GEM: Land Armies

[Stalker0]

I gave infantry/tanks/vanguards approaching the WWII era +1 to see if it helps the AI

From everything else I've heard, the AI has trouble handling more mobile units. I can't imagine the AI could do better with a host of faster units than an experienced player can.

We already have so many units later game that represent the speed increase of WWII style combat. We have aircraft, naval vessels, tanks, and eventually helicoptors and mech infantry. I don't think the entire core infantry line needs to be made any faster.

 

[mystikx21]

Forgot Landships were mostly in line with Gatlings and MGs were moved back in the tech line. ... In that case, if they are reduced to 3-4 speed, I'd say ~55 strength is probably fine.

If there is some AI advantage with speed, we can try it and see. I'm not optimistic, but testing will confirm or deny.

For now put down a preference for that shift to start at WW2 era and leave WW1 era slow however and tentatively one for vanguards to lose +1 promos (but gaining at airborne is probably fine).

 

[Thalassicus]

@mystikx21
Most units engage in combat with several promotions and a Great General present. The higher base strength of arques gives them a significant advantage over skirmishers in typical combat situations.

@Stalker0
The main reason for the modern infantry speed increase is to provide a contrast with the slower & defensive gatling guns. The AI side of things will probably not have a big impact, since one extra movement point might help the AI avoid getting stuck when army sizes get larger in the lategame.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

perhaps late game army size should get decreased? 1 UPT doesn't really play well when there's too many units around. you could make them stronger and cost more maintenance so it's still balanced vs outteched rivals.

 

[mystikx21]

(Some) late game units should be pushing 5-6 "extra" maintanence in GEM from GK already, for that part. (Making units stronger and increasing maintenance are linked also in GEM).

Examples:
Tanks are +9 right now.
Rockets are +10.
Artillery are +6.
Armor is +15.
Infantry are -1. If they retained their strength, they're +2.
Rifles and Muskets are -1. (+1)
Mech Inf is +2 (again, +5-6 if they keep strength).
Gatlings +1/MGs +2 (even with 25% discount).

I'm not sure that's the best approach either. Depends somewhat on how well conquest AIs can handle their later game economy I suppose, and it seems better at it. But it sounds likelier to favor a human with a small experienced army core rather than help the AI which will have many more units with less XP.

 

[Ahriman]

@Stalker0
The main reason for the modern infantry speed increase is to provide a contrast with the slower & defensive gatling guns. The AI side of things will probably not have a big impact, since one extra movement point might help the AI avoid getting stuck when army sizes get larger in the lategame.

That doesn't seem necessary to me. I don't see why gatling/MG need to be slower than infantry. There is already contrast from the ranged attack, the lack of defensive terrain promotion effect, and presumably higher defensive/lower offensive power of the MG units.

I don't see why MGs need to be slower than infantry, just as crossbows don't need to be slower than longswords.

And I think that it is important that rough terrain still works as a block for basic infantry units; you should not be able to cross rough terrain and attack my artillery with basic infantry. Being able to do so devalues tanks, devalues the Persian UA +1 movement point, and devalues terrain.

So shift everything except the specifically mobile units back to 2 movement until at least WW2-era.

 

[Thalassicus]

@[to_xp]Gekko
Gem also makes aircraft somewhat more important, which helps reduce map congestion, since planes stack.

@Ahriman
The units are in different roles. MGs hold ground with high defense, and low attack, speed, and range. They take over the "defend" role from vanguards. Crossbows weaken units with high range, high attack, low defense, and medium speed, so other units can move in for the kill. Bombers take over the "weaken units" role from archers in the lategame.

I tried to show this visually in the first post... is there some way I could change the charts to represent this better? I seem to have trouble explaining things lately. I like the visual format, but it doesn't appear to convey my ideas as well as I hoped.

 

[Ahriman]

MGs are low range, low attack and high defense to hold ground. They take over the defensive role from vanguards, and no longer have defense penalties.

That's fine, but I don't see how it justifies making GW infantry or similar into 3 move units. I don't see why defensive needs to mean "slower than infantry".

 

[mystikx21]

@mystikx21
Most units engage in combat with several promotions and a Great General present. The higher base strength of arques gives them a significant advantage over skirmishers in typical combat situations.

The specific concern was on the defensive. A skirmisher will have similar promotions for defence as the arque and will stay roughly comparable even when are a couple stacking. 28.6>27.9 with 2, and 31.9>30.6 with a GG. Obviously with very experienced units, the Arque starts to kick butt . But it takes a while to reach that point in a series of defensive wars versus someone running conquest like you or I might.

I fully acknowledge the main advantage of mainline vs vanguard will be on the offensive, especially for siege operations and city attacks.

 

[mystikx21]

That's fine, but I don't see how it justifies making GW infantry or similar into 3 move units. I don't see why defensive needs to mean "slower than infantry".

Another way to put this is that spears/pikes aren't slower than swords/archers, so it is unclear as a justification for such. MGs also aren't likely to get fortification bonuses most of the time whereas a spear might.

