Feedback: Units

[Howard Mahler]

Seems like the change to Cruisers and Destroyers works well.
I think it would be slightly better in the game if Cruisers were available just a little later than Destroyers.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Seems like the change to Cruisers and Destroyers works well.
I think it would be slightly better in the game if Cruisers were available just a little later than Destroyers.

Why?

Remember, cruisers are supposed to be the main naval combat unit of their era- the direct replacement for frigates and ironclads. They replace the destroyer's role as a main line naval combatant, and get more or less the destroyer's old stat line. Meanwhile, destroyers become specialist units, designed to scout, hunt submarines and protect fleets from air attack.

I don't think we need to always automatically make every 'stronger' naval unit available later than every 'weaker' unit. Historically, clearly recognizable cruiser and battleship types emerged much earlier than anything we'd now classify as a 'destroyer.'

Cruisers have a defined tactical role that evolved directly out of the Age of Sail- they cruise, in the military sense, moving long distances and fighting independently to achieve objectives across a far-flung territory.. Battleships have a defined role that evolved the same way- they fight battles, slugging it out with the enemy's toughest forces wherever they may be needed.

Destroyers were invented to counter specific threats which undermined the ability of cruisers and battleships to do their jobs.

To attack with a unit you move it into the enemy position, there is a battle and one of the units is defeated or the attacker retreats. This makes perfect sense for most units, it feel intuitive. But not for ranged siege weapons which are supposed to be immobile. In BTS this feels ridiculous because it's as if you just rolled your trebuchet into the enemy lines (or at least out front of your lines) and started firing away until the enemy eventually destroyed it. This is where the 'suicide siege' moniker comes from. Ranged siege feel like they should behave differently to other units but they don't.

Civ is a strategic-level simulator. Battles that take days to fight over areas of miles, or even entire campaigns, can boil down to a single exchange of combat between units over one turn. And this simulation and the graphics impose some unrealism. Riflemen don't physically march up to guys with swords and have it out with them at a distance only slightly greater than the length of their gun barrel, but the game shows them doing exactly that.

In and of itself, I don't think it's reasonable to say that we need inter-tile ranged attacks to provide an intuitive model for how artillery works in combat. My intuition certainly doesn't need it.

Especially since, frankly, the trebuchet is practically the only 'immobile' unit in the game. All the other siege units represent stuff that can be physically moved during combat without undue difficulty. Saying all siege units should behave strategically the way you expect trebuchets to behave tactically doesn't seem reasonable.

Crossbowman should indeed be the medieval city defender and not Longbowmen. Longbowmen should be an offensive units, harrying armies out in the field and possibly even assisting city sieges. In other words, they make much more sense as the Medieval equivalent of the Skirmisher/Javelineer. To use a longbow (or other powerful type of bow) required a lot of strength, training and skill. Crossbows on the other hand were deadly with minimal training, the ideal weapon for equipping the peasantry.

The Crossbowman can get the Longbowman's stats and the Longbowman can be redesigned more along the lines of the current Skirmisher with some collateral damage and withdrawal chance. The Archer can stay as is.

All right, but I think longbowmen should be a bit more powerful.

Skirmishers at Strength 2 have basically zero chance of winning on the attack against Bronze Age or later units, and effectively zero chance of surviving a defensive battle. I think Longbowmen's strength should increase beyond that baseline, to where they can protect themselves somewhat, when standing in good terrain- say, about Strength 4 or 5. Industrial and modern age skirmisher-types should be considerably stronger than that, as well- I'd say about Strength 10 and 18 would be right.

 

[Xyth]

Okay, I've been experimenting and testing ranged combat options over the last few days. It seems that some modifiers apply to them and some don't, and while the AI seems to understand them well enough with the right UnitAI scripts there are still some significant strategic shortcomings, particularly away from cities. We can possibly make it work but it's going to require changes on a much wider scale than I ever intended. Thus my verdict is that ranged combat is not worth the hassle, at least at this time.

So lets use Azoth's Option A (no ranged combat, high withdrawal chance for siege) as our base for further discussion and development.

All right, but I think longbowmen should be a bit more powerful.

Yes. The Skirmisher needs reworking, we can look at it,the Longbowman, and any other potential skirmisher-like candidates as the same time.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Upping Skirmisher to Strength 3 might be pushing it, since they'll also have to be balanced against Archers and Warriors in the 'Stone Age' portion of the game. But Longbowmen will be duking it out with units that are, at a minimum, Strength 6 (up to 8 or 10). They need to be at 4 or 5 just to have some credible ability to make a dent in their targets, let alone to stand a chance of surviving on the defense.

