Militia

[Ahriman]

Scouts are excellent garrison units if you take the first Honor policy.

How are they better than, say, an archer would be?

There is also a difference between the very early game when you may have very few units, and the medieval era, when you will have more units than cities.

I would guess that they absorb damage better than Pikemen with the healing promotion + survivalism

The increased healing rate affects how quickly you can get back to health, it doesn't really help you much during actual combat. I strongly disagree that +1 healing rate is even close to being as good as +100% health.

 

[Txurce]

How are they better than, say, an archer would be?

There is also a difference between the very early game when you may have very few units, and the medieval era, when you will have more units than cities.


The increased healing rate affects how quickly you can get back to health, it doesn't really help you much during actual combat. I strongly disagree that +1 healing rate is even close to being as good as +100% health.

1. They're cheaper, and I don't need an archer in a secure city (which most are in a warmongering game). I'd rather have all my true fighting units up at the front.

2. The exception would be when you have two together. But as I said, I'm not clear as to what the Survivalism promos add up to in terms of relative difference to pikes.

 

[Thalassicus]

The increased healing rate affects how quickly you can get back to health, it doesn't really help you much during actual combat.

+1 healing rate is not even close to being as good as +100% health.

If a fortified Survivalism II militia takes 3 damage per turn it will never die - it has infinite health. This is the damage per turn I typically take when besieging cities. A pikeman can only take 2 damage per turn to withstand assaults, and costs 3 maintenance instead of 2. Units do occasionally take randomly higher damage though, which is why I keep multiple Militia around to rotate in and out of the line of fire. Obviously build them from the Heroic Epic like other main army units for best effect.

Militia with Scouting 1 and Medic are also better than a Pikemen with Medic, because a Scouting 1 Militia ignore terrain cost, so they can move into the most efficient healing positions more readily. It also has the benefit of seeing further, a valuable thing to spot threats, and again costs less maintenance.


In several conquest games try out scouts and militia for damage-absorption (survivalism) and city garrisons (scouting). I'd recommend a leader with a musketman unique unit like Suleiman or Washington. The first Scout should obviously go with Scouting promotions... a Scouting 3 scout is incredibly fun! It took me about ~10 games to figure out the best strategies for Militia, which is why the documentation about this unit changed often during beta.

 

[Architect]

I think swapping the techs of Pikeman and Militia would be good for this concept. It gives a clear upgrade path for Spearman/Hopilites and provides the more peaceful tech path an appropriate yet weaker military unit. It also separates the tech path for horses from their counters which means there could be windows where horse units are your best bet for offensive if you were rushing to the Renaissance era.

Also Civil Service seems like it fits with the idea of a Militia more than Metal Casting.

 

[Txurce]

I think swapping the techs of Pikeman and Militia would be good for this concept. It gives a clear upgrade path for Spearman/Hopilites and provides the more peaceful tech path an appropriate yet weaker military unit. It also separates the tech path for horses from their counters which means there could be windows where horse units are your best bet for offensive if you were rushing to the Renaissance era.

Also Civil Service seems like it fits with the idea of a Militia more than Metal Casting.

Really good points.

 

[Thalassicus]

I think swapping the techs of Pikeman and Militia would be good for this concept.

I agree it makes sense for Civil Service to unlock Militia.

However, there's a few downsides. It places Militia and Musketmen on different tech paths. Most of the footsoldiers are on the bottom rows of the tech tree, while horses, pikes, and knights are up at the top. Civil Service is already rather powerful with the farm bonus, so buffing it with Militia might make the tech tree top-heavy. I also like keeping things relatively close to vanilla when possible.

 

[Ahriman]

In many circumstances +1healing = infinite health.

I do not find this to be the case. The vast majority of the time, the AI can bring multiple units to bear on a single target. Swordsmen or horsemen are going to deal a lot more than 2-3 damage per turn.
I find that wars are won or lost during the period when you are fighting the enemy army, rather than in a period after you have destroyed their army when you are taking cities.

If a fortified Survivalism II militia takes 3 damage per turn it will never die. This is the amount I typically take each turn when besieging cities

I thought survivalism 1 gave +1 healing and survivalism 2 just gave defensive bonus?
So it would still lose health.

This is the amount I typically take each turn when besieging cities.

I usually take much more than this besieging cities especially with a low strength unit, because of the combination of a ranged garrison unit in the city and the city's ranged attack, plus the whole AI army.
And I cannot rely on the enemy shooting just at whatever unit has fast-healing.

because a Scouting 1 Militia ignore terrain cost

So the intention is for militia to keep no terrain cost? This isn't clear from the OP in this thread, which is why I asked earlier.

and city garrisons (scouting)

I still don't see why extra site range is useful in a garrison unit, especially compared to ranged attack.

I think swapping the techs of Pikeman and Militia would be good for this concept.

I like this idea.

The downside is it places Militia and Musketmen on different tech paths.

I don't see this as a problem. Remember we are moving from nothing-upgrades-to-musket to something-upgrades-to-musket.
I don't think we have to have an upgrade to musket be super-efficient.
Similarly, I think its probably more useful for spears to easily upgrade to pikes than for militia to easily upgrade to muskets.

 

[Thalassicus]

AI cities can only hold one ranged unit. The city deals 1 damage per turn, and the unit typically deals another 1-2. In the games I've played militia do not take net damage during sieges.

Survivalism milita heal 3 damage per turn: 1 in enemy territory, 1 from survivalism, and 1 from the army medic.

Militia do not ignore terrain cost.

The extra sight range is not the reason to garrison cities with Scouting 1 units, the advantage is mainly because of the terrain ignore.

3 damage is the amount I typically take each turn when besieging cities.

