Feedback: Units

[Eucalyptus]

They target Axemen, Swordsmen, and Heavy Footmen first in a stack when attacking only.

...

They're Horse Archers; fast, very mobile, with ranged attacks. They can go around the pikes or even shoot over them.

OK, I can accept that and I see that it plays out well. I should have read the forum more closely!


Check: "Axemen, Swordsmen and Heavy Footmen" include unique units of these classes.


Conclusions:

(To simplify the following, I refer here to Axemen, Swordsmen and Heavy Footmen as Melee, and Pikemen and Spearmen as Polearm units.)


Attackers of cities should split their stacks into 2 waves.

The first wave should contain no Melee units, but only Mounted, Polearm, Archery and City-Raider-promoted Siege units. It should approach the city first. City-based Horse Archers can't damage this stack, but it is weaker against Melee units, so attacking Archery and Mounted units should be promoted against Melee, and defending Melee units should be promoted against Archery and Mounted units.

The second wave should contain all the City-Raider Melee units, and be defended by a mix of Melee, Mounted, Polearm, Archery and field-Siege (thus promoted other than as City-Raider) units. The Melee units of this wave can't survive Horse Archer attacks on city-adjacent open flat land, but do considerably better in city-adjacent forests. So, if there are accessible adjacent forests, then both waves can occupy them at the same time but the Melee units may have to weather assaults from the defending Horse Archers. So, some of the second wave non-City-Raider Melee defensive units need to be promoted to be anti-Mounted (to shield their City-Raider Melee colleagues).

If there are no accessible adjacent forests, the second wave needs to wait away from the city until the first-wave Siege units have done their job in softening up the defenders to the extent that the defending Horse Archers are out of action. Gone are the days of 1-turn conquest. (Or are they? Some assaults should be able to succeed altogether without the second-wave Melee City-Raider units, using only first-wave Archery and Mounted units to mop up the softened defenders.)

Attackers also need to remember include anti-Melee-promoted Horse Archers in the garrisons of occupied cities while hostilities continue.

On their part, defending cities must have (lots of) Horse Archers, and attackers should try to deprive defenders of Horses. What isn't new is that defenders should actively attack split stacks outside cities and the most efficient way to do that is to soften them with field-Siege units defended by mixed stacks. For attackers, the best defence against this is having Mounted units promoted against Siege.


That's a lot to remember to take on an excursion! Have I got it right?

 

[Howard Mahler]

Tamil replacement for the Caravel.
Has extra combat strength and first strike.

Strictly from a game standpoint, this is not often very useful, since by the time Caravel are available, the Dromon has better combat strength. Thus one is not often using the Caravel for combat.
(As always, there is some advantage in some situations to the current bonuses provided by the unique unit.)

I do not know if it would fit in historically, but maybe instead Dharani could replace Dromon for example.
Alternately, extra movement and/or cargo capacity would be useful for a Caravel replacement.

 

[Xyth]

Tamil replacement for the Caravel.
Has extra combat strength and first strike.

Strictly from a game standpoint, this is not often very useful, since by the time Caravel are available, the Dromon has better combat strength. Thus one is not often using the Caravel for combat.
(As always, there is some advantage in some situations to the current bonuses provided by the unique unit.)

I do not know if it would fit in historically, but maybe instead Dharani could replace Dromon for example.
Alternately, extra movement and/or cargo capacity would be useful for a Caravel replacement.

Dharani as a Dromon replacement would work fine. Will do for 1.19.

 

[kiwitt]

I am subscribed to this thread, so any new WWI/WWII-era units, I'll be informed of.

 

[Absolution]

*Sorry, I posted in the worng thread.

 

[Simon_Jester]

I'd like to re-propose the idea of introducing an "air cavalry" unit in the modern era (in real life, light infantry deployable by helicopter).

Classed as a Helicopter unit, without the Gunship's bonus against armor, but with high mobility and the ability to benefit from defensive terrain. The idea would be to use them to penetrate enemy territory and seize key locations ahead of a ground advance. They'd make a good revival of the idea of 'raiding cavalry.'

Indeed, maybe Cavalry should upgrade to Air Cavalry instead of Gunships...

 

[Xyth]

I'd like to re-propose the idea of introducing an "air cavalry" unit in the modern era (in real life, light infantry deployable by helicopter).

Classed as a Helicopter unit, without the Gunship's bonus against armor, but with high mobility and the ability to benefit from defensive terrain. The idea would be to use them to penetrate enemy territory and seize key locations ahead of a ground advance. They'd make a good revival of the idea of 'raiding cavalry.'

Indeed, maybe Cavalry should upgrade to Air Cavalry instead of Gunships...

