Militia

[Ahriman]

I disagree with your characterization of heavy attack; this isn't an "offensive" unit line, it's a unit line about field warfare domination. It is not for taking cities; it is for defeating the enemy in the field, so you can bring the siege units up to target the cities. Tanks should keep their city attack penalty. From both a gameplay perspective and a realism perspective (the big advantages of tanks are long range, mobility and armor, which are countered in an urban environment) tanks should be weak at urban combat.

I don't think the musket fits into scouting or anti-harassment response. These guys are soldiers that don't require a UU.

I don't see how Paratrooper use culminated in WW2; that was their very first use, and in general they were of limited effectiveness.

I think you can't make siege units absolutely worthless vs units or they become too specialized; they are already penalized with having to set up to fire. I also think it would be weird if they were more effective against fortified units than unfortified units. Fortification is still going to protect you.

I think bombers are fine where they are.

I like leaving uranium just for superweapons; nukes and GDR. Easier to balance that way.

 

[SgtCiv]

Not sure if I'm posting in the right place - probably not, but seeing how this unit replaced the one that I want to talk about is the reason I'm posting comment here.
I would like to state that I liked the short life of the Explorer unit and IMO I wish you would bring it back. I play games with raging barbarians turned on, so any scouts I build do not have very long life span. With being able to upgrade scouts or building explorers it made reveling the map a lot easier.

 

[Txurce]

Not sure if I'm posting in the right place - probably not, but seeing how this unit replaced the one that I want to talk about is the reason I'm posting comment here.
I would like to state that I liked the short life of the Explorer unit and IMO I wish you would bring it back. I play games with raging barbarians turned on, so any scouts I build do not have very long life span. With being able to upgrade scouts or building explorers it made reveling the map a lot easier.

It's very unlikely that scouts will upgrade to explorers (or militia) at the start of the game, because it creates a huge balance problem.

If you're building explorers for exploration purposes, why not just build promoted scouts?

 

[The Boz]

I disagree with your characterization of heavy attack; this isn't an "offensive" unit line, it's a unit line about field warfare domination. It is not for taking cities; it is for defeating the enemy in the field, so you can bring the siege units up to target the cities. Tanks should keep their city attack penalty. From both a gameplay perspective and a realism perspective (the big advantages of tanks are long range, mobility and armor, which are countered in an urban environment) tanks should be weak at urban combat.

You are talking about the specific unit, the tank. And early tanks did not really have any range or speed advantage at all, infantry was supposed to walk beside them. Walk, not run.

I don't think the musket fits into scouting or anti-harassment response. These guys are soldiers that don't require a UU.

That's how the first muskets, and also the first rifles were used. Small, mobile units. When the muskets became popular and rifles became the new hot thing, musketmen became the regular army and riflemen became the small, mobile units.

I don't see how Paratrooper use culminated in WW2; that was their very first use, and in general they were of limited effectiveness.

Their "limited" effectiveness was usually key in stalling enemy reinforcements, destroying supplies and the like. Shouldn't have used the word "culminated", but still, I don't think there was a war since WWII where paratroopers had a larger role.

I think you can't make siege units absolutely worthless vs units or they become too specialized; they are already penalized with having to set up to fire. I also think it would be weird if they were more effective against fortified units than unfortified units. Fortification is still going to protect you.

They wouldn't become "better", they would just ignore fortifications, so the bonus defense from fortifying makes other units weaker against the fortified unit, but has no effect against artillery. But other units should still be much more effective in general combat. If you think about it, the "poor against units" isn't strength 1. It's just about enough so that the difference in relative enemy strength in fortified vs not fortified is enough to make, for example, crossbowman > trebuchet vs unfortified, but trebuchet > crossbowman vs fortified.

I like leaving uranium just for superweapons; nukes and GDR. Easier to balance that way.

It's easier to balance because it's not even a choice. Going for conquest: build nukes. Researched GDR? Throw nukes, build GDR. Not going conquest? Build plants. Literally no decision there.

 

[Ahriman]

You are talking about the specific unit, the tank. And early tanks did not really have any range or speed advantage at all, infantry was supposed to walk beside them. Walk, not run.

The "tank" unit is also encompassing everything from the 1930s-~1960s.

Of course armored divisions were more mobile than non-motorized infantry divisions in a strategic sense. And in a tactical sense too. You really think that tanks never, ever moved faster than walking speed? And that a tank has no range advantage over a rifle? I think it's obvious to everyone that tanks are far more effective in the field than in cities. Their armor was good enough to deflect most anything at long range, but at very close range, even hand-held infantry AT weapons could punch through their armor. In urban warfare, tanks can't shoot as far (buildings in the way), can't see as far (buildings in the way), can't move as fast or manuever as well (rubble in the way), and it's much easier to get close to them with infantry.

