How combat should work

[Masada]

Simply put once we hit canon units we have to stop upgrades. Those would be for late game techs and they make perfect sense. I was not talking about adopting the techs themselves but the ideas. I was thinking of things like Long Rifles for Musket units and the like, things that would not be available through promotions but would instead be tech linked, they don't need to be game breaking, but we can't upgrade our units past canon so it's a viable means of adding later game techs and prolonging the life of the tech tree.

Normal tech linked promotions are not such a good idea, they are no substitute for well thought out additions to the late to middle game (see above), its also annoying to have your units run out of stuff to spend XP on, forest defense is not my promotion of choice (even though it can be very good).

 

[Ahriman]

A way of including this;
Have powerful promotions tied to future techs.

So, all the normal promotions are available from the start of the game (or from a very early tech).
Then have a series of "superior" promotions for each unit line that are granted by future tech research.

The future tech 1 will require the highest level of techs that every faction can research (careful not to give it techs that some factions can't learn).

This has several design advantages:
1. Gives meaningful things to research on the end of the tech tree, and its more interesting than just happiness/health bonuses.
2. Allows to keep using canon units, but makes them continually more powerful with tech.
3. Does so using existing mechanics (promotions) that the AI will understand.

Gunpowder units:
Improved rifles 1 +10% strength, +1 first strike, requires Future tech 1.
Improved rifles 2 +1 first strike, +20% vs archery units, requires improved rifles 1, requires future tech 2.
Improved rifles 3 +2 first strikes, +20% vs melee units, requires improved rifles 2, requires future tech 3.

Missile cavalry units:
Maneuver 1: +10% withdraw chance, +10% vs melee, +10% vs chariots. Requires future tech 1.
Maneuver 2: +10% strength, +1 first strike. Requires future tech 2, require maneuver 1.
Maneuver 3: +1 movement, flanking bonus vs melee units. Requires future tech 3, requires maneuver 2.

Shock cavalry units:
Furious charge 1: Gives +10% strength, +10% vs melee units, require future tech 1.
Furious charge 2: Gives +10% strength, +1 first strike, requires furious charge 1, requires future tech 2.
Furious charge 3: Gives +10% strength, +20% vs archery units, +20% vs gunpowder units. Requires Furious charge 2, requires future tech 3.

Recon units:
Terrain master 1: +20% forest, ancient forest, wetland, jungle, deep jungle, hills, tundra, ice,desert strength. Require future tech 1.
Terrain master 2: +20% forest, ancient forest, wetland, jungle, deep jungle, hills, tundra, ice,desert strength, +20% vs beasts. Requires terrain master 1. Requires future tech 2.
Terrain master 3: +20% forest, ancient forest, wetland, jungle, deep jungle, hills, tundra, ice,desert strength, invisible.

Beast units:
Hardened skin 1: +10% strength, +20% fire, electrical, holy, death, poison resistance. Requires future tech 1.
Hardened skin 2: +10% strength, +20% fire, electrical, holy, death, poison resistance. Require hardened skin 1, requires future tech 2.
Hardened skin 3: +10% strength, immune to first strikes, immune to magic.

Melee units:
Elite discipline 1. +10% strength, +10% city attack. Requires future tech 1.
Elite discipline 2 +10% strength, +20% vs mounted units. Requires elite training 1, requires future tech 2.
Elite discipline 3. +10% strength, immune to fear, immune to terror, immune to charm.

Siege units:
Siegecraft 1:
Siegecraft 2:
Siegeraft 3:

Hero units:
Heroic strength 1: +1 strength, requires future tech 1.
Heroic strength 2: +1 strength, requires future tech 2.
Heroic strength 3: +1 strength, require future tech 3.

 

[Masada]

I wasn't talking about "future" techs per say, I was talking about putting all the existing promotions into the tech tree, and having "technological advancements" instead of combat promotions no real difference just the name and means of aquiring them.

So rifles might be a late tech promotion from steel, which gives shooting units +1 str or something. Likewise steel could grant steel weapons, and maybe a Knight Promotion like Steel Armour +3 str -1 movement etc.