 

[Howard Mahler]

To be specific, let us focus on Catapults.
(I would suggest, this is a very good place to start.)

A possibility for discussion:
1. No bombardment. (Assuming bombardment is available with other units.)
2. No collateral damage. (Assuming collateral damage is either not available this early in the game or if it is available this early it is available for other units.)
3. A 1/3 chance of withdrawal. (I would have the chance of withdrawal be higher for similar units later in the game.)

On item #2, it is possible that one could have an advanced promotion that would allow some collateral damage (if this were programable.)
On item #3, it makes sense to have promotions available that increase the chance of withdrawal.

Other worthwhile promotions would be city raider. Maybe they can even start with city raider 1.

Whatever the final version of Catapults, one would then have to balance the base combat strength and the cost in hammers, in order to make it a worthwhile but not overpowered unit for its era.

Okay, I've been experimenting and testing ranged combat options over the last few days. It seems that some modifiers apply to them and some don't, and while the AI seems to understand them well enough with the right UnitAI scripts there are still some significant strategic shortcomings, particularly away from cities. We can possibly make it work but it's going to require changes on a much wider scale than I ever intended. Thus my verdict is that ranged combat is not worth the hassle, at least at this time.

So lets use Azoth's Option A (no ranged combat, high withdrawal chance for siege) as our base for further discussion and development.



Yes. The Skirmisher needs reworking, we can look at it,the Longbowman, and any other potential skirmisher-like candidates as the same time.

 

[Xyth]

Okay, here's my thoughts on Siege units, based on Azoth's Option A and comments so far.

Siege Units

Battering Ram
- 3 strength, can only defend, 8% bombard

Siege Tower
- 6 strength, can only defend, 16% bombard

Catapult
- 4 strength, collateral damage (50% max, 3 units), +50% city attack and defense, 75% withdrawal chance

Trebuchet
- 4 strength, collateral damage (50% max, 3 units), +100% city attack and defense, 75% withdrawal chance

Bombard
- 5 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +100% city attack and defense, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance

Cannon
- 9 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +33% city attack and defense, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance

Artillery
- 16 strength, collateral damage, (70% max, 5 units), +25% city attack and defense, 16% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance

Mobile Artillery
- 20 strength, 2 move, collateral damage (70% max, 5 units), +25% city attack and defense, 16% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance​

Things in Common

• Cannot capture cities or units
• Do not receive defensive bonuses (cannot fortify)
• Are no longer immune to collateral damage
• Promotions available: Accuracy, Barrage, City Garrison, City Raider, Drill​

Comments

• We can keep the collateral damage limits higher because the number of units affected is significantly lower (halved or close to it)
• Also, no modifiers apply to collateral damage calculations except Barrage promotions
• Starting with the Bombard, siege units can do both collateral damage and bombardment
• Starting with the Cannon, later siege units get progressively better away from cities
• Siege units are give AI scripts that encourage defensive use as well as offensive (but not Ram/Tower obviously)
• Walls are reduced to -25% bombard defense (from -50%)
• I haven't defined production costs yet but in HR they're currently a lot higher than in BTS
• I haven't added a Ballista at this time (is there a niche for it?)
• Should (some) siege units be capturable?​

I'll give my thoughts on Skirmishers/Longbowmen/etc after we've got Siege sorted.

 

[Azoth]

On the whole, I much prefer this implementation of Siege units.
(I cannot say I will miss ranged attacks one bit.)
However, I think your proposal makes Siege units too strong:

• Catapults (4 + 50% city defense) are better city defenders than Archers (3 + 50% city defense), even without the fortification bonus.
  Catapults (4 + 50% city attack, 75% withdrawal) are also better city raiders than Swordsman (6 + 10% city attack, 0% withdrawal).
• Trebuchets (4 + 100% city defense) are better city defenders than Longbowman (6 + 25% city defense), even without the fortification bonus.
  Trebuchets (4 + 100% city attack, 75% withdrawal) are also better city raiders than Maceman (8, 0% withdrawal).
• Bombards (5 + 100% city attack/defense, 75% withdrawal) are both better city defenders and better city raiders than Musketmen (9, 0% withdrawal, no City Raider promotions).
• In general, players will be encouraged to build a massive stack of Siege units and conquer the world on the strength of that 75% withdrawal chance, using a few stack defenders as token support.
  This is a problem with the original Option A as well.

