Militia

[Txurce]

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.

I don't see an inherent flaw here, especially since TBC gives the AI built-in promos at the level we play at, and assumes we will promote the units ourselves. My problem with the Militia in its present form is that it is too similar to the Pikeman in its strength. I would prefer a weaker, quicker unit (as in the last beta).

 

[Ahriman]

I don't see an inherent flaw here

Suppose that there is a strong unit A and a weak unit B. A has access to promotions X1, X2, X3 which are weak. B has access to promotions Y1, Y2, Y3, which are strong.

But both A and B promote to unit C!

So a unit C which came from B will have strong promotions, whereas a unit C which came from A will have weak promotions. This is an inherent flaw.

I would prefer a weaker, quicker unit

I don't really like the idea of 3 move infantry in a world where knights and cavalry are only 3 moves.

 

[Txurce]

Suppose that there is a strong unit A and a weak unit B. A has access to promotions X1, X2, X3 which are weak. B has access to promotions Y1, Y2, Y3, which are strong.

But both A and B promote to unit C!

So a unit C which came from B will have strong promotions, whereas a unit C which came from A will have weak promotions. This is an inherent flaw.


I don't really like the idea of 3 move infantry in a world where knights and cavalry are only 3 moves.

1. I still don't see the flaw, but rather two units arriving at the same place via different paths.

2. I can see the argument against the extra move, although not with regard to knights. Having a rough-terrain promotion would work just as well for me. What doesn't have much meaning is that one unit is better vs horses, and another vs melee units - there's not enough reason for this in a system that shies away from adding units.

 

[Parhelion]

1. I still don't see the flaw, but rather two units arriving at the same place via different paths.

Therein lies the problem, since, using his argument, if Unit C1 came from Unit B and Unit C2 came from Unit A, Unit C1 and Unit C2 would NOT be equal and thus "not the same place." They be very similar, with the same name, moves, and animation, but in this instance, Unit C1 will always be the stronger unit.

2. I can see the argument against the extra move, although not with regard to knights. Having a rough-terrain promotion would work just as well for me. What doesn't have much meaning is that one unit is better vs horses, and another vs melee units - there's not enough reason for this in a system that shies away from adding units.

I'm not sure if I'd want to see a moderate to heavy (very heavy in Ancient era *cough*) combative unit that ignores terrain costs (is this what you meant?). The reason scouts get this is because they're scouts, and they pretty much get nom'd easily as a trade-off.


Overall, I think the militia units are neat, I just think they should be removed from the Ancient Ruins for the same reason that crossbowmen and musketmen were removed. I haven't had the chance to really play with them, though.

 

[Txurce]

Therein lies the problem, since, using his argument, if Unit C1 came from Unit B and Unit C2 came from Unit A, Unit C1 and Unit C2 would NOT be equal and thus "not the same place." They be very similar, with the same name, moves, and animation, but in this instance, Unit C1 will always be the stronger unit.

Then they're different. Now where's the problem?

I'm not sure if I'd want to see a moderate to heavy (very heavy in Ancient era *cough*) combative unit that ignores terrain costs (is this what you meant?). The reason scouts get this is because they're scouts, and they pretty much get nom'd easily as a trade-off.

I said I preferred a "weaker, quicker unit."

 

[Ahriman]

1. I still don't see the flaw, but rather two units arriving at the same place via different paths.

They don't arrive at the same place. They arrive at a difference place. The unit C with the "strong" promotions is better than the unit C with the "weak" promotions.
How is that ok?

They be very similar, with the same name, moves, and animation, but in this instance, Unit C1 will always be the stronger unit.

Right!

 

[Txurce]

They don't arrive at the same place. They arrive at a difference place. The unit C with the "strong" promotions is better than the unit C with the "weak" promotions.
How is that ok?


Right!

Like I said to Parhelion, why wouldn't it be okay?

 

[Callonia]

Str 18 Militia wha, I was assuming that they'll be like str 10 or 12 or 14.

I have a possible answer to the militia upgrade from ruins problem if ur using scouts.

Make it so that Militia units have different strength rating according to the era your civilization is in.

Therefore, Militia Str in corresponding eras be like.

Ancient Militia Str 5 or 6.
Classical Militia 7
Medieval Militia 10 <- is in regards of the possible Toning down the strength of Longswordmen units in July Patch.

Renaissance Militia 16-20
Industrial Militia 30
Modern Militia 40

Place an marker in the techtree that will convert ur militia for appropriate eras.

 

[Parhelion]

Str 18 Militia wha, I was assuming that they'll be like str 10 or 12 or 14.

I ran into one of the ruins with an non-upgraded scout and got a Strength 10 Militia. HOWEVER, the ones I encountered later were 18.5 and above; I'm not sure what caused the big leap in strength, but I do know that they had promotions, including the +50% damage resistence, or whatever that promotion is. All in all, unstoppable.


To the other poster wanting to know why it's wrong to have two different "destinations" in the earlier analogy... it's wrong because it's unbalanced. Unit C was designed to do THIS function, but having a Unit C upgraded from a Unit B (the one with stronger promotions) changes that unit's role. It also causes an undue bias towards using militia over another unit that is on the same upgrade path, unless there were some "negatives" associated with this.

