New and Changed Unit Stats

[Jaca]

While the promotion is nice, I really like seeing the Greeks having the strongest melee unit until the Romans' uu (meaning legionaires, though they're called Praets). It fits a little better with history.

Agreed. I do like the new stats of the Phalanx, that is, if they really are the new stats.

I'd rather see them rework the techs/early units better. Axemen have always seemed a little wonky to me.

Agreed again, without having an answer to the problem myself though.

Jaca

 

[Emp. Killyouall]

BW is broken- bronze revealed, whipping, chopping, and axemen?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well what I see the Currasier as being is
1. available early, ie very close to Muskets
Because the Conquistador seems like it should be available reasonably early, and so as to allow some gap for the Cavalry

2. Should not Easily beat Musketeers (because they are supposed to get extended in usefulness)

3. Should probably be beaten by Grenadiers (which would be available later)

Perhaps Muskets can get a +25% v. Mounted, and the Currasiers a 10+25% v. Gunpowder (or Free Pinch? to prevent them from getting +50% v. Gunpowder), and perhaps a few other bonuses like Flanking v. Trebuchets, and a % Retreat. They would not be so much of an Upgrade to the Knight as an Alternate (one more focused on fast hitting v. Heavy Hitting)

So Knight v. Pike
->Knight v. Musket
->Currasier v. Pike
->Cavalry v. Riflemen

So field Muskets would be uncountered until Currasiers came along
so Pike-Mace-Knight
would become
Pike-Musket-Currasier

Grendiers would still be slightly vulnerable to Currasiers (12 v. 12.5), but Pikes would still be available and cheap. (12 v. 10)

The Conquistador could have the same boosts (+50% v. Melee, uses defensive terrain) making it a still super dominant unit (10 v. 9s for its best counters, Muskets and Pikes...Elephants would still beat it though)

Edited in response to Roland's below

The possibly Balanced, but less Historical would be my earlier Idea of 13str -25% Gunpowder
10.4 v. Musketeers, and able to beat anything else, Grenadiers would be the only counter in that case, but they would probably be too late.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Well what I see the Currasier as being is
1. available early, ie very close to Muskets
Because the Conquistador seems like it should be available reasonably early, and so as to allow some gap for the Cavalry

2. Should not Easily beat Musketeers (because they are supposed to get extended in usefulness)

3. Should probably be beaten by Grenadiers (which would be available later)

Should probably be better than Knights v. Melee/Knights themselves, etc. given the use of weapons.

That's seems reasonable, but the most interesting question for me is: what unit will counter them (have a better than 50% chance to beat them)? This of course has to be a unit that is available when the cuirassier is available.

Historically, it was the combinations of pikes and muskets (AFAIK), but in the game it's pretty hard to balance.

 

[Pikkis]

That's seems reasonable, but the most interesting question for me is: what unit will counter them (have a better than 50% chance to beat them)? This of course has to be a unit that is available when the cuirassier is available.

Historically, it was the combinations of pikes and muskets (AFAIK), but in the game it's pretty hard to balance.

If it's like Krikkitone said, the counter will be Pikeman, as he thought that Cuirassier would have strength of 10, did you notice?

The 13str with -25% against Gunpowder doesn't seem possible, because then it would be slightly worse than Knights against Gunpowder units.

Coming with Nationalism instead of Military Tradition is what I've thought too. I think it should be so, but who knows about Firaxis?

I think that Trebuchet attack bonus and flank attack should be ability of Knight instead of Horse Archer or Cuirassier. Cuirassiers should have flank attack against Bombards, earlier gunpowder siege weapons, but they won't appear in BTS.

About attack bonuses, I wonder which unit (if any) will have attack bonus against Mobile SAMs, could Marine have bonuses against 3 different siege weapons?

 

[Roland Johansen]

Well what I see the Currasier as being is
1. available early, ie very close to Muskets
Because the Conquistador seems like it should be available reasonably early, and so as to allow some gap for the Cavalry

2. Should not Easily beat Musketeers (because they are supposed to get extended in usefulness)

3. Should probably be beaten by Grenadiers (which would be available later)

Perhaps Muskets can get a +25% v. Mounted, and the Currasiers a 10+25% v. Gunpowder (or Free Pinch? to prevent them from getting +50% v. Gunpowder), and perhaps a few other bonuses like Flanking v. Trebuchets, and a % Retreat. They would not be so much of an Upgrade to the Knight as an Alternate (one more focused on fast hitting v. Heavy Hitting)

So Knight v. Pike
->Knight v. Musket
->Currasier v. Pike
->Cavalry v. Riflemen

So field Muskets would be uncountered until Currasiers came along
so Pike-Mace-Knight
would become
Pike-Musket-Currasier

Grendiers would still be slightly vulnerable to Currasiers (12 v. 12.5), but Pikes would still be available and cheap. (12 v. 10)

The Conquistador could have the same boosts (+50% v. Melee, uses defensive terrain) making it a still super dominant unit (10 v. 9s for its best counters, Muskets and Pikes...Elephants would still beat it though)

Edited in response to Roland's below

The possibly Balanced, but less Historical would be my earlier Idea of 13str -25% Gunpowder
10.4 v. Musketeers, and able to beat anything else, Grenadiers would be the only counter in that case, but they would probably be too late.

If it's like Krikkitone said, the counter will be Pikeman, as he thought that Cuirassier would have strength of 10, did you notice?

The 13str with -25% against Gunpowder doesn't seem possible, because then it would be slightly worse than Knights against Gunpowder units.

Coming with Nationalism instead of Military Tradition is what I've thought too. I think it should be so, but who knows about Firaxis?