For the sake of balance, I would remove the city defense bonus from early Siege units. (That leaves the perfect niche for Ballistae.)
I would also disable City Garrison promotions. Siege units will still be useful on defense: they can damage an incoming stack and then retreat to a city to heal.
Finally, I would limit the maximum attack damage of Siege units, as in BtS. That way, Siege units cannot kill enemy units outright; they must have infantry or cavalry support.
Consider:

Option D

Siege Units

Battering Ram
- 3 strength, can only defend, 8% bombard​

Siege Ram
- Assyrian unique unit, replaces Battering Ram
- 4 strength, can only defend, immune to first strikes, 12% bombard​

Siege Tower
- 6 strength, can only defend, 16% bombard​

Catapult
- 4 strength, collateral damage (50% max, 3 units), +50% city attack, 75% withdrawal chance​

Trebuchet
- 4 strength, collateral damage (50% max, 3 units), +100% city attack, 75% withdrawal chance​

Ballista (new unit)
- 4 strength, can only defend, +100% city defense, immune to collateral damage (can only take Drill promotions)​

Bombard
- 5 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +100% city attack, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance, can be captured​

Hwacha
- Korean unique unit, replaces Bombard
- 5 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +100% city attack, +50% vs. Melee units, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance​

Cannon
- 8 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +50% city attack and defense, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance, can be captured​

Siege Elephant
- Indian unique unit, replaces Cannon, requires Elephant
- 8 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +50% city attack and defense, +50% vs. Mounted units, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance, free Woodsman II promotion​

Artillery
- 16 strength, collateral damage, (70% max, 5 units), +25% city attack and defense, 16% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance, can be captured​

Mobile Artillery
- 20 strength, 2 move, collateral damage (70% max, 5 units), +25% city attack and defense, 16% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance, can be captured​

Things in Common

• 90% maximum damage on attack
• Cannot capture cities or units
• Do not receive defensive bonuses (cannot fortify)
• Are no longer immune to collateral damage
• Promotions available: Accuracy, Barrage, City Raider, Drill (cannot take City Garrison or March)

Comments

• For Cannons, 8 +50% instead of 9 +33% makes for smoother rounding, when you factor in City Raider promotions and enemy defense bonuses. Likewise, for the Assyrian Siege Ram, 12% bombard instead of 10% bombard makes for smoother rounding when you factor in Walls and Castles.
• Ideally, the Hwacha would be unlocked slightly earlier than Bombards, so that its bonus to Melee units could see some use.
• The Elephant resource should be required for Siege Elephants. On random maps, an Indian player might not have a chance to build them; but the same can be said for the Thai and Khmer UUs. I would also give Siege Elephants the Woodman II promotion so they can double-move through jungle. As is stands, they get a free Mobility promotion, which is useless, since they have only 1 movement point.
• I suggested that Siege units be vulnerable to capture in order to balance out ranged attacks. That is no longer necessary. I also worry that it might be too easy to "farm" Siege units from the AI. However, capturing Siege units would be fun. It might be best to let only post-Gunpowder units be captured: Bombards, Cannon, Artillery, and Mobile Artillery. (Battering Rams, Siege Towers, and Ballistae would most certainly be destroyed.)
• March promotions should be unavailable to Siege units. March promotions, when combined with the high withdrawal chance, would be too strong.
• Don't forget to remove the ranged attack of the Viet unique unit, the Chien Binh. For the moment, you might replace it with a +25% withdrawal chance; collateral damage on a Musketman-replacement would be too strong. (We can review all the UUs in 0.9.6.)

 

[Howard Mahler]

Let us concentrate on Catapults.
You have made them way, way too strong.
You need to get rid of a lot.
(Of course there is always some enormous cost in hammers that would balance things out.)

For example:
4 strength, +50% city attack, 50% withdrawal chance.
Cost about 60% of swordsmen.

Another possibility:
4 strength, collateral damage (30% max, 1 unit), 50% withdrawal chance.
Cost about 70% of swordsmen.

My thoughts are that if you are going to have collateral damage, it should be very limited for the first unit to get it, and get somewhat stronger with later units.

Okay, here's my thoughts on Siege units, based on Azoth's Option A and comments so far.