I think the + experiment is worthwhile to see what it can or cannot do... but even if it helps (or at worst doesn't harm) the the AI it is most likely to have impact in the WW2+ era late game stages and most realistic in the same era. WW1 era units should stay 2 (landships 3-4) with the mobility advantage of the era being railroads on the defensive.

 

[Thalassicus]

I would be okay with making vanguard base strength 65% of soldier base strength. It's 70% of soldier strength right now. This would reduce skirmisher base strength from 18 to 16.

I figure units have the number of promotions that can be provided by training facilities available when they're built. Arques come one tech after armories, so I figure they have at least 2 promotions from killing barbarians or an armory. An arque attacking a skirmisher (before the proposed change) is 32 vs 32, and a skirmisher attacking an arque is 24 skirmisher vs 32 arque. This limits the effectiveness of skirmishers at counterattacking enemy units. Longswords are one tech earlier and higher than both of them at 33, since longswords require iron.

@Ahriman, mystikx21
It's a very good point that the invention of railroads speeds things up in the WW1 era. I think that's a good reason in favor of 2 moves WW1 units. I don't feel strongly about WW1 units at either 2 or 3 moves. I do like having the later modern units faster, to represent WW2 blitzkrieg and mobile modern warfare.

 

[mystikx21]

I would be okay with making vanguard base strength 65% of soldier base strength. It's 70% of soldier strength right now. This would reduce skirmisher base strength from 18 to 16.

I think Arques-Skirmishers was about the only place it comes up as even close enough for discomfort. Usually the vanguard unit was on the same tech line or one ahead and was noticeably weaker already than swords or rifles. 16 isn't much stronger than levies (although they'd probably be 13?). 6-9-13-16-25-40 (scout to airborne) is probably a reasonable flow though. I think airborne ought stay as is because they're potentially around longer and come later than infantry and sentinels aren't very strong anyway to be moving them down to be like warriors.

@mystikx21
You made a very good point that the invention of railroads speeds things up in the WW1 era. I think that's a good reason in favor of 2 moves WW1 units. I don't feel strongly about WW1 units at either 2 or 3 moves. I do like having the later modern units faster, to represent WW2 blitzkrieg and mobile modern warfare.

It was Ahriman's point originally made I was just more persistent in agreeing with him.

I also like the idea of the WW2+ units being +1 (infantry 3, tank 5, mobile sams/airborne 3, maybe 4 for airborne). But there are complicating issues to consider as to whether it will harm the AI too much against a human. If not, then great. I don't actually care if it helps so much as "first: do no harm", but if it helps, that's awesome.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't feel strongly about WW1 units at either 2 or 3 moves. I do like having the later modern units faster, to represent WW2 blitzkrieg and mobile modern warfare.

WW2 infantry could be 3 moves, representing motorized infantry, or stay at 2 moves. I don't feel strongly either way. Mechanized infantry at 4 moves are fine. I agree it is interesting if warfare becomes more mobile in the very late game.

 

[Stalker0]

I also like the idea of the WW2+ units being +1 (infantry 3, tank 5, mobile sams/airborne 3, maybe 4 for airborne). But there are complicating issues to consider as to whether it will harm the AI too much against a human. If not, then great. I don't actually care if it helps so much as "first: do no harm", but if it helps, that's awesome.

Its one of those changes that I feel should not be made unless there is a really strong selling point, because it actually is a pretty radical change to gameplay.

And from a "realism" standpoint, we have come to accept that riflemen are melee range, even though their range should be equal or greater than the crossbowmen they replace. So i don't think we should make WWI or II infantry faster just because it makes sense in real combat.

But at this point I've made my case. We will try out these new speeds and see.

 

[mystikx21]

I'm not saying that case was without merit either. I too worry about the impact it might have. If the change is negligible to positive, it should stay. If it seems to harm the AI, it should go back to default.

 

[Thalassicus]

I added the proposal of delaying the movement bonus to the WW2 era in Gem v1.6.11.

This means the main speed difference from G&K is WW2-level infantry get 3 (was 2). Tanks are unchanged at 5 moves, and machine guns are unchanged at 2 moves. This gives us a gradual transition of:

2 riflemen (renamed from great war infantry)
3 infantry
4 mech infantry

 

[mystikx21]

Paratroops/Airborne are 3 (+1) also.

Which will be probably fine if the infantry +1 is.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

is the "picking a promotion heals the unit" thingie in already? I haven't noticed it in my latest test games.

what about the Barbarians! mod? barbs don't seem to be healing at the moment.

 

[mystikx21]

I don't think the Barbarians mod is in yet no.

 

[Dunkah]

is the "picking a promotion heals the unit" thingie in already? I haven't noticed it in my latest test games.

what about the Barbarians! mod? barbs don't seem to be healing at the moment.

Yes it is.

Noticed it last night.

I love that, difference between surviving an unexpected double barbarian attack and not sometimes...