Do you think current unit upgrade paths are fine?

Do you like current unit upgrade paths?

  • Yes, they are fine, maybe with small tweaks

    Votes: 41 34.7%
  • Mixed opinion, they should be changed significantly

    Votes: 51 43.2%
  • No, they should be changed drastically

    Votes: 26 22.0%

  • Total voters
    118

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,959
Location
Poland
Or did you prefer the way they have been in civ5?

By unit upgrade paths I refer to

warrior-swordman-musketman-infantry-mechanized infantry
etc

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Units_(Civ6)

Please rememeber that R&F will add Pike and Shot unit between Pikeman and AT ;)

As for me I prefer them from civ5 which was cluttered with too many weird, redundant or too niche units (marine, chariot, longsword instantly upgraded to musket, pointless ww1 units), had completely insane anti cavalry path, no upgrades for scouts etc. Also, too many regular units mean narrow intervals for unique units to be used.
On the other hand, I still think there should be just one cavalry path...
 
Last edited:
I thin for the most part they are fine and the new units in R&F should help.
Both cavalry paths right now need something between horsemen and cavalry, and knights and tanks, but I'm not sure how to make it work since you would have maybe one unit on each path staying relevant for just one era.
If cavalry did have one path how would you change it?
 
I don't really like the big gaps, especially with the way the tech tree is layed out.

And I feel that the time it takes to get Bombards often causes Catapults to be incredibly weak when you attack cities in the Medieval/Renaissance era. But that could be my own fault for not using Battering Ram and Siege Towers.
 
I really like the current upgrade paths. With upgrades in every other era units stay long enough and with multiple upgrade paths we have new shiny units often. The only things which may need tweaking are the balance and AI usage of various units.
 
Anticav definately needed some love. They need more than Pike and Shot, but its a start.

A line of cards that boosted Anticav and Siege units would be appreciated for balancing the game @firaxis.
(It even fits the “this card affects 2 units” thing y’all got going on)
 
I’m of two minds. On the one hand I grudgingly admit to the fact that it does benefit the game part of this video game. Having upgrade paths on alternating eras removes a lot of clutter, makes each upgrade feel like it has a significant impact, and in theory* makes it a cycle of alternating offensive and defensive arms gaining the upper hand which historically has been going on since the dawn of warfare. On the other hand those incremental upgrades felt much more organic and less gamey, as even two different knights would be kitted out drastically differently if one was from the 1350AD and the other was from 1450AD, having giant multi-century wide gaps between units without any of the historical intermediaries that came between them feels very unnatural and can make warfare stale as your army remains static for eras on end before seeing any changes. Mechanically it works but thematically it feels wrong, and I’m not sure there’s any easy compromise for this issue.



*I say “in theory” because spamming low cost ranged units is always the best strategy no matter what era or time period you’re in. In theory there is the historical cycle of unit power between fast and mobile vs slow and well armored but since both get trumped by massed backline units in all time periods that cycle is mostly a pipe dream.
 
Last edited:
I hate it.

Like do you really think it's a good mechanic to keep Horsemen around until Cavalry just to upgrade them ? What even is the difference between light and heavy cavalry anyway (In the game as currently designed).

Actually working on a mod where there is only mounted, melee (bonus vs mounted) and ranged land combat classes, upgrades every era. I feel like having less combat classes will help the AI, but I'm still testing it for myself.
 
Or did you prefer the way they have been in civ5?

By unit upgrade paths I refer to

warrior-swordman-musketman-infantry-mechanized infantry
etc

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Units_(Civ6)

Please rememeber that R&F will add Pike and Shot unit between Pikeman and AT ;)

As for me I prefer them from civ5 which was cluttered with too many weird, redundant or too niche units (marine, chariot, longsword instantly upgraded to musket, pointless ww1 units), had completely insane anti cavalry path, no upgrades for scouts etc. Also, too many regular units mean narrow intervals for unique units to be used.
On the other hand, I still think there should be just one cavalry path...

I think the upgrade paths are a major weakpoint of civ 6. There are often "long times in between" upgrades which means a part of your army is outdated, while another is up to date & this is clearly tied to the unit type. In addition, there are often significant "jumps" in combat strength that are not "smooth". In every era there should be units of all types (spearmen, melee, cavalry, archers etc.) that are roughly balanced.
However, since Rise & Fall will introduce more units, I suspect that there will be more steps in the upgrade path which might allow you to keep all your units in the field.

I also think the differentiation between light & heavy cavalry is too much, expecially because they are not significantly different from each other. If light cavalry would ignore zone of control, while heavy cavalry does not, or if heavy cavalry would be slow & bad in rough terrain, it could make sense.
 
I think the upgrade paths are a major weakpoint of civ 6. There are often "long times in between" upgrades which means a part of your army is outdated, while another is up to date & this is clearly tied to the unit type. In addition, there are often significant "jumps" in combat strength that are not "smooth". In every era there should be units of all types (spearmen, melee, cavalry, archers etc.) that are roughly balanced.
However, since Rise & Fall will introduce more units, I suspect that there will be more steps in the upgrade path which might allow you to keep all your units in the field.

