Lack of Later Era Units??

[stealth_nsk]

Good find King Jason, I just wonder what special thing Ranger will have? Some sort of stealth bonus inside woods would be cool.

They don't look like a pure combat unit so what makes them worth building.

Stealth bonus would require the whole new set of rules for it. On sea it's quite common to use specific units to spot submarines, but I don't think that's something to be used on land and with recon unit.

More likely it has more movement, better combat strength and easier movement on difficult terrain. It's role will be surprise pillaging and builder capturing. Not sure how well it would work, though.

EDIT: And, of course, it will be very useful to scount unsettled continent without too much fear of barbarians.

 

[King Jason]

So far we've seen the second level scout promotion allows for the ability to move after attacking (The wording is awesome, since it doesn't mean multiple attacks, but anyway). If the Ranger has even moderate strength it could be a decent harassment unit. If it is indeed a ranged unit as some folks claim, it would increase it's utility exponentially.

What I would find interesting is if it were a ranged unit, but with a range of 1 like the slinger and for a civ5 comparison, the modern Gatling gun, which sets the precedent for having advanced modern level gun units that, for some reason, can't shoot as far as a bow.

I think that'd make for an interesting unit as it needs to get close to it's targets, can attack without reprisal, and then is able to retreat. The tactics required would be in depth and if you make it's melee strength particularly weak (scout level), it should have plenty risk for it's benefits.

Other ideas, if you want to take from the Rise of Nations Commando, which someone else mentioned as a comparison, and seems a pretty strong parralell, to be honest - Perhaps some additional ability associated with pillaging to represent sabotage, and/or the ability to detect and kill spies.

 

[gfeier]

It occurs to me that riflemen were not around very long. The first major war with rifle-armed units, at least for the British and French, was the Crimean war in the 1850s. By the turn of the century, modern armies were all going over to bolt-action rifles with magazines, the basic infantry weapon through WWII (except for the U.S. M-1 Garand). That's barely 50 years between muskets and infantry.

 

[TheD3rp]

It occurs to me that riflemen were not around very long. The first major war with rifle-armed units, at least for the British and French, was the Crimean war in the 1850s. By the turn of the century, modern armies were all going over to bolt-action rifles with magazines, the basic infantry weapon through WWII (except for the U.S. M-1 Garand). That's barely 50 years between muskets and infantry.

And neither were smokeless powder repeating rifles. There was only a little over 50 years between the Lebel 1886 and the AK-47.

 

[stealth_nsk]

And neither were smokeless powder repeating rifles. There was only a little over 50 years between the Lebel 1886 and the AK-47.

AK-47 marks the beginning of the era of modern infantry, which is probably named "Mech. Infantry" in the game.

The "Infantry" in the game is from late XIX century to WW2.

 

[Metecury]

It occurs to me that riflemen were not around very long. The first major war with rifle-armed units, at least for the British and French, was the Crimean war in the 1850s. By the turn of the century, modern armies were all going over to bolt-action rifles with magazines, the basic infantry weapon through WWII (except for the U.S. M-1 Garand). That's barely 50 years between muskets and infantry.

The more you progress the slower time passes in the ingame calendar so that is not really the issue. The issue here is not even a trimmed down unit roster, that is fine my only problem is having only two gunpowder infantry units with centuries of history in between. It is a bit immersion breaking to keep musketmen from the early renaissance to the late industrial era to then immediately get ww2 infantry.






Im fine with not having a ton of late rea units, no paratroopers and marines on top of ww1 adn ww2 infantry is fine by me (although I much rather prefer more units as I play on epic and do not really feel like they pass too fast) but to not have a riflemen between musketmen and ww2 infantry is too much.




I'm still hoping they will add a riflemen unit, perhaps it is unlocked in the civic tree at mobilization or nationalism. We'll see.

 

[gfeier]

The more you progress the slower time passes in the ingame calendar so that is not really the issue. The issue here is not even a trimmed down unit roster, that is fine my only problem is having only two gunpowder infantry units with centuries of history in between. It is a bit immersion breaking to keep musketmen from the early renaissance to the late industrial era to then immediately get ww2 infantry.

Im fine with not having a ton of late rea units, no paratroopers and marines on top of ww1 adn ww2 infantry is fine by me (although I much rather prefer more units as I play on epic and do not really feel like they pass too fast) but to not have a riflemen between musketmen and ww2 infantry is too much.

I'm still hoping they will add a riflemen unit, perhaps it is unlocked in the civic tree at mobilization or nationalism. We'll see.

