Feedback: Units

[tchristensen]

Didn't mean to infer that biplanes could sink ships, but rather regular fighters (aka WWII planes). In the battle of Midway for example, destroyers and carriers were sank. This gives credence to that fact the planes should do more than 50% damage to ships.

My wish for biplanes was a separate thought.

 

[Little Faith]

Hope I don't spoil your good mood too much but I think I found Prime Timber on an unforested square. (Mapscript: Fractal).

 

[Xyth]

Would like to see bi-planes added in the next installment. Perhaps at the same tech period as dirigibles. There are some very cool cultural models out there for bi-plane fighters and even bombers.

Yeah, since 1.20 is going to involve a lot of tinkering with units and unit art, it seems like a good time to add Biplanes - and the additional helicopter unit suggested earlier.

Also consider increasing the total damage potential for aircraft -- perhaps a game changer, but aircraft should be able to sink ships? counter the ship sinking with allowing Intercepting with ships and mechanical infantry/Cannon?

More opinions on this please.

Also would like to see trenches (there are couple of nice graphics for that including pillboxes) that advanced workers could create -- perhaps acting like a fort but with a greater defensive value.

Hmm, could be an interesting improvement if we can find the right niche for it. Where have you seen such art?

Lastly, Flame throwers or chemical weapons? I know there are some models out there as well that can do this. Devastating weapons in World War I and II.

I'll have a look around and see what I can find.

And ships in port should be easier to sink, rather than impossible due to all the land units getting in the way of the bombs...

Indeed. Sadly, I'm not sure there's anything I can do to address this.

Hope I don't spoil your good mood too much but I think I found Prime Timber on an unforested square. (Mapscript: Fractal).

Ah yeah, there are two on that map. The fix I made has reduced their occurrence considerably but it looks like there's an additional cause as well; quite likely related to resource placement around start locations.

I'll investigate, but in the meantime let me know if you see any away from start locations.

 

[Skidizzle]

Yeah, since 1.20 is going to involve a lot of tinkering with units and unit art, it seems like a good time to add Biplanes - and the additional helicopter unit suggested earlier.

For Biplanes would their abilities be limited to just interception and recon? I cant think of an an example of them doing any meaningful harm to ground forces with strafing or bombing.

More opinions on this please.

Indeed. Sadly, I'm not sure there's anything I can do to address this.

With regards to planes sinking/targeting ships, I can only think of four solutions:
1) Having a naval bombing option, next to recon, strafing, and defense bombing.
2) You could now create a class of fighter/bombers that fulfill the role of targeting naval units with the chance to sink them; I know with another unit you coded it to target specific units first (i think it was a mounted unit?). If you can't code the unit to sink them maybe you could add that as a random event?
3) Make it a promotion that allows them to target/sink ships.
4) Just making it all random events.

Hmm, could be an interesting improvement if we can find the right niche for it. Where have you seen such art?

Perhaps an improvement that negates the commando upgrade, to stick it to the aggressive leaders.

Lastly, Flame throwers or chemical weapons? I know there are some models out there as well that can do this. Devastating weapons in World War I and II.

While were at that, how about extending the skirmisher unit class? maybe a sniper unit? Or making biological/chemical weapons along the same lines as Nuclear weapons, along with the corresponding UN resolutions and negative diplomatic points?

Have you given any thoughts to the UAV units?

 

[tchristensen]

For all my units I used, I found them here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=cat&id=5

I have seen some flamethrowers but would need a bit of tweaking. Modern Era category has a ton of ships, planes, armor, and the like in national colors.

 

[tchristensen]

Colonist seem very expensive? Wonder if you could make the earlier, less expensive, settlers still available? Or create a way to have settlers for particular task -- armed? faster moving? have the capacity to paradrop (I created one that I explained as being indigenous people rather than a physical movement of pioneers)?

 

[Xyth]

Colonist seem very expensive? Wonder if you could make the earlier, less expensive, settlers still available? Or create a way to have settlers for particular task -- armed? faster moving? have the capacity to paradrop (I created one that I explained as being indigenous people rather than a physical movement of pioneers)?

