Do you think current unit upgrade paths are fine?

[pgm123]

I do miss the multiple upgrade option from Civ IV. To me, I should be able to upgrade a Warrior into a Spearman if I don't have iron. Likewise, I should be able to upgrade the Pikeman into a Musketman. That said, Pike and Shot helps a lot there, so I'll drop the second complaint.

 

[pietro1990]

I do miss the multiple upgrade option from Civ IV. To me, I should be able to upgrade a Warrior into a Spearman if I don't have iron. Likewise, I should be able to upgrade the Pikeman into a Musketman. That said, Pike and Shot helps a lot there, so I'll drop the second complaint.

A multiple upgrade option would fix the issue we now have with obsolete units

 

[drubell]

The light cavalry line is a joke. The horseman is very powerful in the Classical Era, but are obsoleted the moment Knights appear. And horsemen don't upgrade until the Industrial Era. Seriously? The light cavalry line is three units?

 

[Kurtbob]

Couldn't new military policy cards be introduced between the eras a unit becomes available and when its upgrade becomes available that increases the strength/adds bonuses to said unit?

For example, a policy card could become availabe at Military Training ( a classic era civic) that boosts Spearman (Spearman become available in the ancient era and upgrade in the medieval era) or a policy card becomes available at Feudalism (a medieval era civic) that boosts Swordsman (Swordsman become available in the classic era and upgrade in the renaissance era).

It could add meaningful choices when filling military policy slots and boost civs focusing on culture.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Overall, the general upgrade paths include upgrades each other era, which is totally enough. The exceptions are:
1. Both classes of cavalry have a renaissance gap of 2 eras. i believe that's intentional and is trade off for Horsemen and Knight effectiveness.
2. Anti-cavalry units have the same Renaissance gap, which is not fine as R&F fixes it. I believe that's continuation of the previous point as Pike and Shot will take its part in making both cavalry classes obsolete at that era.
3. Scouts have long jump, but that's ok, since they aren't combat unit. Ranger, in turn is a combat unit, so additional upgrade for it is very logical.
4. Melee Naval has 2-era gap between Galley and Caravel, but it's actually 1 tech between them, so I wouldn't consider it to be the gap.

Overall, with R&F fixes, the structure of upgrades looks great. All military units have upgrades in 1-2 eras or less, so they have time to last, but not enough time to obsolete completely. The only exception is 2 Cavalry classes, for which mid-game ineffectiveness is a planned part of balance.

A multiple upgrade option would fix the issue we now have with obsolete units

1. Multiple upgrade option only makes sense if those upgrades are from different unit classes. Which, in turn, makes an issue with promotions on class change. This was a big deal in Civ5, where upgrades with class change were quite common, especially for UU.
2. I don't fully understand what the issue with obsolete units is. The current upgrade path requires more strategy to play with, but that's good thing not an issue. Yes, AI upgrades units incosistently, but even if it's a problem (and I don't see why it should be), additional unit upgrades will not solve it and could even increase.

 

[Cyberian]

Do we know if R&F adds a new Light Cavalry? It really has to.

I also would really like more upgrades to the scout like:
Scout - Skirmisher - Explorer - Armored Car

 

[stealth_nsk]

Do we know if R&F adds a new Light Cavalry? It really has to.

I also would really like more upgrades to the scout like:
Scout - Skirmisher - Explorer - Armored Car

It doesn't add any Light cavalry It adds Spec Ops as Reconnaissance unit with paradrop.

 

[Bechhold]

No, bring back the Rifleman.

 

[Uberfrog]

Overall, the general upgrade paths include upgrades each other era, which is totally enough. The exceptions are:
1. Both classes of cavalry have a renaissance gap of 2 eras. i believe that's intentional and is trade off for Horsemen and Knight effectiveness.
2. Anti-cavalry units have the same Renaissance gap, which is not fine as R&F fixes it. I believe that's continuation of the previous point as Pike and Shot will take its part in making both cavalry classes obsolete at that era.