Siege Units

Battering Ram
- 3 strength, can only defend, 8% bombard

Siege Tower
- 6 strength, can only defend, 16% bombard

Catapult
- 4 strength, collateral damage (50% max, 3 units), +50% city attack and defense, 75% withdrawal chance

Trebuchet
- 4 strength, collateral damage (50% max, 3 units), +100% city attack and defense, 75% withdrawal chance

Bombard
- 5 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +100% city attack and defense, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance

Cannon
- 9 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +33% city attack and defense, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance

Artillery
- 16 strength, collateral damage, (70% max, 5 units), +25% city attack and defense, 16% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance

Mobile Artillery
- 20 strength, 2 move, collateral damage (70% max, 5 units), +25% city attack and defense, 16% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance​

Things in Common

• Cannot capture cities or units
• Do not receive defensive bonuses (cannot fortify)
• Are no longer immune to collateral damage
• Promotions available: Accuracy, Barrage, City Garrison, City Raider, Drill​

Comments

• We can keep the collateral damage limits higher because the number of units affected is significantly lower (halved or close to it)
• Also, no modifiers apply to collateral damage calculations except Barrage promotions
• Starting with the Bombard, siege units can do both collateral damage and bombardment
• Starting with the Cannon, later siege units get progressively better away from cities
• Siege units are give AI scripts that encourage defensive use as well as offensive (but not Ram/Tower obviously)
• Walls are reduced to -25% bombard defense (from -50%)
• I haven't defined production costs yet but in HR they're currently a lot higher than in BTS
• I haven't added a Ballista at this time (is there a niche for it?)
• Should (some) siege units be capturable?​

I'll give my thoughts on Skirmishers/Longbowmen/etc after we've got Siege sorted.

 

[V3N0M]

What you've got so far seems really good, but can you add the modern era expansion from varietas delectat?

Edit: Sure, I could make my own modmod, but I'm not good enough at the game to balance anything.

 

[Xyth]

Bah, I inadvertently deleted a crucial line from the 'Things in Common' section:

•Direct damage limit is equal to collateral damage limit, siege units are thus non-lethal​

Completely agree that they'd be far too powerful without that!

For the sake of balance, I would remove the city defense bonus from early Siege units. (That leaves the perfect niche for Ballistae.)
I would also disable City Garrison promotions. Siege units will still be useful on defense: they can damage an incoming stack and then retreat to a city to heal.

The reason I added a defense bonus and allowed City Garrison bonus is that using Siege units for city defense is a very valid strategy for players (even in BTS) but the AI never does it and is thus disadvantaged. This is primarily because the appropriate AI scripts are not attached to siege units (which we can change easily) but having both a city attack bonus and City Raider promotions available still causes the AI to not use any for defense most of the time. It's probably reasonable to drop one but not the other. Options:

• X% City Attack, cannot take either City Raider or City Garrison promotions
• X% City Attack and City Defense, can take City Raider​

This could be alleviated to a certain degree with the Ballista, but it remains a problem for the post-Gunpowder era. Here we'd either have to change the Machine Gun or allow Cannons and Artillery decent defensive capabilities as well.

Ballista (new unit)
- 4 strength, can only defend, +100% city defense, immune to collateral damage (can only take Drill promotions)

The crucial thing missing here is collateral damage. There needs to be some way for the defending AI to do collateral damage to incoming stacks, like the player can. This is why I decided to pull the Ballista for now as they don't make much sense doing collateral damage. (Though there is an Onager model, so that's a possibility). If we did add a Ballista them I think the "defends against X first" mechanic (like Ballista Elephant but for defending) makes good sense, but I'm not sure what X should be. Siege Units makes the most sense but I haven't thought it through fully yet. However the other issue is that there needs to be a Gunpowder era equivalent and I'm not sure we want to change any of the existing units this drastically. So if we added the Ballista in this form we'd also need to add a new gunpowder era unit but I have no clue what that could be.

Siege Ram
- Assyrian unique unit, replaces Battering Ram
- 4 strength, can only defend, immune to first strikes, 12% bombard

This is good, though I'd be tempted to just give it 16% bombard.

Hwacha
- Korean unique unit, replaces Bombard
- 5 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +100% city attack, +50% vs. Melee units, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance

I'm not sure making this available earlier makes much sense, they weren't really used until the 1400s and 1500s which is roughly when the Gunpowder tech is meant to be anyway. I'd have to see how the techtree changes first. The other option of course is to give it a different bonus.

