Do you think current unit upgrade paths are fine?

[Benzombie]

Personally, I liked V's unit roster better than VI right now. It had flavor, more different units fighting each other. I also liked the idea of poor civilizations being able to use 'outdated' artillery and maybe a tank or two, while the rich civilizations could use units that require aluminum and nuclear fusion and can yield more of them. VI does have some of that but I feel like V did it better. Even if I didn't use some of the unit upgrade paths as a main force, it was still an option.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

...For what it stands, I think a shot-and-pike unit is profoundly misguided. Shot-and-pike is perfectly well represented at the moment by having an army of mixed pikes and muskets. in 8AoW, pikes are strong enough to be significantly better than muskets against cavalry, so are very much needed. Having an army which is partially muskets and partially shot-and-pike makes no sense to me. As I see it, the principle ages of early modern (European) warfare are represented by:
Shot-and-pike era: Pikes, Muskets, Knights
18th Century: Fusilier, Muskets, Cavalry
7-years-war / Napoleonic Era: Fusilier, Muskets, field cannon and Cavalry
American civil war: Fusilier, Infantry, field cannon (and some Cavalry)

Which, with a very limited stretch of the imagination and seeing some slight evolution of equipment for the same unit across different epochs, makes good sense.

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. My own original contention was to make the Musketman a Support Unit so they could 'stack' with a Pikeman to represent the Spanish Tercio - Swedish Brigade - Dutch Battalion, etc. pike and shot combination. A single unit makes much more sense, but so far, at least, there's no indication that it replaces the old Civ standard, the Musketman, as it should...

I would modify your conception of Early Modern European Warfare slightly:
Late Renaissance: Pike-and-Shot, Knights, Dragoons - 'Dragoons' being the Light Cavalry of the 16th - 17th centuries, being the scouts, raiders, etc but having No Business charging anybody on horseback.
18th Century: Fusiliers, Field Cannon, Cuirassiers, (Light Cavalry) - the Flintlock-carrying 'Fusilier' started appearing as a specialist troop in the 1690s, and by 1708 was Universal (last adoption: the Russian officially-adopted Tula Arsenal flintlock of 1708) and Pikes were utterly obsolete. The trunnioned Field Cannon was also universal throughout the century. Heavy, sometimes armored cavalry predominated on the battlefield, regardless of whether they were called Cuirassiers, Heavy Dragoons, or even, confusingly, 'Light Cavalry' by the French (they were lighter than Knights, seems to have been the thinking, but they were also trained and expected to Charge Home sword in hand). Light Cavalry was a mixed bag that kept sneaking onto the battlefield as Hussars, Light Dragoons, Uhlans, Cossacks, etc. but without a lot of special attention (Frederick the Great's Hussars, for instance) they were never as good as the 'Heavies' at the battlefield stuff.
This lasted throughout the 18th Century and to the end of the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century. While there were lots and lots of incremental changes, the Fusilier-Field Cannon-Cuirassier 'model' dominated from 1702 when the War of the Spanish Succession started until 1815 at Waterloo.
American Civil War or 'Industrial Era until smokeless powder'. Fusiliers with smoothbore muskets got incremental upgraded to black-powder Rifled Muskets and then black powder breechloading rifles, but basic tactics didn't change much from 1815 to 1880, by which time the basic tactics were getting almost suicidal. Field cannon increasingly got rifled and longer-ranged, but still had to see what they shot at, which limited range to the nearest ridge or tree line or village. Biggest change was in the mounted troops, which regardless of their titles all became carbine-carrying unarmored Cavalry that still occasionally tried to charge, and against rifle-carrying infantry usually failed miserably to get within 50 meters of their target alive.

The adoption of smokeless powder and real long range fire in the 1880s changed Everything, because simultaneously Maxim's machine-gun also became available. Infantry battles from then until the end of WWI became a set of increasingly desperate attempts by all armies to find some way for infantry to attack without getting massacred by fire as soon as they showed their faces to the enemy within a quarter mile. The addition of lots of supporting firepower to the infantry (Melee) units was the answer, and after WWI everybody's infantry included various kinds of machine-guns, light mortars, light cannon ('infantry guns') and other 'support' weapons to suppress the enemy and allow your own infantry to advance.[/QUOTE]

 

[Olleus]

Replacing the Musketman with Pike and Shot makes perfect sense

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.


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.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Mounted melee: Horseman - Knight - Cavalry - Landship - etc.
Mounted ranged: Chariot Archer - Mounted Bowman - Dragoon - Airship - Helicopter Gunship ... (all of these have range 1)

I like this idea a little better than what we have now.
Mounted melee could be like heavy cavalry with stronger defense but move a little slower.
Mounted ranged could move a little faster and be stronger on attack, but weaker on defense.

 

[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.

 

[Olleus]

Historically that does make sense. A siege gun would be highly ineffective against a moving army, and a light 6-pounder fieldgun would do nothing against Renaissance 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.