[...]

Overall, with R&F fixes, the structure of upgrades looks great. All military units have upgrades in 1-2 eras or less, so they have time to last, but not enough time to obsolete completely. The only exception is 2 Cavalry classes, for which mid-game ineffectiveness is a planned part of balance.

I'm not sure this is the case. I think the reason Knights and Horsemen are so effective is that their supposed counters are ineffective. We have a whole class of units called "anti-cavalry", but as it stands Spearmen are barely a match for Horsemen (25+10 vs 35), and Pikemen only just stronger than Knights (41+10 vs 48). Given anti-cavalry's innate penalty against melee units and cavalry's extra movement, it's not hard to see why many players do not bother with the anti-cavalry line.

Hopefully they are fixing this with the expansion, and the Pike & Shot, as you say, will help here. If it has the same 55 base strength as the Musketman, it will wield a whopping 65 strength against Knights and will easily one-shot Horsemen. I'd say the relative buffing of the anti-cavalry line leaves space for at least the light cavalry to get a mid-game upgrade.

3. Scouts have long jump, but that's ok, since they aren't combat unit. Ranger, in turn is a combat unit, so additional upgrade for it is very logical.

They're not combat units, but they will frequently come into combat with barbarians, whose units will be upgrading, so it's a survivability issue really. I rarely seem to have Scouts left in the field after the Classical era.

1. Multiple upgrade option only makes sense if those upgrades are from different unit classes. Which, in turn, makes an issue with promotions on class change. This was a big deal in Civ5, where upgrades with class change were quite common, especially for UU.
2. I don't fully understand what the issue with obsolete units is. The current upgrade path requires more strategy to play with, but that's good thing not an issue. Yes, AI upgrades units incosistently, but even if it's a problem (and I don't see why it should be), additional unit upgrades will not solve it and could even increase.

The issue to my mind with obsolete units (beyond anachronism, which isn't important in gameplay terms) is clutter. Having units that are too weak to deploy, which can't be upgraded for several eras means you are forced to disband them (losing promotions) or keep them loitering around your cities until you get far enough into the tech tree.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm not sure this is the case. To my mind, the reason Knights and Horsemen are so effective is that their supposed counters are ineffective. We have a whole class of units called "anti-cavalry", but as it stands Spearmen are barely a match for Horsemen (25+10 vs 35), and Pikemen only just stronger than Knights (41+10 vs 48). Given anti-cavalry's innate penalty against melee units and cavalry's extra movement, it's not hard to see why many players do not bother with the anti-cavalry line.

First, anti-cavalry units are cheaper.
Second, Spears are 1 epoch earlier than Horsemen. Their equal enemy is Chariot and 25+10 vs. 28 if quite fair advanatage.
But I agree overall - they need some buff. Currently they are for purely defensive play.

Hopefully they are fixing this with the expansion, and the Pike & Shot, as you say, will help here. If it has the same 55 base strength as the Musketman, it will wield a whopping 65 strength against Knights and will easily one-shot Horsemen. I'd say the relative buffing of the anti-cavalry line leaves space for at least the light cavalry to get a mid-game upgrade.

Could be. But I'd say it will depend on a lot of other moving part of the balance.

They're not combat units, but they will frequently come into combat with barbarians, whose units will be upgrading, so it's a survivability issue really. I rarely seem to have Scouts left in the field after the Classical era.

It depends. They survive quite often in my games.

The issue to my mind with obsolete units (beyond anachronism, which isn't important in gameplay terms) is clutter. Having units that are too weak to deploy, which can't be upgraded for several eras means you are forced to disband them (losing promotions) or keep them loitering around your cities until you get far enough into the tech tree.

This looks like a strategic choice for me. You could do Knight rush, which is strong strategy, but will have to pay for it later. Also you could choose the way to pay this price - disbanding those Knights or pay upkeep and tiles.