Siege Elephant
- Indian unique unit, replaces Cannon, requires Elephant
- 8 strength, collateral damage (60% max, 4 units), +50% city attack and defense, +50% vs. Mounted units, 12% bombard, 75% withdrawal chance, free Woodsman II promotion

These not requiring Elephants was an oversight. I think rather than a free promotion of any sort we should just give these 2 movement. I'm not sure why I didn't in the first place.

For Cannons, 8 +50% instead of 9 +33% makes for smoother rounding, when you factor in City Raider promotions and enemy defense bonuses. Likewise, for the Assyrian Siege Ram, 12% bombard instead of 10% bombard makes for smoother rounding when you factor in Walls and Castles.

The reason I opted for 9 and 33% is by making it 8 and 50% we start getting situations where pre-gunpowder units are easily defeating Cannons. While this is fine for bulky, not very mobile Bombards, I think Cannons should still be able to decimate Heavy Footmen. Possibly the best solution then is to make the Cannon strength 10 with a 25% bonus, though this will make Cannon's a bit stronger at cities (12.5 vs 12 strength). Or, we could them a bonus vs. Melee. In either case, we still risk them being defeated by Heavy Horsemen.

I suggested that Siege units be vulnerable to capture in order to balance out ranged attacks. That is no longer necessary. I also worry that it might be too easy to "farm" Siege units from the AI. However, capturing Siege units would be fun. It might be best to let only post-Gunpowder units be captured: Bombards, Cannon, Artillery, and Mobile Artillery. (Battering Rams, Siege Towers, and Ballistae would most certainly be destroyed.)

I'm in two minds about it still. It would be fun and add a certain amount of realism. The downside is that as far as I can tell, there is no way to make it a chance of capture - either a defeated Artillery withdraws or it is captured, it never gets destroyed. I'd also have to test whether flanking strikes still destroy siege units or if they cause capture too.

March promotions should be unavailable to Siege units. March promotions, when combined with the high withdrawal chance, would be too strong.

Definitely not. I had excluded this promotion, Medic and Combat ones too.

Don't forget to remove the ranged attack of the Viet unique unit, the Chien Binh. For the moment, you might replace it with a +25% withdrawal chance; collateral damage on a Musketman-replacement would be too strong. (We can review all the UUs in 0.9.6.)

Ooh yes, I forgot I added ranged attacks to this guy. Good call.

Another possibility:
4 strength, collateral damage (30% max, 1 unit), 50% withdrawal chance.
Cost about 70% of swordsmen.

My thoughts are that if you are going to have collateral damage, it should be very limited for the first unit to get it, and get somewhat stronger with later units.

Collateral damage is an important mechanic to keep stacks from getting out of control. My proposal has already weakened it considerably compared to BTS: Catapults in BTS have a 6 strength collateral damage (50% limit over 6 units), in HR it would be 4 strength collateral damage (50% limit over 3 units). If we reduce it any further than that then we undermine the purpose of the mechanic too much.

What you've got so far seems really good, but can you add the modern era expansion from varietas delectat?

Edit: Sure, I could make my own modmod, but I'm not good enough at the game to balance anything.

The Modern Era in HR still needs a lot of development and this may well include some new units along the lines of VD MEE (though unlikely that many). Are there any modern units in particular that you think HR should have?

 

[Howard Mahler]

Catapults are still way too strong.
They have 50% withdrawal chance, so they will not die anywhere as often as in BTS.

If collateral damage is a appropriate game mechanism, then there is no reason why the first unit to get it has to start at 4. (Yes 6 for catapults in BTS is very high.)
Maybe catapults can be 2, and available a little earlier than currently.

Yes it would be good if catapults if the AI understood that catapults can be used for city defense. Yet giving them +50% city defense would make them an extremely strong early unit, better than archers at the archers speciality, plus with many other uses.

Archers and Catapults, unlike other early units, do not need special resources.

Key idea, there should be a tough choice between building catapults and the other military units available at the same time.

 

[V3N0M]

The Modern Era in HR still needs a lot of development and this may well include some new units along the lines of VD MEE (though unlikely that many). Are there any modern units in particular that you think HR should have?

TBH I thought it should have all of them. The ironclad cruiser/battleship offered a smoth transition from steam power to oil and I liked all the different stages of aircraft (could use a strategic bomber unit in addition to the jet bomber though). But at the very least I think the Civs should use the graphics from MEE for modern flavor units.

 

[Xyth]

Catapults are still way too strong.
They have 50% withdrawal chance, so they will not die anywhere as often as in BTS.

75% withdrawal chance actually. But they also do less direct damage, less collateral damage to half as many units, and will cost more. And are even weaker away from cities. I don't think this is too strong at all.