That's how the first muskets, and also the first rifles were used. Small, mobile units. When the muskets became popular and rifles became the new hot thing, musketmen became the regular army and riflemen became the small, mobile units.

Again, what are you talking about? The musket unit in Civ5 represents all gunpowder infantry from the 16th century to the early 19th century. All of the great wars fought in this period has musketman as the core staple infantry unit (initially mixed with pikes, then phased out). These weren't scouts. They were the infantry frontline. Muskets were horribly inaccurate, particularly early muskets. They were used en masse, not in some kind of Renaissance special forces role.

I don't think there was a war since WWII where paratroopers had a larger role.

There hasn't been any war since WW2 where anything has played a larger role than they did in WW2 (except for a few things that hadn't been invented; jet aircraft, helicopters, drones, etc.), because WW2 was huge. Paratroopers were used in Crete (successful but at gargantuan losses), before D-day (where they were certainly useful) and in Market Garden (where they were an ineffective failure). I don't know of any other effective examples. They were hardly pivotal to the world war (Pacific Theater, Eastern Front, North Africa, Atlantic).

they would just ignore fortifications, so the bonus defense from fortifying makes other units weaker against the fortified unit, but has no effect against artillery.

I have no particular problem with this, though it seems foolish to me to think that fortification doesn't provide *any* protection from artillery. People in trench or foxhole have massively lower casualty rates than people just on the ground.

crossbowman > trebuchet vs unfortified

In TBC, Crossbows are better than trebuchets against units in the field, particularly once you taken into account that they don't have to set up, so they can move and shoot. Remember that siege units in TBC have -50% vs everything except cities.

It's easier to balance because it's not even a choice. Going for conquest: build nukes. Researched GDR? Throw nukes, build GDR. Not going conquest? Build plants. Literally no decision there.

Whereas a choice between nukes and a specialist naval unit is a serious one?

I see no particular reason why there need to be lots of different things you can use strategic resources for. Horses and iron can only be used for one unit per era.

 

[Seek]

After seeing this discussion, I'm really not sure if the Militia unit is needed or desirable (the Explorer had a specific role which I think should be available, but it was too strong and it should've followed the scout:warrior strength ratio - about 2/3). The core resourceless unit has worked well as the pike, and since Ahriman said that Muskets were initially mixed with Pikes perhaps we could allow pikes to upgrade to Muskets (losing the 50% defensive bonus). There's a decent amount of time where Pikes are pretty useless at 10 strength, and it would buff Musket UUs for obvious reasons. Seems like a simpler solution to me.

 

[Txurce]

After seeing this discussion, I'm really not sure if the Militia unit is needed or desirable (the Explorer had a specific role which I think should be available, but it was too strong and it should've followed the scout:warrior strength ratio - about 2/3). The core resourceless unit has worked well as the pike, and since Ahriman said that Muskets were initially mixed with Pikes perhaps we could allow pikes to upgrade to Muskets (losing the 50% defensive bonus). There's a decent amount of time where Pikes are pretty useless at 10 strength, and it would buff Musket UUs for obvious reasons. Seems like a simpler solution to me.

Muskets mixed with Pikes is a formation, not a unit - and to further complicate things, that's what Tercios are.

Thal did a very good job of balancing each era's armies. I don't think Pikes or Muskets need any help. However, Thal likes the idea of a bridging support unit. In this case, I was happy with the last version of the Explorer, and only suggested it be renamed "Militia." Thal did this - and then adjusted the unit to lose its all-terrain bonus and gain in strength.

My preference is for the return of this unit: not quite as strong as a pikeman and with no horse bonus, but cheaper and with the scouting promotion. It would then serve as a true flanking support unit until the arrival of the lancer.

 

[Ahriman]

After seeing this discussion, I'm really not sure if the Militia unit is needed or desirable

Right, I don't see a strong role.

since Ahriman said that Muskets were initially mixed with Pikes perhaps we could allow pikes to upgrade to Muskets

I'd support this.

I think part of the problem here is that it used to be the case that pikes were significantly better vs knights than muskets were, so there were good reasons to keep a few pikes around. Now, that's not really the case.

Muskets mixed with Pikes is a formation, not a unit

Eh? Every Civ "unit" really represents a very broad army type. An infantry unit for example is a mix of rifles, machine guns, mortars, grenades and other infantry weapons.
A tank is an armored division, with tanks, halftracks, motorized infantry, etc.
Longswords represents medieval foot-knights and heavy infantry, who might have a mix of swords, axes, maces, hammers, and so forth.
The musket unit represents 16th-18th century frontline infantry. Initially, these units were a mix of musket and pike, and then gradually the pikes were phased out as the muskets improved.

