Going for Gold: Promotions

[pineappledan]

I mean, if the Bosnian war and the current war in Yemen are any indication, modern armor is actually pretty useless, and way too expensive considering the impact they have on armed conflicts. Consider the Israeli pereh, a missile platform designed to look like a tank. Tanks are now so worthless that armies are disguising their actually potent military equipment as tanks to disguise their capabilities.

 

[civplayer33]

I mean, if the Bosnian war and the current war in Yemen are any indication, modern armor is actually pretty useless, and way too expensive considering the impact they have on armed conflicts. Consider the Israeli pereh, a missile platform designed to look like a tank. Tanks are now so worthless that armies are disguising their actually potent military equipment as tanks to disguise their capabilities.

Those conflicts were asymmetrical and not easily comparable to the kind of fight that I'm talking about in VP (infantry vs. armored units), since major combatants were/are unwilling to mount a full scale invasion, and used their air superiority for massive air strike campaigns and because of the nature of civil war. If you're the US, warmongering all around the globe, then a strong navy with air craft carriers and smaller ground units is going to conform to your doctrine and you won't care as much about having lots of tanks, but if you're Russia, for example, and want control over your huge land mass and the border regions then tanks will become very relevant, which is why the Russians are modernizing large swaths of their T-72s, T-80s and T-90s in addition to introducing the new T-14. Any adversary would find it hard to just bomb them to bits due to strong anti-air units and interceptor fighter jets and because navies can't swim on land, so you'd have to actually deal with them on the ground and there you'd find that they are quite relevant indeed, especially if they have room to maneuver, which was shown, for example, in Ukraine. Tanks are most useful in large, open stretches of land where they can outflank and engage the enemy at great distance; the war in Bosnia involved a lot of urban warfare, however, and the relevant region is rather tiny, so the comparison with VP would be more like a tank assaulting a city with some infantry stationed inside of it, rather than a tank vs. infantry in the open field. With Mechanized infantry gaining a movement point as well in late game, I wonder if it's worth building tanks anymore at all, which isn't good.

And I'm also talking about tanks in their earlier environments, like in WW1 and WW2, not just wars in the Information Era; I doubt you'd want to claim that simple infantry units could have done the job better than tanks in those earlier wars.

 

[pineappledan]

The flavor in my head for charge is that while charges were powerful, they failed against high morale infantry that stood strong in formation. So to me the charge promotion is the representation that the infantry is a little bit scattered and morale a little weaker than absolute max, and that point the charge is at its most devastating.

My idea included PADs idea of replacing the mounted bonus with formation. So with my idea you have a Spearman with 1 promotion (formation I and II) now gains an extra +10% defense and +3% bonus against mounted compared to the current Shock I spear with its innate +50% mounted. The spear is a little bit tankier in the new version, but has just a slight upgrade to anti-mounted overall. This makes the spear an overall a more defensive unit with the same anti-mounted power.

Not a bad way to go, but I would personally prefer the emphasis on open terrain. It’s an opportunity for the mechanics to provide a teachable moment for military history.

re tanks, if you want to continue that discussion, you should open a new thread. I think they’re fine.

 

[Stalker0]

It’s an opportunity for the mechanics to provide a teachable moment for military history.

The civ combat mechanics are not going to teach anyone about military history. As long as the flavor is reasonable, we should focus on gameplay.

The problem with the promotion is that it connect two niche pieces in one. Open Field is niche, anti-mounted is niche. So you have a super niche promotion. If we are keeping one piece niche (anti-mounted) than its better to leave the other parts more generic to ensure the promotion is not so Pidgeon holed that its sees little use....which is personally what I see what that promotion today.

 

[pineappledan]

The civ combat mechanics are not going to teach anyone about military history

they taught me about military history. Maybe I’m a bad example because I mod and am constantly taking this game apart, but civ is chock full of opportunities for tangential learning. I see no reason why the promotion trees shouldn’t be the same.

 

[civplayer33]

re tanks, if you want to continue that discussion, you should open a new thread. I think they’re fine.

I just checked and Formation actually gives anti-armor bonus, too, so it wouldn't just be the defensive bonus that survives and in testing I see that infantry is already stronger than the same era armored unit even without it (they do slightly less damage but have more HP) while being able to take advantage of defensive terrain bonuses, costing less and not requiring SR and then they even get free ranged defense and more air strike defense!

So while I will open a thread specifically to discuss tanks because the imbalance has become ridiculous, I am now opposed to this Formation change as well (the regular anti-mounted being replaced by a new, stronger Formation) because it just isn't worth the slight improvement in early game considering the effects later on. Personally I think Formation should just be removed entirely from the mounted line and Charge (1&2) made a separate, third line for Mounted and Armored units. That way the player can choose a nice, effective offensive line that, however, provides no access to any of the advanced promotions or go the flanking (Shock) or city attack (drill) route (or a combination). Since Gunpowder units also get Ambush I&II (+15% attack in rough terrain each and +33% against armored each) from Combustion onward, so they can specialize in that direction even more if they want to, Formation should have its anti-armored bonus removed (so it's only an anti-mounted one), because they shouldn't have the ability to completely outclass an entire line (armored) in the game. If armored units are buffed in the future I may get behind something like Formation I replacing the anti-mounted bonus but only if it isn't an anti-armored one, as well. I'm also not opposed to slightly buffing Formation (bump anti-mounted bonus to +33% and perhaps defense in open terrain to +15%).

 

[pineappledan]

I just checked and Formation actually gives anti-armor bonus, too[...]
So while I will open a thread specifically to discuss tanks because the imbalance has become ridiculous

I just checked myself and you are right. That is ridiculous. I had no idea.

Well, first order of business is to remove the bonus vs armor for formation. Ambush should also be boosted from 25% to 33%. I will do that myself in the modmod I am releasing.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

Hills only give a 10% Defense boost; For/Jungle Hills give +35%. Formation I's +10% Open Defense matches regular Hills. I would welcome a buff to the Defense that Formation gives. It could compliment the Stalwart line, hopefully enough to be an interesting alternative to just going Shock.

I cannot agree that Anti-Mounted is niche given how powerful Knights and Heavy Skirmishers are. I really do like Formation on my Mounted Units, as it works both ways, unlike Charge, making those Units great for defeating other Mounted Units. Of course it's hard for a specialized Promotion to compete with a generalized Promotion outside it's niche.

I like Ambush's bonus for having your Gun units attacking into Rough Terrain, the idea anyways. A shame that Promotions isn't available until Combustion. We could replace their Formation with Ambush and make it available always. How can we make it not too painful for them for attacking into Rough Terrain?

Should Melee/ Gun Units have a Promotion that gives a bonus vs Mounted/ Armor, though?

I want to see that Tank thread.

 

[civplayer33]

I want to see that Tank thread.

It'll come on Sunday, I'm still thinking about things so I can make some hopefully decent proposals and present some data when I post it...

 

[civplayer33]

Alright, I got busy IRL and had some other stuff to do for some mod-mod updates I'll be posting shortly, but the Armored Units balance thread is now live!