If collateral damage is a appropriate game mechanism, then there is no reason why the first unit to get it has to start at 4. (Yes 6 for catapults in BTS is very high.)
Maybe catapults can be 2, and available a little earlier than currently.

In my proposal they'd be starting at 3. No units could do collateral damage to 4 units until Gunpowder.

Yes it would be good if catapults if the AI understood that catapults can be used for city defense. Yet giving them +50% city defense would make them an extremely strong early unit, better than archers at the archers speciality, plus with many other uses.

I'm not thinking of giving them City Garrison for free, only that they'd be able to take it, just like Archers can. So it's not a 50% bonus, it's 25% - which brings them back to 6 strength like they are in BTS, but only at cities and not for collateral damage. Also Catapults cannot kill units, only soften them to 50% so they're not competing with the Archer's specialty at all.

 

[Xyth]

TBH I thought it should have all of them. The ironclad cruiser/battleship offered a smoth transition from steam power to oil and I liked all the different stages of aircraft (could use a strategic bomber unit in addition to the jet bomber though).

Well we've added a Cruiser already

For others reference, here's what VD's MEE adds:

Galleass, Ironclad Cruiser, Ironclad Battleship, Early Destroyer,
Protected Cruiser, Pre-Dreadnought, Dreadnought, Cruiser,
Armored Car, Command Car, Assault Gun, Armored Fighting
Vehicle, Early- Battle- Light- Medium- Heavy- and Main Battle Tank,
Early Fighter, Early Bomber, Light Bomber, Early Jet, Supersonic Fighter,
Jet Bomber, Close Air Support Aircraft, Advanced Tactical Fighter,
Helicopter, Transport Helicopter, Early Carrier, HUMVEE, Modern Infantry

That is far more units than I'd ever be willing to add. 6 different types of tanks might be fine for a modern era scenario but is far too much for a full game mod like HR (and frankly, is far too much for VD too). There needs to be a defined niche for every unit and not just "a slightly stronger version of the old unit available 2 techs later" which several of these are. I'm also opposed to ever attaching "Early" or "Modern" to a unit name to distinguish it from others. Quality over quantity.

There are some possibilities there though. An extra stage of aircraft is certainly something I'd like to see if it fits in. It's been a few years since I've played VD though so I forget what many of those units do. I'd have to take a look through when I get a chance.

But at the very least I think the Civs should use the graphics from MEE for modern flavor units.

The reason I haven't added graphics for more modern vehicles and ships was for performance. The Industrial and Modern eras get pretty memory intensive and can easily cause MAFs if there's too much artwork in play. Thus why I deliberately chose to exclude these units from having flavour graphics. Having said that, I think some flavour here would be reasonable but it's not a high priority at this time.

 

[V3N0M]

Wow, I forgot about a lot of those units too. Still, it would be nice to have an armored car -> humvee unit that would be weaker than a tank but would have flanking or something.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Wow, I forgot about a lot of those units too. Still, it would be nice to have an armored car -> humvee unit that would be weaker than a tank but would have flanking or something.

That's currently the niche filled by helicopters. There's a gap, though, during which horse cavalry become obsolete but helicopter gunships don't replace them- there might be room for an "armored car" unit in there.

 

[V3N0M]

I don't see how a gunship would fill the same niche as a humvee. The gunship is weak against SAMs but good against armored units, but a HMMWV would be good against marines and SAM infantry units but weak against tanks. Kind of a cheaper mech infantry without march but with a chance to withdraw, maybe.

 

[Azoth]

More discussion on Siege units:

Bah, I inadvertently deleted a crucial line from the 'Things in Common' section:

•Direct damage limit is equal to collateral damage limit, siege units are thus non-lethal​

Completely agree that they'd be far too powerful without that!

Yeah, that's a pretty crucial line, there. Good call.

The reason I added a defense bonus and allowed City Garrison bonus is that using Siege units for city defense is a very valid strategy for players (even in BTS) but the AI never does it and is thus disadvantaged.

Hmm. In my experience, players use Siege units for city defense in BtS because (a) Siege units are immune to collateral damage; (b) Siege units are immune to Flank Attacks while in cities; and (c) the tactical AI is not particularly threatening so players prefer not to build too many purely defensive units such as Archers and Longbowmen. (a) no longer applies to HR; and (c), if anything, suggests that additional bonuses for Siege units will only further weaken Archery units. That's why I suggest that pre-Gunpowder Siege units be stripped of city defense bonuses.