Basically I was talking about elongating the tech tree abit by incorporating these kind of promotions, and perhaps fleshing out the end game, in preference to putting them in future techs... but certaintly that could be the way of going about it.

But you've basically hit on what I was suggesting.

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

I don't think that a fear/terror "resistance" would be easy to code or very effective. I would prefer that fear/terror work on every unit except those with a "courage" type promotion (or "immune to psychology/mind effects). Maybe the senior officer promotion could make units immune to fear?

Fear and psychology in warhamemr is very complex. Fear is a specific thing for certain units (dragons, hydras, undead etc) which makes units attacking them, (and being attacked by) have a chance to flee (iirc, i probably forgot how it works properly). in this mod i would rather implement a promotion that reduces the strength of any enemy being attacked by, or attacking, a fear causing unit by 20%. i would like Terror to act as fear in its current state but be a CHANCE (ie not every single combat will fail if you dont have courage)

other forms of psychology still need to be implemented too...

Spoiler :

A way of including this;
Have powerful promotions tied to future techs.

So, all the normal promotions are available from the start of the game (or from a very early tech).
Then have a series of "superior" promotions for each unit line that are granted by future tech research.

The future tech 1 will require the highest level of techs that every faction can research (careful not to give it techs that some factions can't learn).

This has several design advantages:
1. Gives meaningful things to research on the end of the tech tree, and its more interesting than just happiness/health bonuses.
2. Allows to keep using canon units, but makes them continually more powerful with tech.
3. Does so using existing mechanics (promotions) that the AI will understand.

Gunpowder units:
Improved rifles 1 +10% strength, +1 first strike, requires Future tech 1.
Improved rifles 2 +1 first strike, +20% vs archery units, requires improved rifles 1, requires future tech 2.
Improved rifles 3 +2 first strikes, +20% vs melee units, requires improved rifles 2, requires future tech 3.

Missile cavalry units:
Maneuver 1: +10% withdraw chance, +10% vs melee, +10% vs chariots. Requires future tech 1.
Maneuver 2: +10% strength, +1 first strike. Requires future tech 2, require maneuver 1.
Maneuver 3: +1 movement, flanking bonus vs melee units. Requires future tech 3, requires maneuver 2.

Shock cavalry units:
Furious charge 1: Gives +10% strength, +10% vs melee units, require future tech 1.
Furious charge 2: Gives +10% strength, +1 first strike, requires furious charge 1, requires future tech 2.
Furious charge 3: Gives +10% strength, +20% vs archery units, +20% vs gunpowder units. Requires Furious charge 2, requires future tech 3.

Recon units:
Terrain master 1: +20% forest, ancient forest, wetland, jungle, deep jungle, hills, tundra, ice,desert strength. Require future tech 1.
Terrain master 2: +20% forest, ancient forest, wetland, jungle, deep jungle, hills, tundra, ice,desert strength, +20% vs beasts. Requires terrain master 1. Requires future tech 2.
Terrain master 3: +20% forest, ancient forest, wetland, jungle, deep jungle, hills, tundra, ice,desert strength, invisible.

Beast units:
Hardened skin 1: +10% strength, +20% fire, electrical, holy, death, poison resistance. Requires future tech 1.
Hardened skin 2: +10% strength, +20% fire, electrical, holy, death, poison resistance. Require hardened skin 1, requires future tech 2.
Hardened skin 3: +10% strength, immune to first strikes, immune to magic.

Melee units:
Elite discipline 1. +10% strength, +10% city attack. Requires future tech 1.
Elite discipline 2 +10% strength, +20% vs mounted units. Requires elite training 1, requires future tech 2.
Elite discipline 3. +10% strength, immune to fear, immune to terror, immune to charm.

Siege units:
Siegecraft 1:
Siegecraft 2:
Siegeraft 3:

Hero units:
Heroic strength 1: +1 strength, requires future tech 1.
Heroic strength 2: +1 strength, requires future tech 2.
Heroic strength 3: +1 strength, require future tech 3.

i really like this idea

 

[Ahriman]

I wasn't talking about "future" techs per say, I was talking about putting all the existing promotions into the tech tree, and having "technological advancements" instead of combat promotions no real difference just the name and means of aquiring them.