 

[Txurce]

To the other poster wanting to know why it's wrong to have two different "destinations" in the earlier analogy... it's wrong because it's unbalanced. Unit C was designed to do THIS function, but having a Unit C upgraded from a Unit B (the one with stronger promotions) changes that unit's role. It also causes an undue bias towards using militia over another unit that is on the same upgrade path, unless there were some "negatives" associated with this.

Yeah, that's what I figured the objection was. I don't care what unit was originally designed to do anything. They wind up where they wind up, and if one looks better to you in some cases due to promotions, then go with that one. I don't see any meaningful balance problem, such as no counter or OP status to Militia vs Pikeman (except for the ruins-promotion issue).

The only problem I see is the minor one I keep mentioning - largely needless duplication of purpose. That could be addressed by further differentiation... like I keep suggesting.

 

[The Boz]

After encountering and playing with the Militia in my last game, I decided to toss in my 2c.
They are, basically, pikemen. The huge difference in promotion and defense is actually a very, very slight difference in actual playstyle. It's a melee damage soak. Same as the Pikemen. They cost the same to field, come out at the same time, and have the same relevant stats. The only neat thing is the updated upgrade path, but that is something I hope Thal will fix for the entire game, as he has already started.
What I'd like to see is cheap, throwaway, response melee unit, something the Militias and Minutemen could fill neatly. No offensive upgrades, some shallow defensive upgrades, but a focus on vision and movement bonuses, making them the perfect response unit, which they usually were. When defending against barbarians and wandering enemies in the middle phase of the game, I usually keep around some horse or chariot archers from earlier periods, because their speed and range are excellent weapons against those roamers. They rarely, if ever, take any actual damage due to their hit-and-run ability, and are often capable of taking down units that are one or even two eras ahead. Nothing in the game fills that particular niche in the post-classical period.

 

[Txurce]

After encountering and playing with the Militia in my last game, I decided to toss in my 2c.
They are, basically, pikemen. The huge difference in promotion and defense is actually a very, very slight difference in actual playstyle. It's a melee damage soak. Same as the Pikemen. They cost the same to field, come out at the same time, and have the same relevant stats. The only neat thing is the updated upgrade path, but that is something I hope Thal will fix for the entire game, as he has already started.
What I'd like to see is cheap, throwaway, response melee unit, something the Militias and Minutemen could fill neatly. No offensive upgrades, some shallow defensive upgrades, but a focus on vision and movement bonuses, making them the perfect response unit, which they usually were. When defending against barbarians and wandering enemies in the middle phase of the game, I usually keep around some horse or chariot archers from earlier periods, because their speed and range are excellent weapons against those roamers. They rarely, if ever, take any actual damage due to their hit-and-run ability, and are often capable of taking down units that are one or even two eras ahead. Nothing in the game fills that particular niche in the post-classical period.

Needless to say, I agree with all of the above. The militia work now, but I would much prefer more differentiation, particularly along these lines.

 

[Thalassicus]

What I'd like to see is cheap, throwaway, response melee unit, something the Militias and Minutemen could fill neatly. No offensive upgrades, some shallow defensive upgrades, but a focus on vision and movement bonuses, making them the perfect response unit, which they usually were.

This is my goal with the support unit class. (The exception is Lancers, which are a more powerful main-line unit.)

Neither the support or melee promotions are intended to be stronger or weaker than the other, just different purposes. A pikeman and militia are both equally useful, at any number of promotions, only in different roles. At level 1 pikes are a little stronger but more expensive than militia, and they have different upgrade paths too.

In addition, by the medieval era all units have at least one promotion because the human has barracks (or even an armory) and the AIs have their free xp bonuses. Melee and support are quite distinct at that point.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't really like the idea of a "throwaway unit". The fact that units that don't die heal back to full health for free means that there are huge incentives to keep units alive, and so that any unit that is intended to die a lot is going to be very weak in the long run. You would nearly always be better off building a slightly more expensive unit that won't die instead.

I also do not think that a cheap resourceless unit should be the counter to chariot archers; I think the mobile units should be the cavalry line. I like that no non-cavalry unit has more than 2 moves until automobiles.

 

[Txurce]

Neither the support or melee promotions are intended to be stronger or weaker than the other, just different purposes. A pikeman and militia are both equally useful, at any number of promotions, only in different roles.

I se where you're going, but don't think fighting the AI calls out for the relatively subtle differences between the present militia and the pikeman.

I don't really like the idea of a "throwaway unit"... You would nearly always be better off building a slightly more expensive unit that won't die instead.

I also do not think that a cheap resourceless unit should be the counter to chariot archers; I think the mobile units should be the cavalry line. I like that no non-cavalry unit has more than 2 moves until automobiles.

"Throwaway" or "canon fodder" are interchangeable terms that Thal originally applied to resourceless units, which were meant to be the core of your army in a mod where resources are more scarce. Specifically, they're the ones you build when you can't build the more expensive unit.

