Feedback: Units

[Howard Mahler]

In the new version, Privateers when available and some time afterwards are the strongest naval unit and the only combat ship able to go in oceans.

I was the first to Privateers in the game I am playing, and had a lot of fun using Privateers, to kill lots and lots of dromon of an obnoxious AI neighbor. (Galleas is stronger than Dromon but is still weaker than Privateer.) While fun to do once, it is unbalanced.

I do not think there was ever a time when Privateers out gunned the top naval ships of advanced countries. They were designed to take on merchant ships or less than fully protected convoys. (They also attacked colonial outposts.) They were not meant to take on war fleets.

I think it would be better for game purposes as well as historical simulation to revise this.

I would put privateers back with the same tech as frigates.

If one wanted to one could also introduce an earlier weaker ship similar to the Privateer, but without its ocean going capability. Could perhaps be called pirate. If available with Charter, could be strength 6 or maybe 7 compared to Galleas at 8. Would promote to Privateer.

The sentry promotion and the masking of nationality are a very good concept, but not when they are on a ship that is stronger than anything else at the same tech level.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Bizarre! I haven't made any changes to the Bomber that I'm aware of. I shall investigate.

Well, if you bomb anything and it suddenly gains eight million times as much health as it had before, warn me, OK?

If one wanted to one could also introduce an earlier weaker ship similar to the Privateer, but without its ocean going capability. Could perhaps be called pirate. If available with Charter, could be strength 6 or maybe 7 compared to Galleas at 8. Would promote to Privateer.

The sentry promotion and the masking of nationality are a very good concept, but not when they are on a ship that is stronger than anything else at the same tech level.

Great idea- a medieval pre-Privateer, which would upgrade to the standard one. I suggest the name "Corsair," as in Barbary corsairs.

 

[Xyth]

In the new version, Privateers when available and some time afterwards are the strongest naval unit and the only combat ship able to go in oceans.

Yeah, I've misjudged Privateers a bit. I've got a few changes in mind that I think will help:

• Lower Privateer strength to 9
• Make Galleons available at Charter (instead of Optics)
• Make Frigates available at Optics (instead of Meteorology)
• Make Ship of the Lines available at Meteorology (instead of Physics)
• Change the Galleass to have +50% coastal defense (instead of coastal attack)​

I think this will bring the Privateer a bit more in line. They'll still be able to attack Galleons and Dromon without difficulty but Galleass and Frigates will be much stronger counters against them, especially with Frigates being available around the same time. This proposal would also make the Age of Sail as a whole last a little longer which is always a good thing in my opinion. Finally, the Galleass would now have a much more viable role as a useful coastal defense unit.

Let me know what you think.

If one wanted to one could also introduce an earlier weaker ship similar to the Privateer, but without its ocean going capability. Could perhaps be called pirate. If available with Charter, could be strength 6 or maybe 7 compared to Galleas at 8. Would promote to Privateer.

Yes, I think this is an excellent idea and I'll see if I can find some appropriate art. Assuming the scheme detailed above works, my initial thoughts are to make it available with Guilds and strength 5 so that it is evenly matched against the Dromon but can still defeat Caravels, Cogs and anything earlier with ease. I'd also probably give it a decent withdrawal chance so it could at least escape a Galleass once they're around.

Great idea- a medieval pre-Privateer, which would upgrade to the standard one. I suggest the name "Corsair," as in Barbary corsairs.

I like the name Corsair but ultimately Pirate is more universal. I realize that most of the naval lineup have European/Mediterranean definitions but where appropriate broader terms exist I'd still like to use them.

Well, if you bomb anything and it suddenly gains eight million times as much health as it had before, warn me, OK?

Hmm, I'm not seeing the crazy percentage anywhere. Where did you see it exactly?

 

[Howard Mahler]

Proposed changes would be a big improvement.

