That's how it is in my suggestion.
Ah okay, thats good then. Early gunpowder weapons and archery should exist for a time side by side.
That's how it is in my suggestion.
It's actually 4 units, since the proposed Longbow would be a parallel unit for Arbalest and to the first gunpowder units.That's five archery units for first half of tech tree, won't they obsolete too quickly? For comparison you have same number of heavy cavalry in whole tech tree. I'm not a fan of longbow this was exclusively English weapon made possible by they culture, they weren't used in continental Europe.
I definitely want to make Arquebus more useful than it is now. I think the proposed changes more than achieve that, with being the superior defensive unit after 1500.About gunpowder, will arquebus be useable in such roster? If it's strength is to low nobody will build it, that's main problem of all counter units, with low str they are pure stack defence.
Flintlock mechanism is late 17th century as far as mass equipment is concerned, besides firing mechanism itself is irrelevant, tactical function is more important. For me line infantry is collusion of flintlock firing mechanism and socked bayonet witch give way to new tactics.
For me Musketman should be used with pikeman to simulate pike and shoot and later give way to line infantry. I guess you could put arquebus before that, but it should be replacement for archery units, they were much better after all.
I'm not yet sure about costs at all. Game balance will be very important in that aspect.Oh and initial firearms were much more powerful and accurate than archery counterparts, but they were also much more expensive. So arqebus should be powerful, expensive option. If you don't have sulphur or want cheap obsolete troops you build arbalest/longbow.
Yeah, was also playing around with that idea. Could potentially be an elegant solution in some places.For extending the archer unit, would you consider adding a technology (since your thinking about expanding the turns in the timeline anyway e.g. Heraldry, Bodkin arrow, etc.) or editing a present technology that gives the archer +1 or +2 strength? This would avoid an interim unit and keep the archer relevant. I remember another mod did this for the archer unit and others.
That's simply not true, extent of my changes was finding new role for archery units, adding one heavy and one light cavalry, adding one polearm unit and removing some units witch I believed are superfluous. If you want talking about carbon copies that's situation already present in mod. My changes are mainly about gameplay , because when was last time you build guisarmer or arquebus? Knights without counter are unfunny situation.
Historically speaking such progress is realistic, there was constant improvement in arms, armour and tactics, but heavy shock cavalry for example has same role in 500AD as in 1800AD.
Bonuses are to be fine tuned, bit my main worry was to avoid low strength high bonus units, because due to stack mechanics such units are purely defensive/anti-barbarian.
As for vanilla, you now that only reason for grenadier vs line infantry attack bonus is that in civ4 have same unit with same bonus only vs rifleman?
Won't talk about strength and bonuses in detail (not yet), but generally I also want to see bigger variance.
For example the best way to handle the differences in usefulness between heavy and light cavalry during the timeline is to vary their bonuses/penalties against the other contemporary unit classes. Strength alone is not enough for that for a proper representation IMO.
I'm also not sure about grenadier.
So I want to separate the crossbow line and the longow a little more in functionality, and have both type powerful in the 13-15th centuries.
Also the arquebus comes way too early right now. Around 1300. Having it in the proposed way will still leave more than enough room to play around with longbows and arbalests, but also fits more into the upgrade line.
Also the better timing for Matchlock and Flintlock allows us to have all UUs available in a historically more correct time.
Drill reduces the rate at which collateral damage accumulates, but doesn't cap it. Even with 60% less collateral damage, units can still be damaged down to 30-50% health, making them easy for other units to kill. Drill is also more than countered by Barrage.
But yes, I could see an argument for making the new promotion (let's call it "Hardened") available with Drill II and City Garrison II, rather than Combat II. Also maybe only cap the damage at 20%, so siege weapons still have some impact.
Saw it, but not yet sure. Will have to look into the mechanics too.@AbsintheRed not sure if you saw this thread of discussion. I think a new promotion which caps the collateral damage a unit can suffer to a maximum of 10-20% could have some use, stopping siege weapon stacks being the be all and end all of city attacks. Although not sure how well the AI would handle it?
Yeah, Morocco will get a new UU.Although that would still be too late for the Black Guard for Morocco - I assume we are still considering some form of Berber unit to replace them?
Well yes grenadier were siege troops akin to later sappers or pioneers, but in mod this role is taken by siege weaponry.I agree with this - I think we definitely need five tiers of cavalry, but they shouldn't just be slightly stronger versions of the previous, they should have specific combinations of withdrawal, first strikes, bonuses and penalties to reflect their usefulness. As The Turk noted in another thread, gunpowder gave light cavalry an advantage over heavy cavalry so that should be reflected in heavy cav bonuses for pistoleers and hussars for example.
Grenadiers should stay in, imo, as they played a strong role at the time. Although the bonus vs line infantry doesn't make much sense, as it was the accuracy and discipline of line infantry that caused much of the decline of the charge and throw bombs tactics of the grenadiers. Maybe give grenadiers a small amount of collateral damage (max 20%) instead as that would better reflect their role in assaulting fortifications?