 

[Uberfrog]

That's genuinely a great idea. I can see having:

A classical era card that improves spears, archers and chariots ("Tribal armies" a good name?)
A medieval card that boosts swords, catapults and horsemen ("Military cast" ?)
A renaissance card that boosts pikes, crossbows, and knights ("Ancien Regime" ?)
and so on.
I think there's too much wrong with Vanilla Civ6 combat for that to fix everything, but I am seriously considering adding it for 8 Ages of War. I think a +4 combat boost would be enough to work with the unit rosta's as I have them.

Also has the added benefiting of giving culture a bit more combat power, and creating some more useful military cards.

I agree, I'd be interested to see how that changes things.

 

[The Boz]

I like your posts and mods, Boris and Olleus. Some of the unit choices irk me, too. So I drew out my idealized land unit progression:
Main melee (no inherent bonus): WARRIOR > SWORDSMAN > MUSKETMAN* > FUSILIERS* > INFANTRY* > MECHANIZED INFANTRY* **
* - Firearms appear here, and grant the unit type a unique bonus: Enemies without range or the Firearms ability do not cause retaliation damage. Yes, a unit of Musketmen can attack a unit of Swordsmen in melee and inflict a lot of damage without taking *any* in return. The introduction of gunpowder doesn't seem to be enough of a game changer, apart from just loads of Attack bonuses, so I think this will help massively.
** - Unit gets a shiny new APC, improving base Movement to 3.
Main anti-cav (bonus against light and heavy horse): SPEARMAN > PIKEMAN > PIKE & SHOT* > AT RIFLE* > AT MISSILE* **
The AT units are replaced with something that makes more sense. There were some dedicated WWI/WWII AT units based around AT Rifles and sticky grenades, later even with launchers, but more rarely.
* - Gains Firearms ability.
** - Unit gets a shiny new TOW carrier, improving base Movement to 3.
Main ranged (no inherent bonus): SLINGER > ARCHER* > CROSSBOWMAN* > FIELD GUN* > MORTAR CARRIER* ** ***
The Machine Gun is replaced with something that makes more sense. There is no such thing as a "machine gun unit" on the company+ level in modern military. The Mortar Carrier gains minimal combat bonus.
* - These units get base Range 2.
** - Unit gets a brand new mortar carrier car, improving base Movement to 3.
*** - Unit gets Indirect Fire, allowing it to ignore hills, forests, etc. Not mountains.
Heavy Horse (bonus when attacking, Movement 3): HORSEMAN > KNIGHT > HEAVY CAVALRY > TANK > MODERN ARMOR*
Heavy Cavalry is supposed to embody the 15th/16th century Gendarme while advancing the Knight into a new era, so it doesn't get as obsolete as it is now.
* - Improved tracks, engines and logistics improve base Movement to 4.
Light Horse (after attacking, gains 1 Movement, Range 1, Movement 4): CHARIOT ARCHER > HORSE ARCHER > LIGHT CAVALRY > ATTACK HELICOPTER* > MODERN GUNSHIP* **
Used primarily to harass, hence the ability to move out of danger after attacking. Added Modern Gunship because IMO, all unit types need a "modern" equivalent.
* - Flight means all tiles are 1 Movement.
** - Improves base Movement to 5.
Artillery: Stays as is right now, but Bombard and onward gets Indirect Fire, like a Mortar Carrier.

 

[Tomice]

What about the gap between scout and ranger? Seems weird they added a lategame continuation without a medieval bridge.
What about a vanguard unit?

From Wikipedia:
The makeup of the vanguard of a fifteenth-century Burgundian army is a typical example. This consisted of

• a contingent of foreriders, from whom a forward detachment of scouts was drawn
• the main body of the vanguard, in which there traveled civil officials and trumpeters to carry messages and summon the surrender of towns and castles, and
• a body of workmen under the direction of the Master of Artillery whose job it was to clear obstacles which would obstruct the baggage and artillery travelling with the main army.

