Man-at-arms, Line infantry & Trebuchet

[Haig]

I wonder how the new military units in the game affect the combat in their eras.

Today on my game I got into an industrial era war and my opponent empire had plenty of resources so I was faced with many musketmen and cuirassiers. I thought that if Line infantry was already in the game the enemy force would have been even more powerful.

Man-at-arms could be a crucial unit for nations with iron but without niter, as it can probably better stand against musketmen and crossbows.

Trebuchet obsoletes catapult quickly!

On a side note, what is the thing going across the line infantrymen chest/shoulder?

https://imgur.com/a/PLKOzuY

It's like maybe some rolled great coat or something..?

 

[KingPiggyXXI]

One thing that they'll affect, even in eras outside of their own, is that Anti-Cavalry is going to be less common. The fact that Melee units can be upgraded more often will mean that Anti-Cavalry is going to be even more useless in comparison. The Zulu is going to suffer, since they'll have to face against Men-at-Arms during their Impi rush, when previously the strongest unit they needed to face would be Knights and Coursers.

It also makes medieval warfare far more viable, since Trebuchets will hopefully be able to tank more than one Crossbowman shot. This will probably likewise make Knights and Coursers more common, since their strongest enemy, walls, will be easier to destroy with the help of the Trebuchet. With Trebuchets on the field, Cavalry+Siege will be more viable, possibly more than Melee+Battering Ram.

 

[tedhebert]

On a side note, what is the thing going across the line infantrymen chest/shoulder?

https://imgur.com/a/PLKOzuY

It's like maybe some rolled great coat or something..?

It's their Parka, in case they're cold up there in the tundra !!!

 

[lordhaw]

I wonder how the new military units in the game affect the combat in their eras.

Today on my game I got into an industrial era war and my opponent empire had plenty of resources so I was faced with many musketmen and cuirassiers. I thought that if Line infantry was already in the game the enemy force would have been even more powerful.

Man-at-arms could be a crucial unit for nations with iron but without niter, as it can probably better stand against musketmen and crossbows.

Trebuchet obsoletes catapult quickly!

On a side note, what is the thing going across the line infantrymen chest/shoulder?

https://imgur.com/a/PLKOzuY

It's like maybe some rolled great coat or something..?

I've been playing with the Steel and Thunder mods which add rifleman and trebuchet units and these fill in the gap nicely between musketmen and infantry. Same goes with the trebuchet. Fills in a power gap at a good time when wall tech is making catapaults not so good. So since the line infantry and trebuchet will likely fill similar spots in the tech tree it should work out fine. Not sure about the man at arms but it will kind of make anti-cav (pikemen) a little less relevant.

Based on this picture, those may be rolled blankets BTW

 

[The Highwayman]

I believe the gaps these units are filling in will help the units previously requiring a hard build, thus improving their effectiveness. The Samurai, Red Coat, Kveshur (whatever Georgia's unit), etc. can utilize the tried and true pre build strategy. And to your point, resource constraints will situationally be less of a burden if you're fending off knights with men at arms as opposed to swordsmen because niter is nowhere to be found.

I don't think the Zulu's Impi suffer...it never mattered what the opposition had when rushing with them. A 61 str Impi corps with gg will walk all over a forty something strength man at arms. It'll be even better if the Pikemen get a small combat buff. Looking very forward to the patch notes!

 

[kaspergm]

One thing that they'll affect, even in eras outside of their own, is that Anti-Cavalry is going to be less common. The fact that Melee units can be upgraded more often will mean that Anti-Cavalry is going to be even more useless in comparison. The Zulu is going to suffer, since they'll have to face against Men-at-Arms during their Impi rush, when previously the strongest unit they needed to face would be Knights and Coursers.

It also makes medieval warfare far more viable, since Trebuchets will hopefully be able to tank more than one Crossbowman shot. This will probably likewise make Knights and Coursers more common, since their strongest enemy, walls, will be easier to destroy with the help of the Trebuchet. With Trebuchets on the field, Cavalry+Siege will be more viable, possibly more than Melee+Battering Ram.

As someone who's played with Steel And Thunder for ages, I'd say this assessment is fairly accurate. I'd also say it has the - intended or unintended - effect of making mounted units less relevant, because you now never will suffer the combat power deficit that Swordsmen had in medieval era and Musketmen had in industrial era. Imo. this is a natural consequence of the development away from Civ6's original unit design philosophy that started when they made cavalry units weak against cities. Where originally it seemed like the idea was that you'd need a combination of melee and (heavy) cavalry to not succumb to combat power deficit as enemy progressed in tech (an idea I was never a fan of, but which certainly had some balance merits), it's now more like you have your core army of melee units and then the mounted units sort of live on the site for other purposes like pillaging, hit-and-runs and to swipe in and grant siege bonus. This new direction makes the idea of two different mounted lines rather superfluous.

I know I've said this a lot of times, but the downside is that now you're even more in trouble if you start without Iron or Niter.

 

[Haig]

I kind of like the idea that anticav is weaker but resource free, like a cheap militia. Melee line units that require resources are more premium.