Yeah, was also playing around with that idea. Could potentially be an elegant solution in some places.
But Crossbows shouldn't be available before 1050, I always hated how they cover most parts of the map around 850-900 with the current archery progress.
With the extended early timeline that would mean more than 180 turns. It's already 150 with the current version.
A new unit would probably look better for such a long timegap.
Also: a couple new techs will definitely be introduced with these unit updates.
Surely city defence should be part of it for some extent, but Arbalest should be somewhat better for that role.More pressing question is role of this type of unit. Artillery? City defence? Anti heavy infantry?
Everyone is welcomed to start brainstorming about the corresponding techs too, but I won't get into it in detail right now.I guess technologies will be settled later (mostly early and middle new ones correct?)
Well, it needs some additional code. Not that hard to do it, but definitely wouldn't say it's simpler than just adding another unit.I agree with the date of crossbow appearance, but for the archer I still think it would be best to have two separate +1 strength via technologies. Archery with the exception of the longbow was replaced by the crossbow, so I think it is fine to have the archer maintain some usefulness till then. It should be simpler than adding another archery unit.
Well, it needs some additional code. Not that hard to do it, but definitely wouldn't say it's simpler than just adding another unit.
That wouldn't hold me back at all, I'm just not sure if I want to make an exception here. Why only apply it here?
It could be applied to a lot of other units then. Should we add +1 to Crossbowman on the given tech instead of having the Arbalest as a separate unit?
Well yes grenadier were siege troops akin to later sappers or pioneers, but in mod this role is taken by siege weaponry.
Simply, heavy and light cavalry evolved with technology changes, but they roles stayed mostly the same during time period of mod. So consecutive iterations of those types of units will be similar, that's how it works unfortunately.
More pressing question is role of this type of unit. Artillery? City defence? Anti heavy infantry?
I just don't think there is a good unit between the archer and crossbow. Arbalest works fine. The only other unit I would imagine a tech strengthening through would be the arquebus. Either way it is up to you.
Base strength isn't everything. Promotions and bonuses can modifiy it to a huge extent.Other problem is that four archery units have problem of being to close in str unless you rescale all other units. Archer S3->Improved ArcherS4->CrossbowS5->ArblestS6? That's way to close to each other, so what S3->S5->S7->S9? To strong at end. More I look at it there is only place for 3 archery units as far as unit str progression is considered.
My proposition was archers functioning as field artillery, while siege weapons thanks to city attack bonus and bombard ability can conquer cities. Archers have lower collateral damage than siege but higher base str.Then why did you propose adding collateral damage to archers? Seems like they are even less likely to be siege troops than troops throwing bombs!
But that's tactical use of cavalry, while civ4 is played on strategic level. Also horse archery was only really prevalent in east(ERE, Sassanids), I don't remember if western nations like Franks or Visigoths for example used this combination. Knights were born not by stirrup by itself but by it allowing use of couched lance. As far as end of the mod you are right at this point of time light and heavy cavalry were both melded together, unarmoured and charging rarely. For what I remember it was Napoleon who bring back cuirassiers as shock cavalry.Well that's not true at all. Heavy cavalry at the start of the mod were largely a combination of mounted archers and thrusting lancers, using arrows to force tightly packed formations to separate in make them vulnerable for a charge. Then the rise of armoured knights and stirrups saw armoured knights who would charge early in the battle against prepared formations and fight from horseback using swords after the initial charge and create gaps for infantry to charge into. Towards the end of the mod, the fight would be between separate lines of infantry, with heavy cavalry held in reserve and only used when the infantry was engaged to try and tip the balance of the melee.
As I said that because in 18th century distinction between heavy and light cav was mostly nominal. Perhaps single cavalry unit at end of mod encompassing both heavy and light cavalry?Light cavalry also evolved - pistoleers and hussars were much much more likely to play a pivotal role in later battles, firing into unsupported and unprepared infantry and artillery to panic them before a charge. This is a big contrast to early light cavalry who were usually restricted to scouting and raiding.
Just read accounts of how Crusader knights were able to stand up against barrages of arrows and attacks from Turkish light cavalry and still survive, when compared to how 18th century reiters were able to punch through heavy cavalry regiments and sweep them away towards the end of the mod to see why it would be wholly unrepresentative to have the development of each line not vary in strength over the period of the mod.
City defence is useless, you will be collateraled into oblivion. Radical solution will be making archery units immune to collateral.First and foremost city defence, then just defence in general. With a boost against heavy infantry and cavalry of course. Pretty much as they are now, just need a solution to the issue of collateral damage imo, although drill already helps with that.
Maybe archers should all start with Drill I? Brings them that much closer to the collateral damage reduction levels?