We apparently do have a rifle-armed unit - the Ranger (unlocks with Rifling). It's a recon unit, but looks like it will be fun to play.

 

[Metecury]

We apparently do have a rifle-armed unit - the Ranger (unlocks with Rifling). It's a recon unit, but looks like it will be fun to play.

That's an explorer upgrade not an infantry upgrade.

 

[gfeier]

Right, but recon units can attack in this game too. With a couple of promotions it may be able to move after attacking.

 

[molsonite]

Have we seen a jet fighter yet? Or a tank more modern than a Sherman?

 

[TheD3rp]

Have we seen a jet fighter yet? Or a tank more modern than a Sherman?

Nothing on the jet fighter, however we did see a T-80 in the Brazil video which is presumably what the modern armor is going to be based on this time around.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Nothing on the jet fighter, however we did see a T-80 in the Brazil video which is presumably what the modern armor is going to be based on this time around.

There is a swept-wing aircraft outline showing in the late-era Tech Tree, but since it has no details, can't tell if it's just a 'holder' or really represents a unit that will be in the final game.

 

[Cerilis]

Now that I have seen the bombard in the screenshot thread it's even harder to believe for me that they have made an early artillery unit along with the musketman, but no late gunpowder unit along with the cannon. D:

 

[Metecury]

Now that I have seen the bombard in the screenshot thread it's even harder to believe for me that they have made an early artillery unit along with the musketman, but no late gunpowder unit along with the cannon. D:

I'm hoping they are not yet done with it and that that will introduce it later in development just like barbarian horse archers.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

I don't think this deserves its own thread, so I borrow this one

Just read on local (Slovak) seller's site interesting info. They claim that corps will have roughly 40% more combat strength than single unit. So, if single Riflemen has lets say 50, Riflemen corps would have "only" 70. Do you find this reasonable? Was this already known?

I have no idea how relevant that info is, it is a part of description of Civ6. Everything else seems pretty accurate, but everything else is only general info about game changes, this is the only specific number.

 

[Olleus]

That seems reasonable with me. The way I see it is will 1 corp of two riflemen be able to beat two individual riflemen. If the combat odds are roughly the same as Civ5, then having 40% more strength should suffice for having half as many units. So the effective combat strength is roughly the same, but with corps you can concentrate the fighting power at the cost of losing flexibility and manoeuvrability.

As an aside: do we know if corps are temporary or permanent? Can I 'unbind' two units that are in a corp

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Corps are the reason for the lack of riflemen because if both corps and riflemen are in the jump in combat power would be something like if you in civilization V went from musketmen into infantry. The jump would be way to large.

 

[King Jason]

That doesn't really hold all that well since A.) we don't know when Corps come online apart from "some time before Mobilization" and B.) If my science is significantly better than yours yet I've kept up in culture too - we're getting corps at the same time yet I have Infantry and you have Muskets. So corps don't really bridge the gap of what falls clearly in the realm of a tech issue.

If Corps come through techs, and not civics, as we were led to believe, then I'd buy this argument. But if the upgrade to corps is independent of your ability to tech from Muskets to Infantry then you can't really make that assertion.

Basically what I'm saying is the progression doesn't go Muskets-> Muskets corps -> Infantry

It would go Muskets -> Musket Corps -> Infantry Corps.

The only way one civ would be fighting with Infantry and another would be fighting with Musket corps, to make it relatively balanced in terms of progression as you suggest, is if the person the culture disparity between those two nations is distinct.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Muskets -> Musket Corps -> Infantry Corps

This is what I think they balance the warfare around. Musket Corps could be seen as the replacement of riflemen and infantry corps not infantry being the standard unit in the era after.

We know that corps are about industrial so the industrial unit in civilization VI is musket corps not rifleman.

If know rifleman was a unit the balance would be way off because it would be

Muskets->rifle corps->Infantry corps, the jump between muskets to rifle corps would be huge as it would both be a unit uppgrade as well as the corps.

 

[Cerilis]

This is what I think they balance the warfare around. Musket Corps could be seen as the replacement of riflemen and infantry corps not infantry being the standard unit in the era after.

We know that corps are about industrial so the industrial unit in civilization VI is musket corps not rifleman.

If know rifleman was a unit the balance would be way off because it would be

Muskets->rifle corps->Infantry corps, the jump between muskets to rifle corps would be huge as it would both be a unit uppgrade as well as the corps.

But wouldn't the gap between musket corps and infantry corps be too big then? I mean, once you got corps, why would you bother with single infantry (in that model).