Longswordsmen and Great War Infantry

[j51]

Does any one else think it's odd that these two units can be upgraded with the research of only one additional technology? It seems like they have a really limited lifespan. It kind of makes the Japanese, French, and Danes a little less fun.

 

[nefloyd]

It depends on how you get there. It's erroneous to think that you just go from Steel to Gunpowder, because you also need Physics. In the same way, you don't hit Replaceable parts and then go right to Plastics, you also need Radio.

Yeah, they are close together, but why do you call it limited? Samurai, Berserkers, and Foreign Legion all start with free promotions that carry forward to the upgraded unit. I generally prefer this over the "Higher Strength, no Promotion" style UU, like Legions, Ballistae, etc.

 

[j51]

It depends on how you get there. It's erroneous to think that you just go from Steel to Gunpowder, because you also need Physics. In the same way, you don't hit Replaceable parts and then go right to Plastics, you also need Radio.

I meant that by writing "one additional technology"

Yeah, they are close together, but why do you call it limited? Samurai, Berserkers, and Foreign Legion all start with free promotions that carry forward to the upgraded unit. I generally prefer this over the "Higher Strength, no Promotion" style UU, like Legions, Ballistae, etc.

Well, it's limited in the sense of construction. And it's also limited graphically, which matters, to me at least, in the case of 'fun.'

 

[j51]

Either way, it's still kinda weird. Especially with the great war infantry: Why even have added them to the game?

 

[nefloyd]

Because they wanted to lengthen the tech eras and add some intervening units. Was it more or less odd to go from Rifles to Infantry with the rather large strength increase? Now we have a few more techs and an additional upgrade step. Yeah, they don't necessarily last long, but sometimes all you need to win a war is a short tech advantage.

Play with tech increase mods and/or on longer game speeds, they'll stick around longer.

 

[Furycrab]

Longswords to Muskets I feel is damn quick. Even a Warmonger will likely get physics pretty quick.

Great War Infantry to Infantry can feel a bit longer, especially if you delay to get Dynamite.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Longswordmen: so true. They hardly even need to be in the game when you go strictly by the strength numbers available from preceding or contemporary techs. Totally just hanging around for historical logic now, and they were always a little short on that anyway (they're just horseless knights!).

GW Infantry: these guys make sense, they're really just the new old Modern Infantry. The super-powered unit that pops out of Plastics in G&K is more of a 'new' unit. So, it's sad that G&K modern-infantry are too easy to tech for. It's also historically frustrating. (the US had already landed on the moon before it made enough edits to the AR-15 to make it a decent weapon).

Gameplay-wise, Plastics is way too strong to both give labs and make all preceding melee units obsolete. Modern infantry should have been at the very end of Atomic, and if that made them the short-lived unit, so much the better as far as balanced warfare.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Either way, it's still kinda weird. Especially with the great war infantry: Why even have added them to the game?

Agreed.

It would have made FAR more sense to add a cold war infantry unit.

 

[smallfish]

Agreed.

It would have made FAR more sense to add a cold war infantry unit.

Mech Inf

 

[Harv72b]

Does any one else think it's odd that these two units can be upgraded with the research of only one additional technology? It seems like they have a really limited lifespan. It kind of makes the Japanese, French, and Danes a little less fun.

It all depends on how you tech. In many games I tend to stick primarily to the top half of the tech tree, but I will drop down in the early Renaissance to pick up my workshops & Iron Works, then Steel for the Armories (and, coincidentally, longswords). At that point I usually jump back up on the tree & make my push for Industrialization, so I'll often go a long time before moving up to muskets.

Speaking of which, how messed up is it that you can field gatling guns before you've researched gunpowder?

 

[GhostSalsa]

Speaking of which, how messed up is it that you can field gatling guns before you've researched gunpowder?

Very messed up. Super messed up. Gatling guns do not belong where they are and need to get down on the bottom of the tree. In my current game as William I of course beelined Economics and then figured, "might as well get industrial while I'm here" but then I just regretted it and was pissed off because I was killing enemies in one hit and it was like I had totally stepped out of the mechanics of the game.

On the other hand it's matched in absurdity by frigates, which are floating armadas of cannon that you don't need to know chemisty to provision. And pikemen, who are stronger than swordmen even if your civ doesn't know what metal is yet.

 

[jjkrause84]

I was briefly thrilled at the announcements of Great War units (being a WWI historian it's like a dream come true!), but all it did was help slant the game even FURTHER into the 'modern' era. I frequently get rifles before turn 250. At that point you're industrializing and the game feels over, for me. I would rather the earlier periods be seriously lengthened. Maybe add Napoleonic era units to bulk out the Early Modern period? As it currently sits you jump from pike and musket units (musketmen) to mid-1800's riflemen......a jump of about 300 years in one unit, skipping a period of rapid (and interesting) evolution.

 

[binhthuy71]

I build swordsmen in only about one game in five because I'm saving that Iron (Usually in very short supply in my games) for Frigates. I always play on Epic which helps the longevity of all units.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Mech Inf

That's the unit for modern day soldiers.