I also think the differentiation between light & heavy cavalry is too much, expecially because they are not significantly different from each other. If light cavalry would ignore zone of control, while heavy cavalry does not, or if heavy cavalry would be slow & bad in rough terrain, it could make sense.

I think the notion that not every unit has an upgrade path every era is fine - I kind of like having some gaps there where maybe you're using new siege units, but old melee units, or vice versa. Gives extra strategic choice.

However, I would agree that the cavalry lines are basically missing an entire generation. If you combine the cavalry lines and check their strengths, you go 28-35-48-62-80-82-90. Basically, the gap between knights and cavalry is too big. If I was redoing things, I think I would add a Cuirassier as a new light cavalry at 52-ish strength. I'd also agree that there needs to be more differences between light and heavy cavalry. Maybe just bringing back the combat penalty against cities for light cavalry? Or giving the heavy cav a combat penalty in rough terrain.

But otherwise, overall I think it works well enough.
 
I'm more or less fine with the way the units are now. Pike & Shot will be a welcome upgrade, since I find that Pikemen become less essentially worthless once Musketmen hit the table. While this does make sense, it doesn't make any sense for me to build any Pikemen at all if they'll be facing down units that will simply roll them over, and since Musketmen also essentially make Knights obsolete (debatable) there isn't any reason to build anything other than Musketmen.

All of which makes an amount of historical sense, so I'm fine with that. But, I'm also fine with the inclusion of Pike & Shot.

I do believe that Horsemen need an upgrade before Cavalry, though. Even when you first get them, they're easily murdered by Spearmen and Swordsmen, so they become irrelevant (IMO) almost immediately and serve no purpose other than to be mobile nuisances. They also largely just sit around doing nothing until they can be upgraded to Cavalry, if they get built at all, so an upgrade is sorely needed.
I can't agree that cavalry should have a single upgrade path, though. They serve different purposes. The only reason that the Horseman should get an upgrade is so that it can actually fulfill that purpose without getting immediately bludgeoned to death by rocks. (Not literally, in most cases.)

I also think that the catapult needs and upgrade to a Trebuchet. The timing of the upgrade would be a little jarring, though, because slapping a unit between when you get Catapults and when you get Bombards doesn't allow for much time for Catapults to actually see use. But, then again, there doesn't really seem like much of a window for Catapults to be terribly useful. Once the walls get upgraded, so too should the units that are designed to bring them down. Battering Rams and Siege Towers are all well and good, but if they're the replacement for the Catapult then there should be no reason why the Catapult isn't a support unit on its own. Since it isn't, it needs some love.
 
I have always wanted a system where technology is devoted to both developing New techs and also refining those you already have. One civ could focus on eg. iron working to get better swordsmen or focus on pottery and get more powerful granaries. You would never have time to focus on all techs so you always had to make choices.
 
Civ V"s was better because it was more of a gradual process. 6's is generally too big of a power spike and way too effective for its own good to the point it's not even a good idea to hard build later era units.
 
I have always wanted a system where technology is devoted to both developing New techs and also refining those you already have. One civ could focus on eg. iron working to get better swordsmen or focus on pottery and get more powerful granaries. You would never have time to focus on all techs so you always had to make choices.

Even if that was taken for each unit. So maybe every civ would unlock the classic "swordsman" at the same time, but if I spend some time researching body armor or new swords, I can create essentially a more powerful swordsman. But if I'm not warring with them, I'll just take the cheap default units and look to spend my science elsewhere.
 
Exactly. And you would also get the interesting choice between how long to keep your specialized heavy teched swordsmen or upgrade them to basic muskets and "start over".
 
I think they are better than Civ5, but there are some things I'm a bit disappointed they still didn't get right this time. Why is the mounted ranged units still in limbo? I'm not sure the split between heavy and light cavalry was really necessary nor adds anything constructive to the game. But perhaps most importantly, overall there is just way too long between unit upgrades. This is exactly the same mistake they made in Civ5 and makes some critical balance problems. I'm very grateful for the MOAR units mod which fixes a lot of these problems (adds units to the recon, melee and mounted units lines which is urgently needed).
 
As a military historian who has written and lectured on topics as different as Alexander the Great's Army's Drill Manual, the tactical differences between British, French and Swedish infantry in 1705, and the Deficiencies of the German Tiger tank of WWII, I can say that Civ VI's Unit Selections and Upgrade Paths Suck Like a Starving Leech

First, they have distinctions (Melee - AntiCavalry - Ranged) that are increasingly artificial as the game goes on, they have artificial 'requirements' for Upgrading or building units, and, finally, they have neither incremental Upgrades nor Any Upgrades for some entire classes of units for a looooong time.