This is primarily because the appropriate AI scripts are not attached to siege units (which we can change easily) but having both a city attack bonus and City Raider promotions available still causes the AI to not use any for defense most of the time. It's probably reasonable to drop one but not the other. Options:

• X% City Attack, cannot take either City Raider or City Garrison promotions
• X% City Attack and City Defense, can take City Raider​

I don't think City Garrison promotions make much sense for units that do not receive other defensive bonuses. So I suggest:

• X% City Attack, can take City Raider for pre-Gunpowder Siege units; and
• X% City Attack and City Defense, can take City Raider for post-Gunpowder Siege units​

The crucial thing missing here is collateral damage. There needs to be some way for the defending AI to do collateral damage to incoming stacks, like the player can. This is why I decided to pull the Ballista for now as they don't make much sense doing collateral damage. (Though there is an Onager model, so that's a possibility). If we did add a Ballista them I think the "defends against X first" mechanic (like Ballista Elephant but for defending) makes good sense, but I'm not sure what X should be. Siege Units makes the most sense but I haven't thought it through fully yet.

How about:

Ballista
- 4 strength, 2 first strikes, can only defend, +100% city defense, immune to collateral damage, ignores terrain movement costs (can only take Drill promotions)​

I think first strikes are the best "defensive" collateral damage mechanic. With those two first strikes, some Drill promotions, and immunity to collateral damage, Ballistae will be excellent city defenders, especially against non-lethal Siege units. Win or lose, every unit that attacks them will take significant damage from first strikes. In fact, I suggest you also give them the ability to "ignore terrain movement costs" as a way to limit their effectiveness: as with Gunships, Ballistae should not benefit from roads. Rather, each city should maintain its own Ballistae; you should not be able to play "zone defense" by wheeling a stack of Ballistae to any city in danger.

However the other issue is that there needs to be a Gunpowder era equivalent and I'm not sure we want to change any of the existing units this drastically. So if we added the Ballista in this form we'd also need to add a new gunpowder era unit but I have no clue what that could be.

As I said, the Ballista has a natural Gunpowder-era equivalent in the Machine Gun:

Machine Gun
- 18 strength, 1 first strike, can only defend, +50% vs. Gunpowder units, immune to collateral damage, 20% chance to intercept aircraft (can only take Drill promotions)​

Now that I think about it, Machine Guns are even stronger in HR. In BtS, the Machine Gun was classified as a Siege unit and could be countered by Artillery, with its +50% bonus against Siege units. (Marines and Mobile Artillery would also trump Machine Guns, but those units arrived an era later.) But I suppose giving Artillery a 75% withdrawal chance keeps things balanced.

This is good, though I'd be tempted to just give it 16% bombard.

These not requiring Elephants was an oversight. I think rather than a free promotion of any sort we should just give these 2 movement. I'm not sure why I didn't in the first place.

That works, too.

The reason I opted for 9 and 33% is by making it 8 and 50% we start getting situations where pre-gunpowder units are easily defeating Cannons. While this is fine for bulky, not very mobile Bombards, I think Cannons should still be able to decimate Heavy Footmen. Possibly the best solution then is to make the Cannon strength 10 with a 25% bonus, though this will make Cannon's a bit stronger at cities (12.5 vs 12 strength). Or, we could them a bonus vs. Melee. In either case, we still risk them being defeated by Heavy Horsemen.

I didn't even consider that angle! But you're right: strength 10 +25% city attack and defines is probably the best solution.
As for Heavy Horsemen, I think the 75% withdrawal chance on Cannons will serve them well.

Assuming no promotions on either side:
The Cannon will win 50% of the time. Since Siege units are non-lethal, it will inflict the maximum 60% damage, then withdraw.
The Cannon will lose 50% of the time. In that case, the Cannon will withdraw 75% of the time.
Thus, the Cannon will have an overall 87.5% withdraw rate against the Heavy Horseman. That's acceptable, yes?

I'm in two minds about it still. It would be fun and add a certain amount of realism. The downside is that as far as I can tell, there is no way to make it a chance of capture - either a defeated Artillery withdraws or it is captured, it never gets destroyed. I'd also have to test whether flanking strikes still destroy siege units or if they cause capture too.

Are you saying that Siege units might be captured on defense?
That if an AI attacked my Crossbow with a Trebuchet, lost, and failed the 75% withdrawal chance, I could somehow capture the unit?
That would certainly be too powerful. You should only be able to capture Siege units on offense.