One thing to recognize is that the Privateer will still have the edge of being able to go in the ocean. So until Frigates are available, Galleons who end their turn in oceans will be very vulnerable. (Due to the combat system, there is no way to attack a Galleon while passing through the ocean if it starts and ends its turn in coastal squares. An intercept command for ships would be very useful!)

Also, until Frigates are available, Privateers can lurk in the ocean, attack ships not in the ocean, and retreat back into the ocean to heal up.

Not really a fan of a coastal bonus for Galleas, either on attack or defense.
I believe they are strength 8 and Frigate is strength 12.
Thus a 50% bonus for Galleas makes them the match of a Frigate (on only attack or defense but not both.)

I think strength 8 Galleas without a bonus would be fine.
Privateers at 9 would only be a little stronger.
Maybe a 25% bonus versus Privateers (and Pirates) would help.

In any case, in my opinion, a 25% bonus (either attack or defense but not both) would work better for Galleas than the current 50% bonus.

Obviously, all of the above is my opinion.

Yeah, I've misjudged Privateers a bit. I've got a few changes in mind that I think will help:

• Lower Privateer strength to 9
• Make Galleons available at Charter (instead of Optics)
• Make Frigates available at Optics (instead of Meteorology)
• Make Ship of the Lines available at Meteorology (instead of Physics)
• Change the Galleass to have +50% coastal defense (instead of coastal attack)​

I think this will bring the Privateer a bit more in line. They'll still be able to attack Galleons and Dromon without difficulty but Galleass and Frigates will be much stronger counters against them, especially with Frigates being available around the same time. This proposal would also make the Age of Sail as a whole last a little longer which is always a good thing in my opinion. Finally, the Galleass would now have a much more viable role as a useful coastal defense unit.

Let me know what you think.



Yes, I think this is an excellent idea and I'll see if I can find some appropriate art. Assuming the scheme detailed above works, my initial thoughts are to make it available with Guilds and strength 5 so that it is evenly matched against the Dromon but can still defeat Caravels, Cogs and anything earlier with ease. I'd also probably give it a decent withdrawal chance so it could at least escape a Galleass once they're around.



I like the name Corsair but ultimately Pirate is more universal. I realize that most of the naval lineup have European/Mediterranean definitions but where appropriate broader terms exist I'd still like to use them.



Hmm, I'm not seeing the crazy percentage anywhere. Where did you see it exactly?

 

[Howard Mahler]

There was discussion of allowing workers to be settled in cities as specialists,
perhaps after the proper tech is discovered.
Apparently this change was not made for 0.9.5.

Was this something you decided not to do, or was this an oversight?

By the way, draining wetlands gives workers something to do in the middle of the game. Good addition.

 

[Xyth]

There was discussion of allowing workers to be settled in cities as specialists,
perhaps after the proper tech is discovered.
Apparently this change was not made for 0.9.5.

Was this something you decided not to do, or was this an oversight?

Workers can't but Labourers can. Once you've discovered Railroad you can upgrade your Workers to Labourers and settle them as citizen specialists.

 

[Xyth]

Another small change I'm going to make in 0.9.6:

• Ocean trade will shift forward to Compass from Meteorology
• The free trade route at Compass will shift later to Meteorology​

This swap will mean that you could trade with the civilizations that your caravels discover straight away. I think this will make things progress a bit more smoothly in the middle eras.

I've also had an idea on how to code an 'Earlier Oceanic Travel' option, for those that don't mind being a bit ahistorical. Haven't tried it yet but I'll let you know how I get on.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Can anyone think of a reason why my Dromons can't do blockade orders in the coastal waters of a nation I'm at war with?

I don't seem to be able to pillage either, but I KNOW I'm at war with these guys.

 

[Xyth]

I just checked and that's an oversight on my part. Dromon's don't seem to have their pillage tag set. I'm not certain but I think that same tag also controls blockades. And it seems I've accidentally set them to not require any upkeep instead. Whoops.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Any chance you could fix the entry in that one file, so those of us with the game can swap out the bug for the fix?