First, let's take Spearmen/Pikemen: the Basic Units/Weapons of the majority of civilized and semi-civilized armies in the Ancient, Classical, and Medieval Eras. Firaxis seems to have been distracted by the evidence of the Roman Legion: the ONLY unit of primarily swordsmen in the World prior to the early Tercio, and even that unit only had a minority of swordsmen ('sword and buckler men', to be exact) in a majority of pikemen and an increasing percentage of men with firearms. Spearmen are not anti-cavalry, they are Cheap to raise, train, and maintain. Men can learn to use a spear on a part-time basis and still be effective - see the Greek Hoplite Phalanx of amateur citizens or the northern European Shield Wall of, basically, farmers with shields and metal-pointed sticks.

Swords are more flexible and allow more flexible formations in a variety of terrain, but they require a lot of practice - professionals, in other words, which are either some set of militant Aristocrats who pay for themselves (Celts), or a Standing Army that costs lots and lots of coin (Romans).

Spearmen, then, should be Cheap to produce, Swordsmen gain the current bonus against them only in forest or rainforest or hills, but Swordsmen are more expensive and have about 4 x the Maintenance Cost of Spearmen.

Mounted Troops have two basic purposes: smash the enemy with the weight of the horse and weapons of the rider, or use the mobility of the horse to stay away from the enemy and Mess With Him from a distance. That's your Heavy versus Light Cavalry distinction in a nutshell, but the Light Cavalry all tend to be for
Reconnaissance (Scouts)
Raids
Pursuit
Whenever they get too full of themselves and start charging the enemy, they also start getting heavier and end up just like all the other 'Heavy' Cavalry.

So, for the 'Pure' Cavalry, you have One Type: Heavy 'Battle' Cavalry. Starts with a Chariot which may or may not have a range factor (Egyptians) but most will be Melee units (Hittites, Chinese, Celts), changing to Horsemen in the Classical Era, Knights in Medieval, Cuirassiers in Renaissance, Cavalry in Industrial, Tanks in Modern, Modern Armor in late Atomic.

The 'Scout' line should have a third Upgrade Path: Mounted. You can build or upgrade scouts to Light Cavalry in the Classical Era, which can become Dragoons in the Renaissance Era, Armored Cars in the Industrial Era (late) and Helicopters in the Atomic Era. All these Mounted Units (Uniques like Cossacks go in here, too) would use the Mounted Scout Promotions, and would as a rule be the fastest units in their Eras, but with Melee Factors not quite good enough to go 'toe-to-toe' with that era's infantry/Melee units.

ALL gunpowder units have a Range Factor, but many of them are also tactically expected to attack and 'close with and destroy the enemy' (to quote the US Army Infantry School). BUT the original gunpowder-firing individual troops had almost no melee factor at all: the matchlock musket was a clumsy 15 - 20 pound club and their only other weapon was a cheap sword that they were very rarely trained to use. Musketmen, then, are in game terms Support Units, to be 'protected' by someone else while they fire (Pike and Shot). The Fusilier, carrying the flintlock musket and socket bayonet, was the first 'universal infantry' - able to fire, charge, and defend against cavalry all by himself. The black powder rifle did not appreciably change this, because black powder smoke makes the extra range almost useless: you can't see a target more than 100 meters away after the first few volleys fill the air with smoke.

Okay, this could go on for pages, so let me summarize:

Scouts: Include a Mounted Promo line, can Upgrade to Light Cavalry (Classical), Dragoons (Renaissance), Armored Cars (Industrial Era), and Helicopters (Atomic Era)

Melee: Now incorporates both the 'Melee' and 'Anti-Cavalry' artificial definitions:
Upgrade Path: Warrior - Spearman OR Swordsman - Pikeman OR Man-at-Arms - Pike and Shot* - Fusilier* - Infantry* - Mechanized Infantry*

Cavalry: "Battle Cavalry" Only, primarily Melee Units: Heavy Chariot - Horseman - Knight - Cuirassier - Cavalry - Tank - Modern Armor

Ranged: Slinger - Archer - Crossbow - Cannon - Artillery - Rocket Artillery

Siege: Battering Ram - Tower - Catapult - Bombard - Siege Train (Industrial)
NOTE: These are all 'Support' Units, in that they have almost NO factor against units that can move faster than a Wall, and virtually no defensive factor other than the side arms carried by their crews

* = unit that has a Range Factor as well as a Melee factor, possibly among the lines of the Civ V Zulu 'Fire Before Melee' mechanism.

Many of the ridiculous and artificial units in the game now should be special incremental Upgrades or Promotions for units: Machine-guns add Range Factor to Infantry, for instance, and Antitank Guns/Rockets/Missiles would be an Anti-Mounted Upgrade Line for Melee Units (or Helicopters = Promote to Gunships)

Of course, to make these Upgrades really work, we also have to massively Improve the current Abomination of a Tech Tree, but that's for another thread entirely...
 
Back
Top Bottom