So rifles might be a late tech promotion from steel, which gives shooting units +1 str or something. Likewise steel could grant steel weapons, and maybe a Knight Promotion like Steel Armour +3 str -1 movement etc.

I think it works better in future techs than working them into the tech tree. Nearly all of the canon units are already at the top of the tech tree, so there don't exist additional techs to put things at. And the top of the tree already really reaches the end of technology in the warhammer world.
And we know how you feel about adding new techs

There's steel, but only some factions will be able to research this, so I'd rather that this just provide a slightly improved version of iron weapons. (Steel tech gives steel weapons promotion with iron resource, same as iron weapons except additional +20% strength, and it replaces iron weapons).
Whereas all factions (including greenskins, beastmen, whatever) should be able to get the improved promotions from future techs.

Also we could call them "advanced doctrines" or something instead of "future tech".
And these techs woudl be quite expensive.

Future tech 1 would probably have tech requirements of advanced smithing, military tradition and fanaticism. These are the highest level techs that would be accessible to all factions.

I'd also lean away from +1 strength promotions by and large, these things are incredibly powerful because they multiply the effects of all previous promotions, rather than just adding to them.
Imagine a strength 10 unit with combat 5. Its effective strength is 15. If you give it an additional +20% strength, it moves to strength 17. If you give it an additional +2 strength (=20% of base 10), it moves to strength 18.
Bonus strength also multiplies all the effects of terrain and city fortification benefits.

 

[Squirrelloid]

Proposal:
Ok, so distilling some of what has been said (and do note that this is the generic base from which we are building units).

Unit Categories:
Heavy Infantry (ie, Melee)
Light Infantry (subtypes gunpowder, bows? I see no need to make such distinctions in a mod that stops at the end of the medieval period, honestly)
Heavy Cavalry
Light Cavalry
Siege

------------

"Chassis Types"
Heavy Infantry:
Warrior +% vs spear
Spear/Pike +% vs HC

Light Infantry:
Bow/Longbow +% vs. LC/HI, +% Hill (Really never notable as city defenders)
Crossbow +% vs. HI, +% City Defense
Firearm +% vs. HI/LC +% City Defense?

Heavy Cavalry:
Ancient Cavalry +% vs LI
Knights (HC) +% vs. LI, Warriors? (Lance reach advantage)

Light Cavalry:
Horse Archers +% vs. HC/HI

Siege:
Catapult
Trebuchet
Cannon
*Thought, why don't we give siege engines +% City Attack?

----------------
Random musings
(1)its been noted that the barrage functionality isn't well utilized by the AI. Since this is a FfH change relative to basic civ, why not just return siege engines to normal civ functionality? Ie, if you want to barrage a stack, you have to risk the siege engine in an attack. This should unbreak the AI because the AI knows how to use them in the normal game.

(Obviously, reducing city defense % functions as normal.)

(2) I'm actually in favor of making non-pike melee units the city defense units. Historically this makes a lot of sense - non-pike melee weapons remained in use because they were effective in close-quarters fighting, such as should an attack into a city be made. Archers were not notably better at defending a city than any other prepared position - ie represented by the fortification bonus and the city defense multiplier from culture/walls. If the latter gets reduced to zero via bombardment then they really aren't at any advantage over other troops defending a prepared position, and are actually at a disadvantage as once the assault reaches the city retreat becomes problematic and clear lines of sight are non-existent. Crossbows have less issue and some small defensive bonus for them is ok.

(3) I'm treating metal promotions as they currently exist in function now, although thinking the values may want to be redefined and have listed my preferred values below.

(4) Perhaps we want to handle Stirrups and Lances like the metal techs - as auto-promotions that apply to particular units.
-----------------
Specific Base Units (Pre-UU modification).

Promotions with a * are impossible for the unit to not have (but have not been figured into its base strength). Promotions separated by arrows upgrade into each other, those separated by commas are separate and stack.