I guess they could create a fitting unit from the concept above.

 

[The Boz]

Explorer is obviously missing, sure, but the gap isn't that pronounced. Scout already is the weakest unit in the game, and spawned barbarians are often = or > the army tech of the nearest player, so the combat performance of that particular unit isn't that important... What "upgrade" could it have, other than combat bonus, that would make sense? But yes, Explorer would be great.

 

[Phrozen]

Scout line should go:

Scout -> Peltast -> Skirmisher -> Ranger -> Commando -> Spec Ops.

 

[agonistes]

Quite a few of the land unit promotions don't do it for me.

I wouldn't mind seeing more specialization in the promotions, regarding type A vs. type B.

Of course, aside from Civics and Techs, I think we could use a 3rd military tree, or instead something like the envoys, where every x turns you can pick from several choices that upgrade your military.

 

[Hauptman]

The way it stands, if you play to maximize and win, you build 2 types of units. Slingers and warriors. Then upgrade them as you progress... never making new units. That makes every other unit worthless, and just a side bit of flavor, but ultimately nothing but a drain on your goal if you actually make them. Why spend 10 turns making spears when I'll have Swordsmen in 13 turns of research? Why bother making a chariot at all when it'll be useless in 20 turns? Same with a horseman... Ok not entirely true, as horsemen are absolutely brilliant if you can get one to level 2, and will never cease to be your most prized unit. As it stands I dont build new units until very late game, just for the variety (and helos are awsome!) because for 80% of the game those 4 archers and 3 warriors are all I need on land, because you know, once frigates happen, your army just collects dust anyhow.

There is so much to complain about in civ 6... the list goes on for miles, and units are low on that list. But I can see where you all are coming from. It's just pointless unless everything else is fixed. You can win this game without ever building a single unit... and use that one lonely warrior the throught the entire game, as the AI is completely inept at war and cant take a city when you leave it wide open for them (please firaxis let me trade a capital, if the ai cant take it back!)

Also, why does everyone compare to civ 5? That game was poop too. CIV (4) was the ultimate expression of what this game aughta be. But that's besides the point I guess.

 

[Manifold]

I would not design a complete unit upgrade paths if it should be realistic. There were many inventions in history which change military warfare massive. It would be not accurate to give a battleship experience from ancient sea fights. I think about the introduction of gunpowder, tanks...and the Dreadnought which is a very good example for a new weapon without predecessor.

But this is a game and should be fun. So, of course it is cool that my ancient warrior becomes my superhero in the information age.
That is also way I miss some more catchy and bombastic units like:

Gladiator
Ancient naval ram ship (Phoenicia)
Scorpio / Roman Ballista
Crusader / Mujahideen
Trebuchet fires rotten cadaver
Landsknechts / Reisläufer
Grenadier
Airship
Flamethrower
Armored Recon Car
Combat Swimmer
...

 

[mrwho]

The two most glaring gaps in the upgrade lines for me are catapult to bombard and swordsman to musketman. For some reason the early gaps feel much more substantive to me than the later ones. The tech tree might need reworking, but at the very least I'd like to see trebuchets and longswordmen upgraded. I'd also move caravels a little earlier in the tech tree to make the gap to them less jarring. I'd probably be more inclined to focus on cavalry if the two lines were merged together as well.

 

[Uberfrog]

I'd also move caravels a little earlier in the tech tree to make the gap to them less jarring.

The naval tech line is a bit of a mess, but mainly because there are relatively few naval techs forming that sparse branch at the top of the tech tree.

I'd like to see a medieval upgrade to the Galley (a Cog, perhaps), which is a sitting duck to any city or Crossbowman at that stage, and more era-appropriate than a Caravel with its cannons showing up too early. I'd also like to see the Galleass return as a late medieval/early renaissance upgrade to the Quinquereme.