The AI won't understand paradropping settlers, even with the appropriate Unit AIs assigned. Stronger or faster is easy enough; in fact it would probably make sense to give Colonists better combat strength. Their high cost incorporates the cost of the buildings they create - you don't save hammers but you do save a lot of turn-time. Reducing their cost would make them too powerful.

 

[Robuzon]

Stronger or faster is easy enough; in fact it would probably make sense to give Colonists better combat strength. Their high cost incorporates the cost of the buildings they create - you don't save hammers but you do save a lot of turn-time. Reducing their cost would make them too powerful.

Adding strength would make a lot of sense. It seems a particularly good idea as it would make Colonists more valuable for mid/late-game cross-ocean expansion and the increase in military power of colonials over the course of history IRL.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Didn't mean to infer that biplanes could sink ships, but rather regular fighters (aka WWII planes)...

Tell it to the Italian Navy.

I'll have a look around and see what I can find.

The trick is that poison gas seems to be one of those weapons that kind of... cancels out, if you will. If both sides have it, it doesn't have a big net effect, aside from making combat in some areas (hot sticky places where chemical warfare suits are a burden) extra-hellish.

And for that matter, its impact is mostly tactical, not strategic- the division-sized units represented by an Infantry act pretty much the same on a map board whether gas is being used or not.

How would you implement it in a useful way?

With regards to planes sinking/targeting ships, I can only think of four solutions:
1) Having a naval bombing option, next to recon, strafing, and defense bombing.
2) You could now create a class of fighter/bombers that fulfill the role of targeting naval units with the chance to sink them; I know with another unit you coded it to target specific units first (i think it was a mounted unit?). If you can't code the unit to sink them maybe you could add that as a random event?

Such an air unit could probably be created, I assume. "Torpedo bomber" and... um, we'd need a second name for a modernish one. Or we could just hand it off to the bomber.

While were at that, how about extending the skirmisher unit class? maybe a sniper unit?

This had been discussed.

Or making biological/chemical weapons along the same lines as Nuclear weapons, along with the corresponding UN resolutions and negative diplomatic points?

Bioweapons should cause a plague mechanic (heck, might be implemented simultaneously with one). Chemical weapons, as I said above, don't really have a decisive impact on the strategic level.

 

[inasnapp]

Such an air unit could probably be created, I assume. "Torpedo bomber" and... um, we'd need a second name for a modernish one. Or we could just hand it off to the bomber.

what about a "fighter bomber" upgrades to "jet fighter bomber" not quite as good at intercepting other fighters, but better at bombing and can be based on a carrier and it can kill non air units naval and or air?

 

[Xyth]

Okay, time to focus the discussion in thread a bit. I'd like to add a few new air units in 1.20, and this will probably involve some tweaking to the existing ones. Here's the proposed additions:

• Biplane (unlocked at Flight)
• A second helicopter unit
• Drone/UAV (unlocked at Cybernetics)
​

Aviation history is not a strength of mine and I've not played the modern era near as much as I should. So I welcome detailed suggestions for names, stats, roles, etc for the above units, and any necessary changes to the existing units. I know there's been discussion of an Airship redesign before.

I don't want to go overboard on adding new air units; there just isn't enough space in the tech tree or a wide enough array of air missions to add too many in-between versions. I don't wish to disportionately expand the modern era like many other mods do. We're effectively looking at 3 groups: WW1 era, WW2 era, and the Jet era. However if you think there is a clear role and space for an additional unit, feel free to propose it.

 

[Simon_Jester]

what about a "fighter bomber" upgrades to "jet fighter bomber" not quite as good at intercepting other fighters, but better at bombing and can be based on a carrier and it can kill non air units naval and or air?

I suggest a name like "Strike Fighter." And, sure.

Hmmm.

OK, the current status quo is:

Fighter/Bomber
to
Jet Fighter/Stealth Bomber/Gunship

with the Stealth Bomber being the part that shows up in the 'future.'