 

[Xyth]

Any chance you could fix the entry in that one file, so those of us with the game can swap out the bug for the fix?

Attached.

Note that this file also has some of the other changes I discuss above (changed tech requirements for Galleons/Frigates/SotL, altered Privateer and Galleass stats). Even without those additional changes this particular file is very likely to break saved game compatibility so don't install it until you start a new game.

It replaces /History Rewritten/Assets/XML/Units/CIV4UnitInfos.xml

 

[Simon_Jester]

On the subject of changes to Marines and Infantry:

I think that Marines get a certain amount of unfair superiority from Civ IV because the game designers are Americans, and the US Marines have successfully presented themselves as the troops who really know how to fight. In reality, it's a bit complicated.

Marines historically (in the WWI-WWII-Cold War era) train for intense close combat, shock tactics, and an emphasis on the 'cult of war,' extreme elan and determination to carry out the mission even if it costs the unit heavily to accomplish it. This is very helpful for a unit that's being assigned to storm fortified coastal bunkers, where "take that beach" really is worth literally wading into machine gun fire and taking thousands of casualties.

What the Marines lack, and have always lacked, is the organizational structure to operate in large numbers at once (say, 100000 men), heavy equipment, and the doctrine to use it. Marines are poorly suited for a prolonged land campaign, or one that involves a lot of highly mobile warfare and fast overland movement.

Notably, the same essential strengths and weaknesses hold for most other 'elite' infantry forces (like airborne divisions). In popular media, they're often made out to be the supermen of the nation's armed forces, but in reality they're just another kind of grunt with a different emphasis and training, and one which would perform quite badly if called upon to do the things that other parts of the military do as a matter of routine. Because those other missions are things they're not trained for. Marines may be trained to fix bayonets and dig the enemy out of a trench network where the Army would say "when the going gets tough, the tough call for artillery support," but sometimes calling artillery support is a smarter and more efficient way to clear the trenches and wading in blood-and-guts style.

Because of all this, I oppose anything that tends to make Marines the 'default super troops' who are inherently so much tougher and better than Infantry that you'd want to build them even for a land campaign.

Just a thought.

 

[Xyth]

Bringing together all the discussion about Marines, their role and whether they should be the upgrade of the Infantry:

*** In an early game I played with this mod, I was just learning and I found that the promotion infantry-marine is problematic. I like very much the marine in your mod because it becomes finally useful, and I like of course to promote a strong infantry to a marine unit but, in the same time, there's something that doesn't work in this dynamics. The specificity of both units is kind of lost.

And talking about units, I think infantry should be way less expensive than the marine (this is the advantage) but the marine should come with some more bonuses (what would make a real difference is that promotion that gives you the power to walk into enemy territory). Infantry and marines become redundant when armies become professional. But still today there is in many countries a difference between normal infantry and special troops (like marines). If you transform the marines in kind of "early helicopters", they become very important units, very powerful for raids, blitzkrieg etc... (and, of course for amphibious attacks - if only that silly thing of amphibious attack of tanks would stop! - actually I always missed the logic in this choice of developers, it takes away all the thrill of a "Normandy Landing")... and, in the same time, infantry remains the main unit for defense (cheap but strong) and/or for modern wars (with conscription armies).

On the subject of changes to Marines and Infantry:

I think that Marines get a certain amount of unfair superiority from Civ IV because the game designers are Americans, and the US Marines have successfully presented themselves as the troops who really know how to fight. In reality, it's a bit complicated.

Marines historically (in the WWI-WWII-Cold War era) train for intense close combat, shock tactics, and an emphasis on the 'cult of war,' extreme elan and determination to carry out the mission even if it costs the unit heavily to accomplish it. This is very helpful for a unit that's being assigned to storm fortified coastal bunkers, where "take that beach" really is worth literally wading into machine gun fire and taking thousands of casualties.

What the Marines lack, and have always lacked, is the organizational structure to operate in large numbers at once (say, 100000 men), heavy equipment, and the doctrine to use it. Marines are poorly suited for a prolonged land campaign, or one that involves a lot of highly mobile warfare and fast overland movement.