 

[Xyth]

Hmm. In my experience, players use Siege units for city defense in BtS because (a) Siege units are immune to collateral damage; (b) Siege units are immune to Flank Attacks while in cities; and (c) the tactical AI is not particularly threatening so players prefer not to build too many purely defensive units such as Archers and Longbowmen. (a) no longer applies to HR; and (c), if anything, suggests that additional bonuses for Siege units will only further weaken Archery units. That's why I suggest that pre-Gunpowder Siege units be stripped of city defense bonuses.

I've been thinking about it some more and realized where they're most useful is counterattacking from cities rather than defending. So I agree, I'll scrap both the city defense bonus and city garrison promotion option. There's no specific "attack from a city" mechanic but I guess the next best thing are first strikes. So I'm thinking it will be enough that siege units can take Drill promotion and AI scripts are changed appropriately.

• X% City Attack, can take City Raider for pre-Gunpowder Siege units; and
• X% City Attack and City Defense, can take City Raider for post-Gunpowder Siege units

This is moot now but I should mention that in order to give different units different promotion options it requires creating a new unit combat type, for example Siege vs Gunpowder Siege, and all the vs. bonuses adjusted accordingly. It's not hard to do but it's inelegant.

How about:

Ballista
- 4 strength, 2 first strikes, can only defend, +100% city defense, immune to collateral damage, ignores terrain movement costs (can only take Drill promotions)​

I like the idea of the Ballista as the pre-gunpowder Machine Gun, immunity to collateral damage makes sense, as does only being able to defend. The issue I have with this proposal is that first strikes, while a valid option for siege units via promotions, don't feel enough to define the role of the Ballista if they are baseline. Archery units already do first strikes. It works for the Machine Gun because there are no Archery/first strike units anymore by the time it comes around and thus it has a niche. It doesn't need to do collateral damage, we can leave that to the other siege units.

Random thought: is there any scope for a city defense unit that has (among other aspects) bonuses versus naval units?

In fact, I suggest you also give them the ability to "ignore terrain movement costs" as a way to limit their effectiveness: as with Gunships, Ballistae should not benefit from roads. Rather, each city should maintain its own Ballistae; you should not be able to play "zone defense" by wheeling a stack of Ballistae to any city in danger.

That flag only ignores movement penalties, not bonuses, so it would actually make them easier to move. It's the same bonus that the Keshik have. The Gunship's movement is handled by an additional hidden setting that also allows it to move through peaks and such. I don't think we want that for the Ballista!

Now that I think about it, Machine Guns are even stronger in HR. In BtS, the Machine Gun was classified as a Siege unit and could be countered by Artillery, with its +50% bonus against Siege units. (Marines and Mobile Artillery would also trump Machine Guns, but those units arrived an era later.) But I suppose giving Artillery a 75% withdrawal chance keeps things balanced.

I don't remember making that change but it seems that I did for some reason. I was wondering why Artillery had that bonus vs siege weapons. I should probably change it back.

Thus, the Cannon will have an overall 87.5% withdraw rate against the Heavy Horseman. That's acceptable, yes?

Yeah, I think it's acceptable. I don't think such an issue exists for any of the other siege units fortunately. 10 strength and +25% city attack it is.

Are you saying that Siege units might be captured on defense?
That if an AI attacked my Crossbow with a Trebuchet, lost, and failed the 75% withdrawal chance, I could somehow capture the unit?
That would certainly be too powerful. You should only be able to capture Siege units on offense.

Alright I've done some testing and it seems most of my concerns were misplaced. Units are only captured if they are attacked and lose. They cannot be captured if they initiate the attack and lose. Furthermore, it seems that only the last unit in a stack can be captured, even in a stack of nothing but Catapults all will be destroyed until the last which will be captured if it doesn't withdraw. I couldn't test Flanking strikes reliably but I can't imagine they'd allow capturing given the other mechanics. All in all capturing siege should be relatively rare under the current proposal so I reckon it's worth implementing for all the siege units except Rams/Towers/Ballista/Machine Gun.

 

[Howard Mahler]

I attempted to try the patch where one can settle workers.
I could not get the mod to load.

Instead I tried another game with the patch where workers can rush production. This time I am Industrious, and therefore get faster production of workers. This is subject to a lot of abuse.
I am even more certain that this would not be a good change.

I still hopeful that being able to settle workers should be fine.
I think it might be slightly better to require a tech such as Labor Unions.