These were the mass levy troops, farmers raised for war, given minimal training and a simple weapon, and used in massive lumps to form the front line of the army.

and to further complicate things, that's what Tercios are

The Tercios is a musket unit that retains the bonus vs cavalry.
If pikes upgraded to muskets, they should lose their cavalry and defensive bonuses.
I think for example that it's a problem that pikes can't upgrade to Tercios, which is of course what happened historically.

My preference is for the return of this unit: not quite as strong as a pikeman and with no horse bonus, but cheaper and with the scouting promotion.

I'd be ok with this, but would probably never build it, because it seems like low value. 8 strength, starts with scouting, 2 moves, fairly low hamemr cost, 2 maintenance.

 

[Txurce]

Every Civ "unit" really represents a very broad army type... The musket unit represents 16th-18th century frontline infantry. Initially, these units were a mix of musket and pike, and then gradually the pikes were phased out as the muskets improved.

The Tercios is a musket unit that retains the bonus vs cavalry.

I know that - but they don't represent different, already-existing units of the same era.
And since we would be dropping the pike horse bonus, the combined units wouldn't exist together, anyway. That said, I don't have a problem upgrading pikes to muskets.

I meant that in RL the Tercios (unlike muskets) were a formation comprising of various units (including muskets).

 

[Ahriman]

I'm still a bit confused as to what your point is here, but it seems we agree that pikes upgrading to muskets is feasible.

In Civ5, muskets are a Rennaissance era and Pikes are a Medieval era unit. They aren't units of the same era. The pike unit is representing medieval spearmen with pole-arms of various types. Muskets are representing Renaissance infantry pike and shot, including arquebuses, flint and matchlock muskets.

The Musket unit in Civ does represent the real earth history unit that mixes pikes with spears.
These weren't separate units, they had both weapons within the same formation.
Tercios were just a Spanish version of these that were higher quality than those in other countries and had professional soldiers, they didn't have some radically different approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio

 

[Ahriman]

My ideal solution would be to separate 16th century pike and shot units (arquebus) from 18th century and Napoleonic musket units, but that is beyond the scope of the mod I think.

Similarly I'd like to see a distinction between early siege cannon (bombards and the like) and 18th century/Napoleonic field cannon.

I'm always bothered by how civ mashes up Renaissance and Enlightenment eras.

 

[Txurce]

1. I'm still a bit confused as to what your point is here, but it seems we agree that pikes upgrading to muskets is feasible.

2. In Civ5, muskets are a Rennaissance era and Pikes are a Medieval era unit. They aren't units of the same era.

3. The Musket unit in Civ does represent the real earth history unit that mixes pikes with spears. These weren't separate units, they had both weapons within the same formation. Tercios were just a Spanish version of these that were higher quality than those in other countries and had professional soldiers, they didn't have some radically different approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio

1. We agree on the upgrade and on the Militia's make-up, which is indeed what really matters.

2. Yep, my mistake.

3. Muskets in Civ do not represent shot and pike. That's why Tercios - again, in RL a formation, rather than a "unit type" like Knights or Battlships - have the pike's horse bonus, and no other Musket unit does.

 

[Txurce]

My ideal solution would be to separate 16th century pike and shot units (arquebus) from 18th century and Napoleonic musket units, but that is beyond the scope of the mod I think.

Similarly I'd like to see a distinction between early siege cannon (bombards and the like) and 18th century/Napoleonic field cannon.

I'm always bothered by how civ mashes up Renaissance and Enlightenment eras.

I agree in general and in theory - but then we'd be effectively adding a unit somewhere in the treb-cannon-arty spectrum. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. I love the idea of more units, but find myself conceding how little need there is for them.

 

[Ahriman]

Muskets in Civ do not represent shot and pike.

Yes they do. The first gunpowder units were all shot and pike, as far as I know, and that was the standard European infantry for two centuries.
There was no such thing as a pure arquebus unit in real history.
Sure, the unit has no specialist bonus vs cavalry, but so what? The modelling in Civ is very loose at best.

The Tercios is just a superior version. They chose to model that superiority as an anti-cav bonus, but that is really just for gameplay effect. Real Tercios weren't superior anti-cavalry, they were just all-round better. If anything I think they tended to use slightly less pike, and more swordsmen than those of other powers.

I agree in general and in theory - but then we'd be effectively adding a unit somewhere in the treb-cannon-arty spectrum. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. I love the idea of more units, but find myself conceding how little need there is for them.

I agree that such units should not be added for this mod. It is a general critique of the Civ series; these kinds of change don't belong in a balance mod.

One thing I would really like though; rename the "Cavalry" unit to "Dragoon". That's really what they are; mounted infantry.

 

[Thalassicus]

The main purpose of militia right now is for every era to have a resource-free melee unit with no specific "vs bonuses."

