1000 men each (decimal organization is found almost everywhere), Medieval units about the same, Renaissance units a Tercio or Brigade of 2 - 3000 men, Industrial units a Division of 6 - 10,000 men, becoming a Modern Era division of 12 - 20,000 men and an Atomic/Information Era Brigade of 6 - 8000 men. The units of the last 25 years or so have for the first time historically, gotten smaller in manpower, but 'compensate' by being much, much more complex and expensive in equipment and weapons and firepower and mobility.

The exact size of a unit is, frankly, not important, compared to the relative Capabilities of the unit in mobility, combat power, and sustainability. Since in the game that is all relative to other units, it should be based on historical weaponry and capabilities, but does not have to be based on the exact numbers of men carrying exact numbers of specific weapons in a given historical unit.
In other words, the game does not require you to build the US Army's "1st 'Iron" Division of I Corps" of the Civil War, or the French WWI "11th 'Iron' Division", or the Soviet WWII "24th 'Iron' Rifle Division" specifically, but you can always name an infantry unit 'The Iron Division' in any Civ you're playing!

 

[Phrozen]

I think the big problem is the division of infantry between heavy infantry and anti-cavalry. Historically, there was just infantry and most of the time the weapon of choice was the spear. You can carve out UUs where this wasn't the case ie Rome's Legions but for the majority of history spear wielding infantry was the army basically.

With later units I wish we had something like SMACs unit creator where you could modify a units equipment. So you build an infantry unit then give it the ability to paradrop and you have paratroopers or you make them amphibious and you have marines, etc.

 

[NukeAJS]

There needs to be something between horsemen and cavalry. Also, there needs to be something between catapults and bombards.

Something oughta be between horsemen and cavalry because it's WAY too long between them. Something should be between catapults and bombards because catapults get one-shotted by cities in the medieval era.

Also, the Military Tactics tech needs to either go away or be a prereq for something else. I almost never build spearmen (and hence pikes) and the wonder can be good if you've lots of lakes, but normally there aren't a lot of lake tiles so I almost never get this tech.

 

[pietro1990]

In my opinion the upgrade path isn’t fine at all.
Especially the unique units. You need to built them from scratch. The Chinese replacement for the crosbowman for example is a separate unit then the crossbow unit so if you upgrade you’re archers they become Chinese crosbowman not their unique unit. Because they use the same mechanic like civ 5 as units one unit per tile unique units become less important.
Remember the unique unit of Sweden or ottoman? The lancer it was useless nobody used it why because you’ve had to built lancers from scratch until they patched it and pikeman upgrades to lancers.
Some unique units olso upgrade to really weird thing for example the rough rider upgrades to modern armor not a tank because logic I guess… While cavalry upgrades to helicopters
For the whole rant about unique units watch this video I thinx he explains it better then I do:

Olso some unit upgrade paths are just weird. For example horseman upgrade to cavalry but knights doesn’t. And horseman don’t upgrade to knights. So this means you can have knights in the industrial era because you don’t have the tech for tanks . This is why you see so many Ai with outdated units.

The swordsman line needs niter to upgrade to musketman and same goes for catapult wich results in the AI not upgrading its classical era units…

But the major problem is THE TECH TREE in civ 5 all units where connected for example you needed steal to get to gunpoder for musketman needed chivalry knights for cavalry tech and so on.. The big problem is the Ai doesn’t have money or resource to upgrade units ITS JUST IGNORES TECHS AND GOES TRAIGHT TO CHEMISTRY the first modern era unit is a AT crew. How about making the AI pick the techs for military units.

In civ 5 each civ had specific traits for example Mongolia loves horses so he will go for horse units and mobile units in the tech tree while for example other nations might go for range units… And go to that tech tree in this game all civs go straight to chemistry and ignore specific units except their unique units.

How hard is the to program the AI to fallow certain tech paths that will cause them to upgrade their units.

Olso they make the same mistake like civ 5 They make range units have a high melee strenght wich results in players spamming range units and ignoring melee units and only use it to capture cities thats how you win a domination victory in civ 5 spam crosbowman and artillery. I am so pissed they didn't change it in civ 6