I suggest the following:

WWI:
Biplane/Airship
The biplane is a weak fighter, the airship a weak bomber.

WWII:
Fighter/Bomber/(Dive Bomber)
Dive Bomber is optional; meant to represent light bombers which are effective against ships and ground targets, but vulnerable in air combat.

Modern:
Jet Fighter/Gunship/Air Cavalry
The Bomber is kept in place (we might want to use a B-52 graphic for bombers instead of a WWII prop plane), but the helicopter units appear. "Air Cavalry" is more like a highly mobile infantry unit, while "Gunship" remains a tankbuster.

Future:
Stealth Bomber/UAV
The Stealth Bomber is an upgrade to the existing bomber; the UAV has its own role(s).

 

[inasnapp]

might the UAV be focused on causing collateral damage to unit stacks, making it an ideal tactical bomber while the stealth bomber will do more damage to cities and improvements focusing it as a strategic bomber?

 

[lindsay40k]

I think a promotion that removes damage caps & enables kills on Naval targets would be my preferred way to account for bombs sinking ships. Would 'Divebomb' be an appropriate name for it? Would the AI be able to get its head around it?

 

[Xyth]

I've been talking about swapping the roles of the Longbowman and Crossbowman for a while now, but I've decided 1.20 is finally the time to do it, with all these new UUs being added. Here's my proposed changes to these two units, plus another couple that are affected as well:


Crossbowman
• Strength: 6
• Move: 1
• Cost: 50
• 1 first strike
• +25% city defense
• +25% hills defense

The Crossbowman becomes the medieval city defender, with the exact same stats that the Longbowman has had until now. I think this makes sense, as the power of crossbows was that anyone could be quickly trained to use them effectively, while longbows were much more specialized in their role and difficult to master. And, from what I've read, longbows were more commonly used out in the field or in offensive actions than they were in defending cities anyway.


Longbowman
• Str: 6
• Move: 1
• Cost: 60
• 1 first strike
• Collateral Damage (25% to 2 extra units)
• 25% withdrawal chance
• +25% hills attack

The Longbowman becomes an offensive unit, dropping the defensive stats but picking up some collateral damage, a withdrawal chance, and a niche for attacking hills - effectively the medieval equivalent of the Skirmisher. I think this fits its historical role much better.


Skirmisher
• Strength: 4
• Move: 1
• Cost: 30
• 1 first strike
• Collateral Damage (25% to 2 extra units)
• 25% withdrawal chance

I've also made some changes to the Skirmisher as well. It now unlocks in the early classical era (requiring Employment and Leather Working). Strength is increased and withdrawal chance is reduced (largely because it was possible via promotions to have 100% withdrawal chance). Cost is increased to better match its new era, though it remains a relatively cheap, resourceless unit.

A few aspects to my rationale here. Firstly I felt that the Skirmisher wasn't particular useful for the type of warfare one engages in the ancient era (on the shorter gamespeeds at least). Secondly, it shifts another unit away from the 'military line' along the top of the tech tree, and there are already plenty of units unlocked in the ancient era. And finally, it allows me scope to make more interesting UU variants of it.


Horse Archer
• Strength: 6
• Move: 2
• Cost: 70
• Immune to first strikes
• Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
• +50% vs Melee
• 30% chance to withdraw

With the Crossbowman's role changing, this leaves the anti-melee role up to the Horse Archer alone. I'm thus considering replacing the somewhat confusing 'target first' mechanic with the straight-forward +50% vs Melee bonus from the Crossbowman. This does mean that Horse Archers are no longer countered by Spearmen, but this will be balanced by no longer being able to avoid their other counters when attacking stacks.

I'm also contemplating an alternative with 8 strength and +25% Melee bonus.

Crossbowmen never saw a lot of use in BTS single player as Longbowmen did their job better in cities and they lacked the speed and survivability to effectively intercept stacks out in the field. I think these swaps and changes overcome this.

Anyway, let me know your thoughts.

