1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Improvements in the unit roster

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall: Europe' started by AbsintheRed, Apr 27, 2017.

  1. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Ah okay, thats good then. Early gunpowder weapons and archery should exist for a time side by side.
     
  2. Baron03

    Baron03 Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    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.
     
  3. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    It's actually 4 units, since the proposed Longbow would be a parallel unit for Arbalest and to the first gunpowder units.
    4 units till 1450-1500 is not that much IMO (almost 400 turns), given that one of them is already close to being outdated at the start.
    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.
    Also, having a unit between Arquebus and Line Infantry is pretty imporant, the latter comes way too late. Musketman would work as the first more settled widely spread gunpowder unit.
    This setup would be way more fitting to the needs with the UUs in the mod.
    I'm not yet sure about costs at all. Game balance will be very important in that aspect.
    One more thing to consider though: unit production is not strictly about monetary expenses of the equipment. Longbows for example were very hard to train, usually took years. The big advantage of early firearms was that training itself was much easier. We can only represent this under production cost ingame.
     
  4. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  5. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    833
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    This way you can also add some extra bonus to polarms too. There is a big gap between gui abd pike (in time). So maybe a tech could add further +25% vs cavalry to represent the advancement they made in weapon and tactics.
     
  6. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    I don't think you've found a new role for archery units tbh - you have turned them from city defence units with variable bonuses against infantry and cavalry into generic artillery units without the bombard capability. The problem of laughable collateral damage is only worse when an arbalest does as much collateral damage as a trebuchet!

    The heavy and light cavalry fine, they are already going to be added, but I don't think it's good for gameplay to have a generic and linear progression of heavy cav vs same strength polearm.

    Spearman: S5, +50% vs HC, +25% vs LC
    Heavy Spearman: S7, +50% vs HC, +25% vs LC
    Guisarmer: S9, +50% vs HC, +25% vs LC
    Pikeman: S11, +50% vs HC, +25% vs LC

    Armoured Lancer: S9, -10% city attack
    Knight: S12, -10%city attack
    Demi Lancer: S15, -10% city attack, 20% retreat
    Cuirassier: S18,-10% city attack, 20% retreat

    There's almost no different there, imo, as each unit is much the same as the other just with its strength increased by a fixed %. If anything, you have replicated the melee line problem of too many units too close together in strength - there should be bigger differences between guisarmer and pike than between guisarmer and spear imo, it's good for flavour and history.
     
  7. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    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?
     
  8. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    Agree with this - the current arquebusier is more around the time of early hand cannons which were crude, slow and inaccurate. If it's moved back to matchlock and the late 1400s then we enter the time at which handguns were first seen influencing battles. Then when we hit flintlock and muskets in the 1600s bows are fully surpassed

    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?
     
  9. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    @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?
     
  10. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Saw it, but not yet sure. Will have to look into the mechanics too.
    Yeah, Morocco will get a new UU.
     
  11. Ogi123

    Ogi123 The End is the Beginning is the End

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Somwhere in time
    Well yes grenadier were siege troops akin to later sappers or pioneers, but in mod this role is taken by siege weaponry.
    And no Turk is wrong, gunpowder changed all types of troops, for heavy cavalry they simply changed armour to versions proofed against bullets, this is also origin of bullet-proof. 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.
    About archers, I'm against giving them str increase via tech, to unique if archers why not some other units? Still prefer only three archery units and longbow as English UU. More pressing question is role of this type of unit. Artillery? City defence? Anti heavy infantry?
     
  12. Baron03

    Baron03 Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    I guess technologies will be settled later (mostly early and middle new ones correct?)

    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.
     
  13. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Surely city defence should be part of it for some extent, but Arbalest should be somewhat better for that role.
    Bonus against Heavy Infantry and Heavy Cavalry also seems very fitting.
    Heavy Cavalry units should probably have a bonus against most Archer class units, but not against Longbowman.
     
  14. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Everyone is welcomed to start brainstorming about the corresponding techs too, but I won't get into it in detail right now.
    Will be useful for later anyway.
    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?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  15. Ogi123

    Ogi123 The End is the Beginning is the End

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Somwhere in time
    I'm against tech improving archer str, if it's necessary it's better to have a new archery unit between archer and crossbow.
    Archery units should not have bonus against heavy cav, those units combined heavy armour and high mobility. That's deadly for archery units who couldn't pierce such armour.
    Longbow being good against plate armour is myth, I mean at Agrincourt French were defeated not by longbow but by being idiots and charging uphill in mud against prepared English positions.
    Perhaps I'm repeating myself but longbow should not be available to anybody but English. It should be they UU and replaces arbalest.
    So what should archery unit roster looks like? Well that depends on role of archery units, historically speaking they were early weak artillery , usually never making more than 10-20% of army composition. In mod however that role is filled by siege weapons. City defence is losing proposition, so any unit with such purpose will be rarely build by player. What does this left? Perhaps bonus against both heavy infantry and polearms? At this point I'm even considering yours proposition of giving them bonus against heavy cav despite that being unrealistic.
    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. So perhaps something like this?