I've intentionally left most of the +% bonuses blank for now.

Heavy Infantry:
Warrior (starting)
Str 3 Mv 1
+% vs. Spearman
+25% City Defense (which it currently has anyway)
Upgr: Warpaint (+1 Str)
Promotes to: Disciplined Warrior -> Elite Warrior / Spearman -> Pikeman

Disciplined Warrior (Req Military Discipline = Warrior Code)
Str 4 Mv 1
+% vs. Spearman
+25% City Defense
Upgr: Bronze (+1 Str) -> Iron (+3 Str) -> Steel (+5 str)
Promotes to: Elite Warrior

Elite Warrior (Req Formation Drill)
Str 5 Mv 1
+% vs. Spearman
+25% City Defense
Free March Promotion
Upgr: Bronze (+1 Str) -> Iron (+3 Str) -> Steel (+5 Str), Platemail (+1 Str)

Spearman (Req Military Discipline)
Str 4 Mv 1
+% vs. Heavy Cavalry
Upgr: Bronze (+1 Str) -> Iron (+3 Str) -> Steel (+5 Str)
Promotes to: Pikeman

Pikeman (Req Formation Drill, Iron Working)
Str 6 Mv 1
+% vs. Heavy Cavalry
Upgr: Iron* (+3 Str) -> Steel (+5 Str)

Light Infantry:
Archers (Req Archery)
Str 3 Mv 1
+% vs. LC
+% vs. HI
Upgr: Warpaint (+1 Str), Compound Bow (+2 Str)
Promotes to: Longbow / Crossbow

Longbow (Req Feudalism)
Str 7 Mv 1
+% vs. LC
+% vs. HI
+25% Hill Defense
Upgr: Compound Bow (+2 Str)

Crossbow (Req Machinery)
Str 4 Mv 1
+50% vs. HI
+25% City Defense
Upgr: Iron* (+3 Str) -> Steel (+5 Str)

Arquebusier (Req Gunpowder)
Str 9 Mv 1
+% vs. HI
+% vs. LC
Upgr: Matchlock (+1 Str), Rifled (+1 Str)

Light Cavalry
Horse Archers (Req Horseback Riding, Archery)
Str 5 Mv 3
+% vs. HI
+% vs. HC
Upgr: Compound Bow (+2 Str), Stirrup (+1)
Promotes to: Light Cavalry

Light Cavalry (Req Stirrup, Tactics)
Str 8 Mv 3
+% vs. HI
+% vs. HC
Upgr: Compound Bow (+2 Str), Stirrup (+1)
Promotes to: Cavalry

Mounted Untyped
Basically, these are mounted units that aren't subject to the normal limitations of mounted units because they combine multiple roles. In the existing WH lists these are Empire only, but probably also apply to Cathay.

Cavalry (Sabre/Pistol style LC/HC hybrid, Req ?)
Str 11 or 12 Mv 3
+% vs. HI*
+% vs. HC*
Upgr: Matchlock (+1 Str)
*These should be a little less than for LC unit types.

Dragoons (LC/LI Hybrid, Req ?)
Str 10 or 11 Mv 3
+% vs. LC*
+% vs. HI*
upgr: Matchlock (+1 Str), Rifled (+1 Str)
*These should be a little less than for LI unit types.

Heavy Cavalry
Ancient Cavalry (Req Horseback Riding)
Str 4 Mv 3
+% vs. LI
upgr: Bronze (+1) -> Iron (+3) -> Steel (+5), Stirrups (+1), Lance (+1, +10% vs. melee)
Promotes to: none (never goes obsolete)

Knight (Req Lance, Tournament)
Str 6 Mv 2
+% vs. LI
upgr: Iron (+3) -> Steel (+5), Stirrups* (+1), Lance* (+1, +10% vs. melee), Platemail (+1)

-------------------
Obviously, some of those techs are new, but this post is long enough. Some discussion on the size of those % bonuses is warranted. I will note that I believe 50% should be standard, and larger for pike/spears vs. HC. Considering much of the time you'll be batting approximately the same base strength, lower bonuses than that are going to barely be noticed. At +50% you expect to win once and take substantial damage assuming similar base strength as your attacker.