 

[ShummaAwilum]

Longbowman
• Str: 6
• Move: 1
• Cost: 60
• 1 first strike
• Collateral Damage (25% to 2 extra units)
• 25% withdrawal chance
• +25% hills attack

The Longbowman becomes an offensive unit, dropping the defensive stats but picking up some collateral damage, a withdrawal chance, and a niche for attacking hills - effectively the medieval equivalent of the Skirmisher. I think this fits its historical role much better.

I like the idea of a bonus for attacking a certain terrain type. Is there any chance this could be expanded to other units as well (besides city-attack promotions and terrain attack promotions that are several levels up)? An over-abundance of defense-only bonuses makes attacking stacks almost impossible without units causing collateral damage.

 

[lindsay40k]

I like Longbows being priced to reflect the fact that the soldiers took more to produce. I have a suggestion: instead of the LB requiring fewer hammers than the CB, what if Longbows were cheaper to build, but always cost the full 'field' rate of maintenance even if they're within home cultural borders?

This would represent the higher 'material' cost of a crossbow that requires ores and coal and smelting and such, whilst accounting for the higher ongoing cost of having to keep longbow archers trained as opposed to being able to quickly train any fit man with steady hands to be a reasonably effective CB user. The men who use crossbows in war can spend less peacetime practicing and more time being economically active.

If this is do-able, perhaps very strong UUs could have a similar 'elite' rule that sees them consume more peacetime upkeep than the grunts with day jobs.

 

[Boggy]

(largely because it was possible via promotions to have 100% withdrawal chance)

Really? I doubt that. Guerilla III adds 50% withdrawal chance, yes - but as a skirmisher would have 100% withdrawal chance then, he cannot receive it. I think no unit can gain more than 80% (not sure about the exact value) withdrawal chance by promotions.
What would you think of enabling the flanking promotion for archery units? Skirmishers and longbowmen will die very often in offense if they only have 25% withdrawal chance, I think. And I doubt they should, should they? That's a bit like catapults dying in combat...

But I like the general idea of that.

 

[Nightstar]

Will the "skirmisher" line be continued into the Renaissance/Industrial eras with the Grenadier?

 

[Xyth]

I like the idea of a bonus for attacking a certain terrain type. Is there any chance this could be expanded to other units as well (besides city-attack promotions and terrain attack promotions that are several levels up)? An over-abundance of defense-only bonuses makes attacking stacks almost impossible without units causing collateral damage.

Any suggestions? Hill bonuses make sense for some units but there's no obvious associations for other terrain types that I can see. I agree that terrain defensive bonuses cab be too easy to obtain in comparison to terrain attack bonuses. I might have a go at redistributing the Guerrilla, Woodsman, and Nomad promotion bonuses a little.

I like Longbows being priced to reflect the fact that the soldiers took more to produce. I have a suggestion: instead of the LB requiring fewer hammers than the CB, what if Longbows were cheaper to build, but always cost the full 'field' rate of maintenance even if they're within home cultural borders?

Not easy to implement and creates a lot of balance issues. I'd prefer to not go there as it has far reaching balance implications.

Really? I doubt that. Guerilla III adds 50% withdrawal chance, yes - but as a skirmisher would have 100% withdrawal chance then, he cannot receive it. I think no unit can gain more than 80% (not sure about the exact value) withdrawal chance by promotions.

Hmm, there might be an internal hard cap. I'll investigate. I've seen screenshots of 110% withdrawal subs, but I'm uncertain whether they had that in practice and not just the UI.

What would you think of enabling the flanking promotion for archery units? Skirmishers and longbowmen will die very often in offense if they only have 25% withdrawal chance, I think. And I doubt they should, should they? That's a bit like catapults dying in combat...

Flanking promotions for Archery units is a good idea. I could just tone down the Guerrilla III promotion to 30% withdrawal, avoid the problem altogether and leave more room to work with. Or I could strengthen the Skirmisher and Longbowman more. Will think about it.

Will the "skirmisher" line be continued into the Renaissance/Industrial eras with the Grenadier?

Yes, I think the Grenadier would fit into the scheme quite well. Haven't tried anything yet, but I will.