Notably, the same essential strengths and weaknesses hold for most other 'elite' infantry forces (like airborne divisions). In popular media, they're often made out to be the supermen of the nation's armed forces, but in reality they're just another kind of grunt with a different emphasis and training, and one which would perform quite badly if called upon to do the things that other parts of the military do as a matter of routine. Because those other missions are things they're not trained for. Marines may be trained to fix bayonets and dig the enemy out of a trench network where the Army would say "when the going gets tough, the tough call for artillery support," but sometimes calling artillery support is a smarter and more efficient way to clear the trenches and wading in blood-and-guts style.

Because of all this, I oppose anything that tends to make Marines the 'default super troops' who are inherently so much tougher and better than Infantry that you'd want to build them even for a land campaign.

Modern warfare is not strong area of knowledge for me and I confess that I've been basically treating the Marine as the modern soldier, the sort of troops that we see on TV in Iraq and Afghanistan and in UN peacekeeping corps. Better weaponry than the WW1 and WW2 infantry, better body armour, but field communications being the most significant improvement. I didn't realize they had a specific history and role. Perhaps I've blurred them a bit with Mechanized Infantry? Anyway, this is how the 3 units currently look in HR:


Infantry
Requires Labour Unions
• Strength: 20
• Move: 1
• Cost: 140
• +25% vs Gunpowder units
• Can upgrade to Mechanized Infantry or Marine

Marine
Requires Globalization
• Strength: 24
• Move: 1
• Cost: 160
• +50% attack vs Machine Gun
• +50% attack vs Artillery
• Starts with Amphibious

Mechanized Infantry
Requires Composites
Requires Oil
• Strength: 32
• Move: 2
• Cost: 200
• 20% chance to intercept Aircraft
• Starts with March

I'm happy with where they each appear in the tree, but other than that, what would you recommend changing?

 

[Simon_Jester]

Well, this is basically how they work in the original game, and it's all right really; the point is that Marines are not just "super-infantry." That role goes to the Mechanized Infantry, who have enough physical combat strength that they make Marines a bit superfluous.

(Note that Mechanized Infantry units are represented by a vehicle, but in real life a mechanized infantry unit will dismount from its armored personnel carriers before going into close combat, with the APCs providing fire support with their machine guns and missile launchers).

Marine vs. Infantry is pretty much a tie, in that the Infantry's bonus against gunpowder units cancels out the Marine's greater strength. But the Marine has the specialties of free Amphibious promotion (you kept that, right?) and the attack bonuses against ground units. And Marines will be better on attack and defense against units that aren't gunpowder- tanks, artillery, helicopters, and so on. So the Marine is arguably the stronger unit, but it isn't automatically superior in all situations, and it doesn't actually replace the Infantry any more than it does in Vanilla Civ IV.

That's how I'd set it up, and I think you've got it about right by just keeping the arrangement from Civ IV unchanged- assuming that Marines DO still have the free Amphibious promotion.

The only thing I want to point out is that you must take care not to make Marines available so late that the units they're intended to counter are nearly obsolete. If Artillery upgrades to Self-Propelled Artillery and Machine Guns upgrade to Mechanized Infantry (or whatever) shortly after Marines become available, their usefulness in battle is reduced.

______________________

EDIT: To clarify, modern infantry with body armor, advanced communication, plenty of antitank weapons available to the troops, and tougher vehicle support would be represented by Mechanized Infantry. Marines represent something like the US Marine Corps of the Second World War and the early to mid-Cold War, up through the Vietnam era, or possibly things like Soviet Guard divisions: elite infantry who (in-game) happen to be good at amphibious warfare.

However, while Infantry can plausibly represent the infantry of the First World War, Marines as we see them in-game would date to the 1940s and later. So their capabilities represent something of a midpoint between the doughboys who fought on the Western Front and the infantry of today in Iraqistan.