PS - there is no counter to the chariot!

 

[Ahriman]

Throwaway" or "canon fodder" are interchangeable terms that Thal originally applied to resourceless units, which were meant to be the core of your army in a mod where resources are more scarce. Specifically, they're the ones you build when you can't build the more expensive unit.

I totally agree that resourceless units should be the core of your army, but you still shouldn't be losing these. Archers though are also resourceless, as are siege units. Its quite possible to have a front line of longswords, supplemented by crossbows and trebuchets.

PS - there is no counter to the chariot!

Yeah, I argued ages ago that the chariot archer is too strong, and that if you wanted to keep it with move after fire (which I admit is fun), its ranged strength needed to come down by a point or two, so it is a harassment unit doing minor damage.

I still think this is true, but I try to avoid belaboring the points I've already made.

 

[SlightlyMad]

Has it been considered that maybe the role would be better as a separate upgrade path for pikemen, than as a distinct units? Maybe even move their current defense bonus into an upgrade as well, that's a separate path from the militia upgrades?

 

[The Boz]

Meh, this discussion is getting nowhere, mainly because we're not speaking the same "language".
Can somebody point me to a place where one can see the entire unit tree in the game right now, including upgrade paths and unique units? The various wikis that I've tried so far are woefully poor on information, and I really don't feel like alt-tabbing from the game five times per minute.
I'd like to make a neat little graph to allow other people to say which unit line should fill which role.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't have a graphic handy, but the current design is:
Scout -> Militia -> Musket -> Rifle -> Infantry -> Mech Inf
Spearman -> Pikeman -> Rifle -> Infantry -> Mech Inf
Warrior -> Swordsman -> Longswordsman -> Rifle -> Infantry -> Mech Inf

 

[The Boz]

These are roughly the roles that make perfect sense to me at least:
Heavy attack: The obvious cavalry line, starting at Horseman, going through Knight and Cavalry, ending up at Modern Armor. The Tank/Modern Armor penalty against cities should be removed, this line should be the primary offensive unit in the game. All units in the line rely on strategic resources.
Soldier: The obvious line starting at Warrior, continuing through the two Sword units, then into Rifleman and Infantry, and finally Mech Infantry. These guys have no distinct attack bonuses or advantages, but there are no actual counter units either, save for archers/artillery in the tactical sense. The reliance of strategic resources in the early phases of these units is removed later on.
Defense: The line that counters Heavy Attack. Pikemen, Spearmen, Anti-tank Gun. This should be the go-to unit type that ones builds as a tall empire in a war. Good defensive bonuses and promotions, attack bonus against mounted/tanks. Counterable by the Soldier class for cost, so combined arms is a must. Archers and artillery aren't as effective against Defense because of the huge defense bonus and healing. None of these units require any strategic resources, but they suck on the offensive. A Modern unit may be required to make sure the Anti-tank gun doesn't suck against Modern Armor. Something like a Firebase, that is an upgrade option to both the Anti-tank and Anti-air units, covering the roles of both, using the Mobile SAM model and icon, with fluff about anti-tank rockets and anti-air guided missiles.
Patrol/Fast: The roles of this line should be initial scouting and fast anti-harassment response. This should be the Scout>Militia>Musket>Paratrooper>Helicopter line. The Paratrooper really should be late in the Industrial Era, as that is the point where they were most used, culminating in WWII, with their popularity dropping sharply after ~1980., where they get replaced by attack helicopters. All these units are very fast, very mobile, with a good strength, but their strength-to-cost ratio should be nowhere near their Soldier counterparts on the offense, or their Defense counterparts on the defense. They are, however, cheap. And have I mentioned mobile? The helicopter should replace it's anti-tank bonus with a general 20% bonus on the attack, being the only unit in this entire line to require strategic resources.
Ranged: Archers, Chariot Archers, Crossbowmen. Save for the CA, none of these units require strategic resources, but their true upgrade path ends quite early. They continue into either the Soldier line with the Rifleman, or the Patrol line with the Musketman, haven't decided yet. Due to their range, these guys are excellent harassers and counter-harassers in the earliest periods.
Artillery: Starting with the Catapult and ending with the Rocket Artillery, these units suck hardcore vs any other unit in the game unless that unit is fortified. They should have a miserable, pathetic strength, but a huge bonus against cities and fortified units. Their damage vs fortified units should be greater than the ranged equivalents.
Air Superiority: Fighters and Jet Fighters alone make up this line. Not much to say about them. Both use strategic resources which are valuable to industry and other late-game war units, so using these is a pretty big strategic decision.
Air Bombing: Bombers and Stealth Bombers. Bombers should be late Industrial, not just Modern, but their strength should be lowered accordingly. Similar to Artillery, their defensive strength should be miserable. Again, they use strategic resources, bla bla.
Destroyer: I love the way Thal made this line so far.
Battleship: I also love the way Thal made this too.
Submarine: I like how they are in the original game. The first one is a counter unit, and shouldn't ever need any strategic resources, but the nuke sub should use Uranium, not Aluminium.