I also haven't touched monsters yet, and left chariots off for now.

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

interesting, but once again im a little scepticle if its worth such a big change (this will be VERY time consuming) ill wait for others responses before i say anything

 

[Squirrelloid]

interesting, but once again im a little scepticle if its worth such a big change (this will be VERY time consuming) ill wait for others responses before i say anything

How is this very time consuming to move some units around? The hard part seems to be unit class definitions - but LC really needs to be separated out into its own category. And regardless, there are many unit classes not being used in the mod that could conceivably be coopted for this purpose, so no need to define totally new types.

Removing separate defense values should be easy since its a reversion to core Civ IV behavior.

My primary goals are
(1) encourage combined arms
(2) standardize unit type performance vs. other types across all eras in a way that is historically realistic.
(3) make additional use of the equipment upgrade function to cover all unit types.

Hmm... I think its time to go see what I can learn about the coding end of things.

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

have you ever coded units in XML before? its a lot more complicated than you would expect. especially on that scale.

 

[Squirrelloid]

have you ever coded units in XML before? its a lot more complicated than you would expect. especially on that scale.

No, but I have coding experience (Java, Pascal, Matlab, and some what I think was XML related to Wiki template functionality), and there are files I can go look at and see what was done already, so it shouldn't be too hard to teach myself.

Now, stuff like the Siege Engineer I proposed probably requires hardcore C++ programming, and that would probably take quite a bit of time to teach myself.

 

[Ahriman]

but once again im a little scepticle if its worth such a big change (this will be VERY time consuming)

Agree completely. I think there is more to gain from the mod from making more of the factions playable.

I also think that "Shock Cavalry" and "Missile Cavalry" are more useful distinctions than "Light cavalry" and "heavy cavalry".
The "Light cavalry" unit already in the game is shock cavalry, judging by the unit models and and tech requirements.
Horsearchers are also a UU only available to a few civs, as it should be (historically horse-archers were central asian and offshoots, no-one else ever really managed to master it).

I don't think its worth separating sword/axe/whatever infantry from spear infantry in terms of building class. They are both Melee units, but they get different bonuses. A chariot will get a bonus vs melee units, but this will be (more than) counteracted by the bonus that spear units get vs mounted units.

Missile infantry is more appropriate than light infantry, but I have no problem with leaving the current difference between archery and gunpowder; these function quite differently.

I don't think there is any gain in separating the Cavalry unit from a Dragoon. Just have this be a high-end missile cavalry unit. (The Warhammer inspiration is Pistoliers or Outriders, which are firing gunpowder weapons while mounted).

I don't see the gains in trying to completely recode the metals upgrade system. The current system works fine. So I oppose the stirrups, matchlock, flintlock etc. upgrades to units.

*Edit*
If someone were creating a new mod from scratch, this would be a very interesting scheme to try to implement. But I don't think its worth all the work to retool the system.

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

*Edit*
If someone were creating a new mod from scratch, this would be a very interesting scheme to try to implement. But I don't think its worth all the work to retool the system.

i agree it is very good design, i only wish you had proposed it when we started on units. as it stands we would be taking a step back a year (yes a year) if we have to rework the units because the tidyest way i could think of doing this is to completely redo the unitinfos.xml and unitclassinfos.xml from scratch, re implementing EVERY unit again for EVERY civ. and then you need to tie each unit to the appropriate techs, and link the appropriate art, and weed out bugs and and and and the list goes on... its a big deal to redo something from scratch which is why i am secretly dreading the tech reworking but i want it done more than some of you guys most likely so ill take it liek a man

 

[Squirrelloid]

Agree completely. I think there is more to gain from the mod from making more of the factions playable.

I also think that "Shock Cavalry" and "Missile Cavalry" are more useful distinctions than "Light cavalry" and "heavy cavalry".
The "Light cavalry" unit already in the game is shock cavalry, judging by the unit models and and tech requirements.