 

[Binkov]

Can someone explain why the strength value increases for the melee units are as follows:

ancient era - warrior- 20 strength. -baseline.
classical era - swordsman - 35 - 75% increase
medieval era - man at arms - 45 - 29% increase
renaissance era - musketman - 55 - 22% increase
industrial era - line infantry - 65 - 18% increase
modern era - infantry - 70 - 8% increase
atomic era - has no melee unit!
information era - mech. infantry - 85 - 21% increase

Questions:
1. What's the logic behind those increases not being roughly linear? After all, there's a new unit in almost each era, so timeline is roughly linear, yet the strength increase is not.
2. Even if we accept diminishing returns idea, why that HUGE increase from first to second era?

On top of pure strength increase, there are penalties for the swordsman, which needs iron. which may explain in part why the big strength increase - to compensate for the need for iron.
But why not then the same increase for musketamn vs man at arms? Musketman needs niter, equally rare. If not even more rare. Yet it provides a small increase.
And then with infantry we get just a tiny 8% increase even though it has the huge penalty of needing oil per turn.

3. was the design made on purpose so it would dissuade players from using certain units like the infantry? Which is clearly a poor deal.

 

[Uberfrog]

You’re looking at combat strength in the wrong way.

Civ 6 calculates combat outcomes based on relative strength, not absolutes. A difference of 10 in overall combat strength gives the same combat outcome, regardless of the total value. The % increase is irrelevant.

So the difference in effective strength between a Man at Arms and a Swordsman is exactly the same as the difference in strength between a Musketman and a Man at Arms, etc.

I suspect the Infantry will be changed to a base strength of 75 to make the gaps more regular.

 

[Linklite]

Can someone explain why the strength value increases for the melee units are as follows:

ancient era - warrior- 20 strength. -baseline.
classical era - swordsman - 35 - 75% increase
medieval era - man at arms - 45 - 29% increase
renaissance era - musketman - 55 - 22% increase
industrial era - line infantry - 65 - 18% increase
modern era - infantry - 70 - 8% increase
atomic era - has no melee unit!
information era - mech. infantry - 85 - 21% increase

Questions:
1. What's the logic behind those increases not being roughly linear? After all, there's a new unit in almost each era, so timeline is roughly linear, yet the strength increase is not.
2. Even if we accept diminishing returns idea, why that HUGE increase from first to second era?

On top of pure strength increase, there are penalties for the swordsman, which needs iron. which may explain in part why the big strength increase - to compensate for the need for iron.
But why not then the same increase for musketamn vs man at arms? Musketman needs niter, equally rare. If not even more rare. Yet it provides a small increase.
And then with infantry we get just a tiny 8% increase even though it has the huge penalty of needing oil per turn.

3. was the design made on purpose so it would dissuade players from using certain units like the infantry? Which is clearly a poor deal.

Uberfrog is right, results of combat are determined by the difference between the CSs of units, not their relative size. A unit with 20 CS attacking a unit of 10 will have the same result as a unit with a CS of 70 attacking a unit with a CS of 60. In that system, it makes sense to increment CS rather than increasing it proportionately. Naturally, as CS increases, in such a system the percentage increases are smaller each time, but in reality that is irrelevant.

Still, I'd much rather remove resource per turn requirements. Oil and aluminium becomes a serious problem - it leads to a really stunted air force and in an age where infantry is more common in real life than ever by a massive proportion, it becomes unsustainable in game.

 

[Dantesedge]

Maybe I don’t know the specifics yet, but my only worry is that while the new units make the hard-built specialized units (Samurai, Khevsur, Beserker, etc.) easier to build obviously, it also takes away from their much stronger combat strength advantage over Classical and Medieval Swordsmen.

Case in point: if I go for a Domination Georgia game (yes, challenging but fun!), I rush Military Tactics and Feudalism so I can hard build my Khevsurs quickly in order to rush the other Civs Swordsman before they make the push for Musketmen. If I get them out early enough, my Khevsurs have a 45 to 36 Combat Strength advantage during the Medieval era not including the +7 hills ability (my several Khevsurs are supported by Swordsmen and Crossbows since there will be less of them). Now that I assume Swordsman upgrade to Men-at-Arms during the Medieval before Musketmen, my Khevsurs CS advantage is now 45-45... aka, none. Yes I can upgrade them now, but unless they are on hills, there is no advantage whatsoever against Men-at-Arms.

My Medieval warfare, and warfare with the other Civs with hard built units, seems kind of neutered because of the new units. Unless I am missing something here.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I generally see this as a buff to the AI, not to the player.
Let me explain:

The biggest difficulty (if you play on high difficulties, Deity in this case) is overcoming the early game.
In a lot of cases, you need to wage an early war to take out or severely cripple an aggressive neighbour that threatens to box you in.
This is usually done by an Ancient era rush (Warriors and Archers), with which you aim to take out your neighbour's cities before they get walls.
When doing so, you often have to simply accept that they will be getting Swordsmen/Horsemen before you can get the same, so you're relying on using those Warriors and Archers in a tactically superior way.
While this is a disadvantage, the tactical advantage you have as a human can often win you the fight.
While the AI can reliably get to Swordsmen before you can do the same, you are not at risk of the AI getting to Musketmen, because that is too far of a technological leap that the AI cannot get to by the early Classical era (when you are doing your Warrior/Archer rush).

However, once we introduce a Medieval era melee unit (Men at arms), the AI can in some cases actually get those units fielded, which means that you are no longer at a disadvantage, but fighting a practically unwinnabla war against units 2 eras ahead of you.

 

[diggerjohn111]

It's their Parka, in case they're cold up there in the tundra !!!

that's their bed rolls.