 

[tchristensen]

I am unsure if others have noted this or posted a comment on it, but last night's game I noticed the barbarians building far too many aimless workers. Is this with purpose? My only thoughts is that it perhaps related to indigenous peoples of the area that really did not represent any military significance.

 

[Xyth]

I am unsure if others have noted this or posted a comment on it, but last night's game I noticed the barbarians building far too many aimless workers. Is this with purpose? My only thoughts is that it perhaps related to indigenous peoples of the area that really did not represent any military significance.

I've not made any changes that would affect that as far as I'm aware. Perhaps some of them are captured workers?

 

[Caesar Augustus]

I wonder, then, if there shouldn't be some sort of "Modern Marine" unit to represent the continuing distinction between standard infantry and units with amphibious assault capabilities. It's not like the world's militaries have simply given up on the concept of invasion by sea, and I'm not sure how well these units would be represented by Mechanized Infantry with the Amphibious promotion. Perhaps give it less power than a Mech Inf but compensate with free Amphibious promotion and maybe a bonus on attack, Blitz, or something like that.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, I don't think that's a great idea. It's questionable whether invasions of a fortified coastline are practical in modern warfare, where by and large the massive carnage associated with such assaults during the World Wars is not accepted, and where things like guided missiles have made it all the more dangerous to bring vast numbers of ships and landing craft close in by a beach.

So I'd skip the "Modern Marine" unit, myself. With enough air support, Marines should usually be able to force a landing in their own right anyway.

 

[Caesar Augustus]

I would imagine that, were the two sides of a modern war reasonably equally equipped, they would resign themselves to that level of carnage eventually, assuming neither went nuclear. Luckily there hasn't been a military conflict between decently strong militaries since the Korean War, so it's hard to say one way or the other. That's the thing about modern warfare, we haven't really HAD very much of it, and what we've had have mostly been one-sided struggles, police actions, and occupations. The only conflicts I can think of which might qualify as wars between 2 militaries with modern arms are the more-recent scuffles between India and Pakistan and the Falklands War. Nothing large-scale by any stretch of the imagination. Which, again, is a great thing for us, but pretty bad if we're trying to simulate what would happen in a modern conflict between major powers. I, for one, wouldn't rule out a unit on the idea that a modern commander would hesitate to actually use it.

I think it's probably wiser to look, instead, at what militaries actually ARE doing. All the best ones, the ones with a desire to project their power at a distance and the kind of navy and air force to allow it, continue to train Marines. These marines are equipped with weapons and, perhaps most importantly, specialized landing vehicles far, far superior to anything that was available in the era of the Korean and Vietnam Wars. IMO, these units had ought to be represented, and I don't think an Amphibious-promoted Mechanized Infantry is the way to do it. A Modern Marine, with Amphibious, perhaps 30 strength, a bonus on attack, and only 1 move would, I think, be a nice addition.

 

[Keinpferd]

The only conflicts I can think of which might qualify as wars between 2 militaries with modern arms are the more-recent scuffles between India and Pakistan and the Falklands War. Nothing large-scale by any stretch of the imagination.

You forgot the First (Iraq-Iran) Gulf War. They had access to advanced weaponry and delivered a lot of empiric evidence to how at that time new weapon systems were doing in reality.

I think it's probably wiser to look, instead, at what militaries actually ARE doing. All the best ones, the ones with a desire to project their power at a distance and the kind of navy and air force to allow it, continue to train Marines. These marines are equipped with weapons and, perhaps most importantly, specialized landing vehicles far, far superior to anything that was available in the era of the Korean and Vietnam Wars. IMO, these units had ought to be represented, and I don't think an Amphibious-promoted Mechanized Infantry is the way to do it. A Modern Marine, with Amphibious, perhaps 30 strength, a bonus on attack, and only 1 move would, I think, be a nice addition.

I agree. Maybe there is something in the BTS stone-paper-scissors arsenal, that could be well applied on modern Marines and make their role distinct from other infantry?