Another helicopter unit is a good idea and there's bound to be art available. Added to todo list.

 

[Simon_Jester]

You'd want... movement stats of a Helicopter, strength around 26 (weaker than Mechanized Infantry). No anti-armor bonus, should probably receive the same Flank bonus as the Gunship, gets defensive bonuses from terrain, slight withdrawal chance...

Actually, I'm thinking they'd make a logical partner with the Gunship as the twinned "cavalry" units of modern times. The stats of both could be tweaked around a bit, but the goal would be to turn them into effective units, possibly available at almost the same time (each needing Aerodynamics and one other tech?). Cavalry could upgrade to either, and each has different specializations.

Sort of like the way Horseman and Horse Archer were supposed to be.




EDIT: I suggest Aerodynamics and Telecommunications for Air Cavalry*, and Aerodynamics and either Composites or The Laser for the Gunship.**

*Argument being that air cavalry are the sort of thing you need some pretty complicated command and control systems to use effectively.
**Argument being that a gunship has to have some particularly capable weapons; a lot of antitank missiles and such are laser-guided, and composite materials play a big role in the weight savings it takes to make durable, well armed, fast helicopters.

 

[Xyth]

You'd want... movement stats of a Helicopter, strength around 26 (weaker than Mechanized Infantry). No anti-armor bonus, should probably receive the same Flank bonus as the Gunship, gets defensive bonuses from terrain, slight withdrawal chance...

Actually, I'm thinking they'd make a logical partner with the Gunship as the twinned "cavalry" units of modern times. The stats of both could be tweaked around a bit, but the goal would be to turn them into effective units, possibly available at almost the same time (each needing Aerodynamics and one other tech?). Cavalry could upgrade to either, and each has different specializations.

Sort of like the way Horseman and Horse Archer were supposed to be.




EDIT: I suggest Aerodynamics and Telecommunications for Air Cavalry*, and Aerodynamics and either Composites or The Laser for the Gunship.**

*Argument being that air cavalry are the sort of thing you need some pretty complicated command and control systems to use effectively.
**Argument being that a gunship has to have some particularly capable weapons; a lot of antitank missiles and such are laser-guided, and composite materials play a big role in the weight savings it takes to make durable, well armed, fast helicopters.

Any suggestions for art I should look for? I know nothing about helicopters.

 

[kiwitt]

Here is my collection of modern units sorted by country and domain (air, Sea, Land)

http://www.mediafire.com/?u8crq38r35qf9tb

 

[inasnapp]

Classed as a Helicopter unit, without the Gunship's bonus against armor, but with high mobility and the ability to benefit from defensive terrain. The idea would be to use them to penetrate enemy territory and seize key locations ahead of a ground advance. They'd make a good revival of the idea of 'raiding cavalry.

any way to give them the ability to transport units? I am a bit hesitant to give them a defensive bonus, since Calvary don't get them. using air cav in the same manner, they can leave infantry on those positions, and extract weakened units from the front lines, all while maintaining vulnerability in the air.

 

[Simon_Jester]

My idea is that air cavalry ARE, in essence, the infantry.

That's the practical role of airborne units in real life- always has been, except for rare and usually disastrous operations like the German attack on Crete. The airborne unit is paradropped, glided, or helicoptered into thinly held land in the enemy's rear. They dig in and occupy that ground for a short time until reinforcements show up.

Granted, "can use defensive bonuses" is a new capability for the air cavalry, one earlier units in the promotion tree don't get. But a LOT of units get radical new capabilities in the modern era- Missile Cruisers that carry missiles, Mechanized Infantry with their air defense, fast move, and March promotion...

Part of the point of the modern war bit of the game is that it's not just a logical extension of World War era militaries. Some of the rules change, and I think introducing a fast raider unit that can profit from terrain might be a good way to take advantage of that.

 

[inasnapp]

Part of the point of the modern war bit of the game is that it's not just a logical extension of World War era militaries. Some of the rules change, and I think introducing a fast raider unit that can profit from terrain might be a good way to take advantage of that.

I can't agree more.
My hang up is that I feel a new helicopter needs its own purpose. If a gunship acts the same way as a paratrooper, then there no use for paratroopers. A New helicopter should have a new radical purpose that isnt already taken up by an already satisfactory unit.

 

[Simon_Jester]

We could give paratroops a special advantage instead. Say, a free promotion to reflect their 'elite' status? Maybe a free Pinch promotion, or some innate bonus against gunpowder units? That would reflect that they usually perform well against enemy infantry, but are vulnerable to heavy armor and air support for lack of heavy equipment.

Also, paratroops would still have abilities Air Cavalry doesn't. Like being able to 'teleport' behind a continuous enemy line.

