1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Improvements in the unit roster

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

  1. Ogi123

    Ogi123 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    European Federation
    Here I agree, we have only three polearm units currently, with plans to perhaps extend it to four. Heavy infantry line should be shorter, pikes after all should obsolete heavy infantry. I also dislike axeman/swordsman and longsworsman/maceman to close to each other and with to little difference in bonuses/strength.
    I will opt for something like Axeman S5 -> Swordsman S7->Heavy swordsman/Foot knight S9 all with +25% city attack and +25% vs polearm. Although HS/FK with 9 str and bonus vs polearm will counter pikes unless pike str is increased or it gets bonus vs heavy infantry (+50%?).
    Other than that what are opinions about my idea of tier zero unit, that means all unit types are available from start with no tech perquisites. After all, all civ had some kind of heavy cavalry or infantry on starting date.
    For example:
    1/Axeman: S5, +25% city attack, +25% vs polearm
    2)Spearman: S4, +100% vs HC, +50% vs LC
    3)Skirmisher: S3, 1 first strike, flanks siege, 40% retreat, -20% city attack, thwart spies, immune to first strikes
    4)Horseman: S6, -10%city attack
    5)Archer: S4, 1first strike, +50% city defence,+25% hills defence.
    6)Catapult: S3, +100% city attack, collateral damage (4units/40%)
     
  2. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,906
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yeah, I think the first unit will be available in most types right on the start of the game.
    Archer, Spearman, basic Heavy Infantry, Catapult definitely.
    Not yet sure about Cavalry. The first light tier is Horse Archer/Skirmisher, probably that too.
    Lancer as the first Heavy Cavalry maybe with a fairly early tech? I guess it shouldn't be available for France at start.
     
  3. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    938
    I understand what you mean, although I do still disagree. For me the problem is not so much how to solve the problem of facing Privateers, as much as it is how easy it currently is for the player to exploit Privateers, as the AI has no real counter.

    As it stands I think the fact privateers are the most powerful naval vessel for such a long period of time makes them too powerful, particularly as a colonial strategy for pillaging all other colony routes. It doesn't add as much flavour or different gameplay, as it encourages their use for one purpose.

    I think Privateers could still have an advantage, perhaps being cheaper to build and also ignoring defensive bonuses for both attacker and defender (so no +10% defence on coastal tiles when attacking or defending against privateers). But they should not be the ipso facto strongest ship against all others - that isn't a good design feature imo, there should be more balance in the naval combat at that stage in the game.
     
  4. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,906
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    To keep this short: that's actually an oversight when I did the related updates, I never intended them to be superior for that long.
    Will definitely be changed.
     
  5. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    938
    I still disagree with having a line of units having all the same bonuses right the way through and being such a linear progression. Giving them all +25% city attack and +25% polearm is not good for variety or historicity, and as you not it creates problems with foot knights being more powerful than pikes.

    Hence I proposed a variety of bonuses through the heavy infantry line, meaning that longswords will be very superior to guisarmers, but foot knights will not be superior to polearms. At the same time, longswords will be massacred by arbalests and longbows (as IRL), but foot knights will be superior to them in the absence of terrain bonuses (again as IRL due to their heavy plate armour).
     
  6. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    938
    Absolutely right. It wasn't until Charles Martel in the 8th century that France really developed heavy cavalry, which used stirrups, on a large scale. So I think keeping lancers with Farriers is a good idea for the early period, although maybe boost their strength to 8, as they are a bit underwhelming at the moment imo.

    Cool, sounds good to me :goodjob:
     
  7. Ogi123

    Ogi123 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    European Federation
    Historically foot knights were equiped with polearms. I for example dislike artificial split between axeman and swordsman. For foot knight, my mistake I misread archer bonus as polearm one. What wrong with giving axeman larger city attack bonus? I could make it finally useful, because currently you drop them as you get chain mail.
     
  8. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    938
    Exactly - being equipped with polearms will not give them an advantage when fighting against similarly equipped units, specifically pikemen. Whereas being equipped with plate armour can be a decisive advantage in defending against missiles, hence the bonus against archers. See, the abilities of units need to change as the technology progresses, to reflect how battlefields were, not just to be a similar linear increase in strength.

    That doesn't follow. If you only make an axeman a slightly weaker swordsman with a similar city attack bonus then yes you will obviously drop them as soon as you get chainmail, as the swordsman is better in every way. If, as you suggested, "I will opt for something like Axeman S5 -> Swordsman S7->Heavy swordsman/Foot knight S9 all with +25% city attack and +25% vs polearm" then the axeman is immediately obsolete when the swordsman is researched - it is weaker at everything.

    But as it stands at the moment, axemen have +50% vs polearm but swordsmen don't. So axes do retain some value against polearms, particularly guisarmers or heavy spearmen if we introduce them, whilst swordsmen have no bonus against these units.
     
  9. Ogi123

    Ogi123 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    European Federation
    In this instance swordsman is place of current longsword.
     
  10. Force44

    Force44 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Messages:
    481
    Location:
    The Low Countries
    :hammers::hammers::hammers:
    I am not convinced they are.

    Against contemporary ships. (Privateers, strength 10, Galleons and carracks, both strength 8)

    P vs G on coast 69.9%
    P vs G on ocean 75.1%

    P vs P on coast 32.2%
    P vs P on ocean 50%

    G vs P on coast 20.5%
    G vs P on oncean 25.1%

    Their survival rate is 7 out of 10 when attacking weaker targets on coast. (expect to lose roughly 3 out of every 10 battles)
    and 3 out of 4 when attacking weaker targets on the ocean. (so expect to lose 3 every 12 battles)

    (that is a lot worse than war galley vs galley, almost 99 out of 100 (98.7%) (expect to lose 1.3 every 100 battles))

    On the defence expect to lose half of your fleet on oceans vs other privateers.
    And 1 out of every three when on the coast. (vs other privateers)

    But also 1 out of every 5 privateers against galleons (or carracks) on oceans (3 out of 15).
    And 1 out of every 4 privateers against galleons on coasts (3 out of 12).

    They also draw a lot of agression more than ships without hidden nationality.
    So expect to be on the defensive a lot more than more than the offensive (your numbers will go down faster than when fighting with ships without hidden nationality)


    G vs G on ocean is 50%
    G vs G on coast is 32.2%

    cost galleon is 87:hammers:
    cost privateer is 100:hammers:

    (example for 12 battles)
    so on ocean it takes 6x87:hammers: to take out targets with galleons that will cost 3x100:hammers: with privateers.

    That is the best case offensive scenario for a privateer. (an 18.5:hammers: advantage per battle)

    Maybe that is overpowered in the hands of certain human players, but not mine.

    It will take 5 (actually a little more) best case scenario battles to overcome 1 loss (in hammers) due to increased agression.

    ~

    Having said that. Did nobody find it odd that a ship that is only allowed to attack targets granted by a letter the marque is able to attack all but the players own sea units?​
     

Share This Page