I usually take much more than this besieging cities especially with a low strength unit, because of the combination of a ranged garrison unit in the city and the city's ranged attack, plus the whole AI army.

I don't understand this at all. Siege units have a range of 2, and if there's an army surrounding the city, why would we move our siege units up next to the army? They'd get killed?

 

[Ahriman]

The city deals 1 damage per turn, and the unit typically deals another 1-2.

I do not find this to be the case, except in the very early game. Certainly not by medieval era, where cities are often strength 20 or so (and so strength 8 ranged attack). And a crossbow or trebuchet will deal more than 1-2 damage.

I also do not find that every army has a medic, or that the medic is always in the right place, and that the medic unit itself never gets attacked.

AI armies press forward to attack our units, it's usually not possible to assault the city before the units around it are all dead.

This is the main part of warfare. I do not think that units should be evaluated based primarily on their performance once the enemy has no military units.

Militia do not inherently ignore terrain cost.

Sorry, I forgot this, it's in the scouting 1 promotion. My bad.

to intercept barbarians.

Why would you want to intercept barbarians? How is this valuable? Let them come to your cities and get shot. They hardly ever pillage.

 

[Txurce]

Why would you want to intercept barbarians? How is this valuable? Let them come to your cities and get shot. They hardly ever pillage.

Let's put it this way - they pillage enough that I don't take chances with it. But again, the best reason to garrison cities with Scouts when warmongering is that they are the cheapest way to gain the benefits of that Honor policy.

 

[Thalassicus]

Attacking with cities does not contribute to the great general pool, which leads to fewer golden ages, and less production and gold. A wandering barbarian also prevents workers from working effectively. It also risks the barb breaking one of our luxuries, which lowers our happiness, and can have a number of serious negative factors. It's much better to intercept barbarians than let them wander around our territory.

Why would we not have a medic with our army? It speeds up conquest a lot!

I think we might play in different ways. Here's what I do:

1. I declare war, the AI moves his forces out to the border to attack.
2. Clear out most non-pike units with horses.
3. Kill the pikes with other units.
4. Besiege a city with melee units in front, siege behind.
5. Capture the city.
6. Repeat #4-5

It's on step #4 when militia are most valuable. Their healing is faster than the enemy can deal, so it's very safe to sit there besieging the city. This safety is important because the AI will still be buying units periodically. In step #3 I use them to guard my ranged units and horses, improve flanking bonuses, provide zone of control blocking, and so on.

Try them out for a few games... many of these points you've discussed are theoretical questions that don't apply to practical gameplay.

 

[Txurce]

I think we might play in different ways. Here's what I do:

1. I declare war, the AI moves his forces out to the border to attack.
2. Clear out most non-pike units with horses.
3. Kill the pikes with other units.
4. Besiege a city with melee units in front, siege behind.
5. Capture the city.
6. Repeat #4-5

It's on step #4 when militia are invulnerable. They do risk death in step #3, but it's rare since they have such a big defensive bonus. I use them to guard my ranged units and horses, improve flanking bonuses, provide zone of control blocking, and so on.

This covers their benefits really well. But notice how almost all of them greatly favor the human over the AI. Survivalism + rough terrain bonus = a highly flexible unit.

 

[Thalassicus]

The AI will never be truly capable of effective combined arms warfare, so anything we do to go in that direction will be at a human advantage. I feel the excitement from conquering with combined arms outweighs AI disadvantages.

 

[Txurce]

I feel the excitement from conquering with combined arms outweighs AI disadvantages.

This is probably true. It's worth noting that the Militia and Honor tree changes show a bias toward increasing the fun factor for the high-level player who will make effective use of the Militia, vs the more casual player who would have made use of the old Honor bonuses.

 

[Parhelion]

Please tone down the militia in the early game, or remove them completely from the Ancient Ruins upgrade path.

I just played a game and decided to get adventurous, and enabled Ancient Ruins. Another nation declared war on me within 150 turns (still firmly in the Classical era with your other mods + Marathon speed), and WIPED me due to the fact that they had a few Militia, upgraded from Scouts.

The Militia had OVER 18 Strength; no other unit in the game, even from other nations AND upgraded, came close to this. (Most were 6-10.) They just steam-rolled everything.

 

[Ahriman]

That is... a really, really good, game-breaking point. Unintended consequences.

Is it possible to change the ruins so the regular upgrade is to the militia, but the ancient ruins still upgrades them to archers?

After all, they don't normally upgrade to an archer.

 

[Gamewizard]

I enjoy hunting for Ancient Ruins with my scouts, hoping to get the militia upgrade, especially when playing as a warmonger. I played a game as Khan, got a quick militia, and was able to wipe out the closest city state's soldiers and then just sat there collecting experience while I waited for the rest of my army to take the city.

 

[Thalassicus]

The Militia had OVER 18 Strength; no other unit in the game, even from other nations AND upgraded, came close to this. (Most were 6-10.) They just steam-rolled everything.

Swordsmen and horsemen are stronger on both attack and defense:

 

[Thalassicus]

Something to keep in mind is if I change the Scout ancient-ruins upgrade away from Militia, it will affect their capability to ignore terrain. Should I go ahead and change it to Archers?

 

[Ahriman]

Swordsmen and horsemen are stronger on both attack and defense

So? You can't get swordsmen or horsemen on turn 5 when your scout hits an ancient ruin and gets the upgrade.
A strength 10 unit in the very early game is going to be game-breaking. You can easily use it to go stomp your neighbor in.

But my main problem with the whole design remains that I just don't think it makes sense to design a unit that is only valuable because of its promotion access.
It also then means that a rifleman that came from a militia will have "superior" promotions to one that came from a swordsman.