I mean vietnam war era soldiers.

In the base game, world war 1 - The vientam war is represented by Infantry, which is a WWII unit.

In gods and kings, you have a WWI unit, a WWII unit, and everything from 1945 through 1990 is represented by the WWII one.

It was a waste of a unit to make the Great war infantrymen, when the advancements in small arms and combat tactics after the world wars was MUCH greater than the changes that took place between them.

Seeing as how all but the US used the same type of gun for their soliders in both wars, it makes a lot more sense IMO to have 1 unit for both WWs than have 1 for each, and having the latter also stand for the rest of the 20th century.

 

[smallfish]

Mech Infantry is supposed to represent Cold War-era to Modern-day. I dunno why it was pushed back.

WW2 Infantry represents stuff from WWII to early Cold War (Korea and so forth).

I figure Vietnam-era soldiers would be something like "Airmobile Infantry", but we already have Paratroopers for that, and frankly, I rather they use that for a future era mobile infantry unit than anything else.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Mech Infantry is supposed to represent Cold War-era to Modern-day. I dunno why it was pushed back.

WW2 Infantry represents stuff from WWII to early Cold War (Korea and so forth).

I figure Vietnam-era soldiers would be something like "Airmobile Infantry", but we already have Paratroopers for that, and frankly, I rather they use that for a future era mobile infantry unit than anything else.

Huh?

Throughout both world wars, everyone but the US used bolt action rifles.

After WW2, everybody moved to assault rifles. Modern day soldiers still use assault rifles, but they are made from polymers, not just wood and metal, and we have modern communications on a squad level

IMO, it should have been:

Muskets (1600 - 1800) > Early rifles (1800 - 1880's) > Bolt actions/World war (1880s - 1945) > Cold war era/Assault rifles ( 1950's - 1980) > Modern day infantry (1980's - 2012).

Each unit corresponds to a major change in small arms development AND infantry tactics, not just one or the other, as well as more evenly splitting up the time with each unit.

 

[Harv72b]

Yeah, infantry didn't change very much between Vietnam & the first Gulf War...they got better vehicles to ride in (which is just mech inf anyway), but they were using the same basic rifles, machine guns, etc. Air power changed quite a bit, but not the guys in the ground.

What you could do is add digital infantry as an end-game unit. That's getting into the field now; tactical radio communications, personal HUDs which integrate all the battlefield info for each soldier...basically the stuff from the second Alien movie, only without plasma rifles.

I suppose if you must, you could add an airmobile infantry unit around the Vietnam era and make them like paratroopers only with a shorter combat range & capable of attacking on the same turn they move (like paratroopers should be). You could then make that the upgrade path for mounted units (which is closer to historically accurate), ending with mech inf. Foot soldiers would upgrade the same up through infantry and then on to digital infantry, while tanks would have to be scratch-built in the proper era.

 

[smallfish]

Huh?

Throughout both world wars, everyone but the US used bolt action rifles.

After WW2, everybody moved to assault rifles. Modern day soldiers still use assault rifles, but they are made from polymers, not just wood and metal, and we have modern communications on a squad level

IMO, it should have been:

Muskets (1600 - 1800) > Early rifles (1800 - 1880's) > Bolt actions/World war (1880s - 1945) > Cold war era/Assault rifles ( 1950's - 1980) > Modern day infantry (1980's - 2012).

Each unit corresponds to a major change in small arms development AND infantry tactics, not just one or the other, as well as more evenly splitting up the time with each unit.

Throughout WWII, everybody used semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles; the Gewehr 43 and SVT40 comes to mind. Then again, even in 'Nam, the NVA used bolt-actions (captured from their war with the French or given to them by the USSR), so I guess Great War Infantry should remain viable even into the Information era.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Throughout WWII, everybody used semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles; the Gewehr 43 and SVT40 comes to mind. Then again, even in 'Nam, the NVA used bolt-actions (captured from their war with the French or given to them by the USSR), so I guess Great War Infantry should remain viable even into the Information era.

Right, but by that point, people still had SKS's/AKs, and the US had m14's and later M16s.

And even early in the war, it was guerrilla warfare.

I get that a lot DID change between the 2 world wars, but no matter how you word it, the changes between the 2 world wars was much less than that of WWII and vietnam.

It justs works better to have both the WWs as one unit set, and have the cold war era's be another.

 

[smallfish]

Right, but by that point, people still had SKS's/AKs, and the US had m14's and later M16s.

And even early in the war, it was guerrilla warfare.

I get that a lot DID change between the 2 world wars, but no matter how you word it, the changes between the 2 world wars was much less than that of WWII and vietnam.

It justs works better to have both the WWs as one unit set, and have the cold war era's be another.

Changes in between two world wars were less than 'Nam? What?

Off the top of my head, there's greater utilization of squad tactics, combined arms and mobility, and less elan can overcome firepower. I guess you might have a point in firearms, but they don't make everything spin around. Shouldn't base everything on them alone, you dig?

e: I guess since the US and Germany used BARs and StG 44s in WWII, we should have Cold War Mech Inf in Atomic Era too