Light cavalry is missile cavalry. The current unit is inaccurately named.

Horsearchers are also a UU only available to a few civs, as it should be (historically horse-archers were central asian and offshoots, no-one else ever really managed to master it).

Spain also had light cavalry (Mounted javelin troops in particular), as did the Muslims (notably during the crusades) - both independent of central asian versions. Ultimately Europeans ended up adopting a combined light/heavy cavalry with the pistol/sabre cavalry of the 16th century, their absence in europe generally before that can be seen as socially caused moreso than not.

Edit: How can I forget the Parthians! History's earliest light cavalry, who utterly annihilated a Roman Legion - also not Central Asian.

Missile infantry is more appropriate than light infantry, but I have no problem with leaving the current difference between archery and gunpowder; these function quite differently.

Again, light infantry means missile infantry. And gunpowder units don't actually function any differently than archers until the development of sufficient RoF to be capable of discouraging cavalry charges on their own AND new doctrines get implemented to allow for aggressive use of gunpowder infantry. In the real world that happens with Napoleon. Up until then the 'gun' is just a 'better bow' for all intents and purposes.

I don't think there is any gain in separating the Cavalry unit from a Dragoon. Just have this be a high-end missile cavalry unit. (The Warhammer inspiration is Pistoliers or Outriders, which are firing gunpowder weapons while mounted).

Dragoons don't suffer the accuracy hit that light cavalry suffer because they fire while dismounted (represented with outriders by not being able to move and fire), while retaining the mobility of light cavalry.

pistol/saber cavalry gain advantages of both light and heavy cavalry because they carry both a shock implement and a ranged implement. Historically they were vastly superior to any infantry for over 100 years (from the development of the matchlock until RoF increases made the pike less necessary for light infantry protection).

I don't see the gains in trying to completely recode the metals upgrade system. The current system works fine. So I oppose the stirrups, matchlock, flintlock etc. upgrades to units.

Adding new promotions just means defining the promotion availability for some units and defining the promotion somewhere, and otherwise copying the code for iron/bronze doesn't it?

For the sake of argument lets say I was willing to do a lot of the coding work here - then where do we stand? (PL, I think you have to be exaggerating the difficulty - it should be possible to redefine unit attributes while maintaining the same image links.)

 

[Darkform]

I always thought there should be 3 or more differently named future techs:

1: helth and happiness (government or environment future tech)
2: gold +% (financial future tech)
3+: unit class +% str (various military future techs this could be split into 1 for each unit class)

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

For the sake of argument lets say I was willing to do a lot of the coding work here - then where do we stand? (PL, I think you have to be exaggerating the difficulty - it should be possible to redefine unit attributes while maintaining the same image links.)

ah, now if we had more coders then it would be a different story. i would much prefer my efforts be spent on the tech tree at the moment, and orlanth is still working on getting the buildings and religions finalised (and your right i guess i am exaggerating a bit ) however the sad part of a makeover is that all of humaktys hard work on tilea and estalia will have been lost. i suspect that if you and him collaborated you could probably get this done in a reasonable time (hes quite familiar with the unit infos, and im sure with some help and your coding background you would grasp it pretty fast)

of course, a little more thought needs to be put into how each unit would work for each civ before we get started, its always much easyer to work from a design sheet than not. (it also means we can all discuss what each units roll in eac hciv should be. they should all be important (maybe not necessary but helpful in their own unique way) to each civ, plus we would need to find balances for things such as the dwarven complete lack of cavalry, and woodelves utter crap melee units...

 

[Masada]

Yes, let us plan this exaustively before anyone gives it a shot. It's feasible, and abit of work but not unworkable.

 

[Squirrelloid]

Are Bronze/Iron "Weapon Promotion Tier 1" /2 in the CvUnit.cpp? This is in code taken from Kael's FfH (7/30/2007) and this code looks to handle the graphical part (its seems to be in the section 'graphical only setup').

If its referencing the right variables, I could find all the relevant code with a text search and figure out how it works fairly easily.