Personally, I've never had much luck with Paratroopers, so I like the idea of making them more powerful so that they have an application other than "drop in to occupy cities devastated by nuclear bombardment and kill off the radiation-sickened survivors of any ground units in the city."

That said, we could reduce Air Cavalry's speed to 3, bringing them down into line with the usual principle of 'cavalry' being 1 square faster than infantry, and also making them less overpowered since it reduces the distance they can penetrate into enemy territory.



One problem I have is that IRL, air cavalry (and in general, air-deployable light infantry) have totally replaced 'true' paratroops that leap out of airplanes. Once helicopters were invented, the incentive to use risky, costly paradrops to land troops in enemy territory really shrank.

 

[Eucalyptus]

The current number of Missionaries per religion that can concurrently be present or in build queues is 3. This doesn't change with difficulty, speed or mapsize. Whilst such limits are gamey, there are practical reasons for them ...

I would like it to instead scale with mapsize, and I am thinking of: Tiny 1, ..., Normal 3, ..., Massive 6.

Reasoning: Larger mapsizes lead to larger numbers of cities and longer travel times, and the limit of 3 means that the time needed to spread religions to any given fraction of the world then increases disproportionately with mapsize. It also means that on very small maps, a religion can sometimes be spread to all the cities of a rival in just 1 turn whilst on larger maps this will never happen.

Furthermore, mapsize doesn't have to be interpreted as describing physically different-sized worlds. It can also be interpreted as modelling the same sized world but with a different granularity. Letting this limit scale with mapsize works with either interpretation.

(Yes, the same arguments apply to Executives.)


Opinons?

 

[Xyth]

The current number of Missionaries per religion that can concurrently be present or in build queues is 3. This doesn't change with difficulty, speed or mapsize. Whilst such limits are gamey, there are practical reasons for them ...

I would like it to instead scale with mapsize, and I am thinking of: Tiny 1, ..., Normal 3, ..., Massive 6.

Reasoning: Larger mapsizes lead to larger numbers of cities and longer travel times, and the limit of 3 means that the time needed to spread religions to any given fraction of the world then increases disproportionately with mapsize. It also means that on very small maps, a religion can sometimes be spread to all the cities of a rival in just 1 turn whilst on larger maps this will never happen.

Furthermore, mapsize doesn't have to be interpreted as describing physically different-sized worlds. It can also be interpreted as modelling the same sized world but with a different granularity. Letting this limit scale with mapsize works with either interpretation.

(Yes, the same arguments apply to Executives.)


Opinons?

I cannot make the cap scale with mapsize (well, I can, but it would be a not insignificant performance hit). However, in the corporations thread Boggy pointed out that I can make unit production cost increase the more of that unit that currently exist. So, for example, the first missionary you build might cost 40, the next one 60:hammers, then 80, and so on (Base Cost + 20*number of currently active missionaries). This could be in addition to a hard cap, or without one.

I'm considering using this mechanic for both missionaries and executives. What do you think?

 

[Howard Mahler]

It makes sense.
I prefer that you maintain the hard cap.
It seems like a minor improvement with the hard cap, perhaps an unnecessary complication.

I cannot make the cap scale with mapsize (well, I can, but it would be a not insignificant performance hit). However, in the corporations thread Boggy pointed out that I can make unit production cost increase the more of that unit that currently exist. So, for example, the first missionary you build might cost 40, the next one 60:hammers, then 80, and so on (Base Cost + 20*number of currently active missionaries). This could be in addition to a hard cap, or without one.

I'm considering using this mechanic for both missionaries and executives. What do you think?

 

[Nightstar]

I'm wondering if the hard cap might also be intended to keep the AI from overbuilding too many missionaries / executives that it can't actually use. I've noticed that later in the game the AI often keeps building these units even after their respective religion or corporation has been spread to all available cities, and then just keeps the extras sitting around indefinitely.

I'm a bit worried that without a hard cap, the AI may get stuck in a missionary / executive spamming loop where it just keeps building more and more expensive iterations while ignoring other units and buildings.

 

[Xyth]

Yeah, I don't think it would be wise to remove the hard cap completely. But (for example) we could raise it to 5 and have each missionary cost 20 more than the last. It's not not real mapsize scaling but, theoretically, smaller maps with fewer cities couldn't afford to build as many at once as larger maps with more cities and thus more production options.

 

[Nightstar]

Okay, question: What happens if, say, you already have two missionaries with number three building at 79/80, then use both the existing ones and drop the cost of the one in production back down to 40? Standard overflow like you get after whipping something or constructing a building / wonder in a Traditional capital?