• Ancient/Classical - Scouts, Warriors
• Medieval - Militia
• Renaissance - Muskets, Rifles
• Industrial - Infantry
• Modern - Mech Infantry

The Classical period technically doesn't have one, but that era is only 1 tech wide, and warriors are still usually rather common.

I couldn't quite identify why I felt this type of unit was so needed until now, and finally figured out what was rolling around at the back of my mind. I often think subconsciously so it's sometimes difficult to articulate the "why."

I was happy with the last version of the Explorer, and only suggested it be renamed "Militia." Thal did this - and then adjusted the unit to lose its all-terrain bonus and gain in strength.

These were the changes between the original and current version:

• Name
• Tech
• Moved ignore-terrain to the scouting 1 promotion
• 2 (was 3)
• 2 maintenance (was 3)

 

[Txurce]

These were the changes between the original and current version:

• Name
• Tech
• Moved ignore-terrain to the scouting 1 promotion
• 2 (was 3)
• 2 maintenance (was 3)

I was comparing the last Explorer (which I suggested be renamed) version to the Militia. If these are the changes between the current Militia and that Explorer... then I over-estimated its strength, and will now shut up.

By the way, I am building Militia. They are a great lead-up to musket units like the Minutemen.

 

[Ahriman]

The main purpose of militia right now is for every era to have a resource-free melee unit with no specific "vs bonuses."

Why?
I think it's fine for every era to have a resource free melee unit. I don't see why it is important for it to necessarily have no "vs bonuses". That seems like an arbitrary decision.

Pikes are clearly the main medieval resourceless melee unit.
And there is already a medieval melee unit with no abilities; the longswordsman.

Units with no particular abilities tend to be very boring, we don't need more.

By the way, I am building Militia. They are a great lead-up to musket units like the Minutemen.

The only reason why the militia is worth building is because it has access to overpowered promotion lines. As previously stated, I think it is bad design for some unit classes to have access to superior promotions. Experience and promotions should be of roughly equal value. A 50% defense bonus is far superior to a 20% bonus that only works on half of terrain or vs particular unit type.

 

[Thalassicus]

Why?

The three reasons are detailed in the original post.

• "An important reason to reduce Pikeman spam is to make Knights more viable."
• "It’s necessary for a conqueror to compliment militia with units good on the attack, which isn't as important for Pikemen"
• "Scouts have nothing to upgrade to."

"Units with no particular abilities tend to be very boring"
"it has access to overpowered promotion lines."

These two statements don't make sense to me when combined, because the promotions are abilities. I don't understand how a unit can both 1) have no interesting abilities 2) have overpowered abilities.

I personally find healing and defensive bonuses exciting and interesting because it introduces another dynamic to conquest, and it means armies aren't immune to mounted attacks. I don't understand how it could be overpowered since Militia have lower strength than any other unit of their era, with or without promotions.

 

[Txurce]

How can it be a boring with no interesting abilities, and have overpowered abilities? You've got me confused here.

I think Ahriman has a problem with the "OP abilities" from a doctrinaire perspective (a unit's value shouldn't be about its promotions).

I've noticed that the AI makes solid, but not exclusive use of the Militia. Because the AI tends to play over-aggressively, these strong defensive units paradoxically work better for it than a pikeman would... with the ignore-terrain promo giving the an added kick.

 

[Ahriman]

The three reasons are detailed in the original post.
"An important reason to reduce Pikeman spam is to make Knights more viable."
"It’s necessary for a conqueror to compliment militia with units good on the attack, which isn't as important for Pikemen"
"Scouts have nothing to upgrade to."

Knights are not made more viable by militia. You could also reduce the pikemen bonus vs cavalry to 25%.Your second reason makes no sense to me; there is nothing in the "old design" that a player can't do with the "new design". You could let scouts upgrade to pikemen.

I don't understand how a unit can both 1) have no interesting abilities 2) have overpowered abilities.

The core unit has no interesting abilities. The promotions are level-up promotions, not promotions actually tied to the unit, and they are of superior value. This is poor design, because once they are upgraded they retain the promotions

Every levelup should be of equal value. It is just wrong for riflemen that came from militia to be superior to those that came from swordsmen, because they had access to better promotions early on.

I think Ahriman has a problem with the "OP abilities" from a doctrinaire perspective (a unit's value shouldn't be about its promotions).

It's not from a doctrinaire perspective, it's from a balance perspective. If one line of promotions is superior, I'm going to be better off getting that line.
Suppose we made the drill promotions give +40% strength instead of +20% strength. That would not be a good idea. This is similar.

Weaken the promotion line; in particular reduce the defense bonuses on survivalism 2 and 3, then I would be ok. Then buff the militia unit if need be.

But a unit's strength should come from it's own inherent abilities, not from superior promotions that then stay with the unit once it is upgraded.