There's a tier 3 already defined there as well, for the record.

Ploeperpengel seems to have written different code to implement meteoric iron (same file, a few pages down), I have no idea (yet) if its functional.

 

[Squirrelloid]

ah, now if we had more coders then it would be a different story. i would much prefer my efforts be spent on the tech tree at the moment, and orlanth is still working on getting the buildings and religions finalised (and your right i guess i am exaggerating a bit ) however the sad part of a makeover is that all of humaktys hard work on tilea and estalia will have been lost. i suspect that if you and him collaborated you could probably get this done in a reasonable time (hes quite familiar with the unit infos, and im sure with some help and your coding background you would grasp it pretty fast)

I would be happy to help with this type of coding. What I suck at are graphical things - so keep me away from the graphics parts =)

I should note that I think we should at least have a (re)design document finalized for unit types in order to work on the tech tree, because the two are intimately related, which is why I brought this up now (remember, I forked this from the tech tree thread).

of course, a little more thought needs to be put into how each unit would work for each civ before we get started, its always much easyer to work from a design sheet than not. (it also means we can all discuss what each units roll in eac hciv should be. they should all be important (maybe not necessary but helpful in their own unique way) to each civ, plus we would need to find balances for things such as the dwarven complete lack of cavalry, and woodelves utter crap melee units...

Of course. There's a reason I'm starting general as a basic proposal. The unit system pre-UUs should be balanced because we're going to try to build the UUs off of them. At which point we're back to 'how does this unit rundown look in theory, and what should those percentages be?'

 

[Ahriman]

Light cavalry is missile cavalry. The current unit is inaccurately named.

Well, sometimes light/heavy cavalry is used to distinguish lightly armored cavalry from heavily armored infantry, as many western cultures never had any much tradition of mounted missile units - so Hobilars are termed light cavalry as opposed to knights which are heavy cavalry. I'd be fine with renaming the existing unit "Lancer regiment" instead of "Light cavalry" regiment.

Spain also had light cavalry (Mounted javelin troops in particular), as did the Muslims (notably during the crusades) - both independent of central asian versions

This is why Estalia has Jinetes as a horsearcher UU in this mod, and Araby has Mounted camel archers. And Kislev has a horsearcher UU. But the Empire, Tilea, Bretonnia, Norsca, Nippon do not and should not IMO. I suspect that Elves, undead, chaos beasts, dwarves, chaos dwarves, amazons, lustrians all shouldn't get horsearchers either.

Parthians are central Asian in my book, culturally (ok, western Asia I guess, central is inaccurate). Turks also had a huge tradition of missile cavalry, as did most arab cultures, and polish/balkan lithuanians had javelin cavalry.
So I guess all my point really is is that Italy, Germany, France, Britain, Low countries, Scandanavia, Japan, never really used missile cavalry pre-gunpowder (and even then, mounted rifles were mostly dragoons).

Dragoons don't suffer the accuracy hit that light cavalry suffer because they fire while dismounted (represented with outriders by not being able to move and fire), while retaining the mobility of light cavalry.

Historically, this is true, but in Warhammer, dragoons don't really exist. I see no reason to create an extra unit that doesn't exist in the warhammer world.

of course, a little more thought needs to be put into how each unit would work for each civ before we get started

Actually, a lot. This system would pretty much mess up all the unit designs for all the designed factions.
Also, fundamentally, WHAT DO WE GAIN FROM SUCH A SYSTEM? Why is it better to have ancient cavalry that gain +1 strength with stirrups, rather than having ancient cavalry that can upgrade to a stronger Lancer Cavalry unit with the stirrups tech?
Why is it better to have separate Iron Swords and Iron Lances promotions rather than just a general Iron Weapons promotion?

What do we gain from doing something more than adding some mild unit category bonuses vs other unit categories?

 

[Darkform]

Vampire Counts never had any skeleton archers of any kind in 6th Von Carstien could have live human milita archers on foot tho. Tomb Kings had both skeletal archers on foot and on skeletal horse in 6th. (I don't know about 7th Tomb Kings.)