    Tier "zero" - units with no tech prerequisites.
    1)Warrior/Axeman: S5, +10% city attack
    2)Spearman: S4, +75% vs HC, +25% vs LC
    3)Skirmisher: S3, 1 first strike, flanks siege, 40% retreat, -20% city attack, thwart spies, immune to first strikes
    4)Lancer: S6, -10%city attack
    5)Archer: S3, 1first strike, +50% vs heavy infantry and polearm
    6)Catapult: S3, +100% city attack, collateral damage (4units/40%)
    7)Galley: S3, M4, cargo(2)
    8)War galley: S4, M5

    Heavy infantry:
    1)Swordsman S7, +10% city attack
    2)Heavy swordsman S9, +10% city attack

    Polearm:
    1)Heavy Spearman: S6, +75% vs HC, +25% vs LC
    2)Guisarmer: S8, +75% vs HC, +25% vs LC
    3)Pikeman: S10, +75% vs HC, +25% vs LC

    Archery:
    1)Crossbow S5, 1first strike, +50% vs heavy infantry and polearm
    2)Arbalest S8, 1first strike, +50% vs heavy infantry and polearm

    Heavy cav:
    1)Armoured Lancer: S9, -10% city attack
    2)Knight: S12, -10%city attack
    3)Demi Lancer: S15, -10% city attack, 20% retreat
    4)Cuirassier: S18,-10% city attack, 20% retreat

    Light Cav:
    1)Mounted sergeant: S6, 1 first strike, flanks siege, 40% retreat, -20% city attack, thwart spies, immune to first strikes
    2)Light Cav: S9, 1 first strike , flanks siege, 40% retreat, -20% city attack, thwart spies, immune to first strikes
    3)Pistolier: S12, 1 first strike , flanks siege, 40% retreat, -20% city attack, thwart spies, immune to first strikes
    4)Hussar: S14, 1 first strike , flanks siege, 40% retreat, -20% city attack, thwart spies, immune to first strikes

    Gunpowder:
    1)Arquebus: S10, 1first strike
    2)Musketman: S13, 1first strike
    3)Line infantry: S16, 1first strike, +50% vs heavy cav

    Siege:
    1)Trebuchet: S4, +100% city attack, collateral damage (5units/40%)
    2)Bombard: S6, +100% city attack, collateral damage (5units/50%)
    3)Cannon: S10, collateral damage (5units/60%)
    4)Field artillery: S14, collateral damage (5units/70%)

    Naval:
    1)Heavy Galley: S6, M5
    2)Gun Galley: S8, M5
    3)Caravel/Carrack: S10, M7
    4)Frigate: S12, M10
    5)SoL: S14, M8

    Transport:
    1)Cog: S4, M5, cargo(3)
    2)Holk: S6, M7, cargo(4)
    3)Galleon: S8, M9, cargo(5)

    Bar in mind that both cav types benefit from stables so they start with two promotions instead of infantry one.
    In such line up longbow will be English UU replaces arbalest and gets +1str.
    If you really want something between archer and crossbow:
    1)Bowman S5, 1first strike, +50% vs heavy infantry and polearm
    2)Crossbow S7, 1first strike, +50% vs heavy infantry and polearm
    3)Arbalest S9, 1first strike, +50% vs heavy infantry and polearm

    But then you will need probably add halberd to heavy infantry and change pike:
    Polearm:
    1)Heavy Spearman: S6, +75% vs HC, +25% vs LC
    2)Guisarmer: S8, +75% vs HC, +25% vs LC
    3)Pikeman: S10, +75% vs HC, +25% vs LC, +25% vs heavy infantry?

    Heavy infantry:
    1)Swordsman S7, +10% city attack
    2)Heavy swordsman S9, +10% city attack
    3)Halberdier S11, +10%city attack
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  16. Baron03

    Baron03 Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    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.
     
  17. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    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!

    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.

    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.

    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?
     
  18. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    Composite bowman. Relevant tech = Lamination

    Works imo well as the ERE and Muslims can start with the tech to reflect their traditions of composite bow manufacturing. Then it can spread throughout Europe to give a stronger archer. From Hungary onwards all new civs will have it.
     
  19. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Base strength isn't everything. Promotions and bonuses can modifiy it to a huge extent.
    Current Crossbow and Arbalest has 1 strength difference too.
    Also you can't really say that s9 is too strong. It would be in the current roster, but who knows what will be the final strength values in this one?
    That's why I said exact values are irrelevant right now.
    What's important is the units position on the timeline, and the relations between them. That's the base from where I want to build this whole thing up.

    The first and most imporant thing is to establish when do we want to have the units in the line. For example in my suggestion for the Archery line, we have Crossbows appearing around 1050, Arbalest around 1200, Arquebus around 1450, Muskets around 1600, etc.
    This is based on their historical role: Crossbow-type units were mostly/widely used in Europe from the Battle of Hastings until around 1500, with Arbalest as it's improved version appearing around the late 12th century and slowly spreading to almost all of Europe. Arquebusier represents matchlock units getting widely used by the end of the 15th century, while Musketman represents the first of the more modern firearm units with flintlock.
    This of course can't be perfect, gameplay might modify many things to some extent, but we still want to reflect history as much as possible
    I definitely do not want to have that linear progression for all unit types, like in your suggestions.
     
  20. Ogi123

    Ogi123 The End is the Beginning is the End

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Somwhere in time
    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.



    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.

    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?



    City defence is useless, you will be collateraled into oblivion. Radical solution will be making archery units immune to collateral.
     

Share This Page