I think that Trebuchet attack bonus and flank attack should be ability of Knight instead of Horse Archer or Cuirassier. Cuirassiers should have flank attack against Bombards, earlier gunpowder siege weapons, but they won't appear in BTS.

About attack bonuses, I wonder which unit (if any) will have attack bonus against Mobile SAMs, could Marine have bonuses against 3 different siege weapons?

He edited his post after I quoted him, did you notice?

The more detailed stuff about the actual bonuses and strength values wasn't there when I quoted him.

Good editing though as I like the ideas. I would make the cuirassier 10 + 25% vs musketmen though so that the unit loses its bonus against the later gunpowder units as the cavalry unit also doesn't have that bonus. You could leave the bonus as the cavalry unit has a higher strength so it would still be better, but it's still a bit weird. A strength score of 11 for the cuirassier would also work, but for some reason Firaxis doesn't like odd number above 5.

I would surely not give the musketman the 25% bonus vs horse based units though. It would make them have no counter in the era before cuirassiers as you say, which I don't like. I also don't see why this bonus would be necessary. The musketman is already more powerful than all non-horse based units and the pikeman is there to counter the horse based units.

I agree that the cuirassier should get a flanking bonus against trebuchets (and catapults). (Bombards would have been nice).

I don't think the Mobile Sam needs a real counter unit. It has a relatively low strength because its contemporary units will probably be the mechanized infantry and the modern armor. These units will automatically counter it because they have a far higher strength.

edit: I retract my objection to the anti gunpowder bonus of the cuirassier. It's good that it can counter the grenadier. So a 25% bonus vs all gunpowder units is ok.

 

[Pikkis]

He edited his post after I quoted him, did you notice?

No, I didn't (I think you knew that already). About bonuses, I think that Grenadiers should have attack bonus against Musketmans as well as against Riflemans (+50% against both).

 

[DrewBledsoe]

The fictional Grenadier bonus is almost certainly made up for gameplay. Why on earth should a small hand thrown bomb, with very limited range, have any possible advantage over a guy with a long ranged lethal projectile weapon.

The bit in Indiana Jones, where the Arab starts twirling his sword, and Indy just shrugs, grabs his pistol, and shoots him instead springs to mind.

 

[Roland Johansen]

The fictional Grenadier bonus is almost certainly made up for gameplay. Why on earth should a small hand thrown bomb, with very limited range, have any possible advantage over a guy with a long ranged lethal projectile weapon.

The bit in Indiana Jones, where the Arab starts twirling his sword, and Indy just shrugs, grabs his pistol, and shoots him instead springs to mind.

I have thought about that, but the wars in that era were relatively boring if you look at the different types of units used. It's hard to find a historical counter unit for the rifleman as battles were often riflemen vs riflemen.

Cannons armed with shrapnel shots could be called a historical counter unit for riflemen. Then you'd get cannon > rifleman > cavalry > cannon. But the problem is that artillery units already have a special position in civ4 warfare with the collateral damage system. So also making them a counter unit vs riflemen might overpower them.

Edit: the grenadier bonus is not completely fictional if you consider this Wikipedia article. It's good that they only get the bonus on the attack. But they were only effective during a small period as the firearms got better at longer ranges and could be fired more rapidly.

 

[Pikkis]

Edit: the grenadier bonus is not completely fictional if you consider this Wikipedia article. It's good that they only get the bonus on the attack. But they were only effective during a small period as the firearms got better at longer ranges and could be fired more rapidly.

But what do you think about my suggestion to add attack bonus against Musketmen too, I think that if it can be faster to act than unit with a rifle (that's the reason of the advantage, though it should because of that reason instead have 2/3 first strikes, but that would Riflemen units w/o counter), it's also faster to act than unit with a musket. Though more modern units than Rifleman are faster to act than Grenadier, older units than Rifleman should be much easier to beat, not just a bit.

Rifleman defending: 12.00 vs. 9.33
Musketman defending: 12.00 vs. 9.00

With my suggestion:
Musketman defending: 12.00 vs. 6.00

 

[Edgecrusher]

I have thought about that, but the wars in that era were relatively boring if you look at the different types of units used. It's hard to find a historical counter unit for the rifleman as battles were often riflemen vs riflemen.

I thought a "Sharpshooter" unit should have been used instead of a Grenadier. i.e. a "longer" range rifleman with pinpoint accuracy.

Grenadiers could stay as an offensive unit vs cities (much like the Medieval Swordman or the War Elephant)

Pikeman --> Rifleman
Knight ---> Cavalry
Maceman ---> Sharpshooter

 

[Roland Johansen]

But what do you think about my suggestion to add attack bonus against Musketmen too, I think that if it can be faster to act than unit with a rifle (that's the reason of the advantage, though it should because of that reason instead have 2/3 first strikes, but that would Riflemen units w/o counter), it's also faster to act than unit with a musket. Though more modern units than Rifleman are faster to act than Grenadier, older units than Rifleman should be much easier to beat, not just a bit.

Rifleman defending: 12.00 vs. 9.33
Musketman defending: 12.00 vs. 9.00

With my suggestion:
Musketman defending: 12.00 vs. 6.00

The grenadier is only effective when used offensively against the rifleman, so the rifleman is already a lot better than the musketman against the grenadier. But you're right that it is historically illogical that the grenadier can effectively storm a position of riflemen and doesn't have a similar advantage against musketmen (allthough the effectiveness of storming riflemen seriously diminished when rifles became quicker to load and more accurate).

I thought a "Sharpshooter" unit should have been used instead of a Grenadier. i.e. a "longer" range rifleman with pinpoint accuracy.

Grenadiers could stay as an offensive unit vs cities (much like the Medieval Swordman or the War Elephant)

Pikeman --> Rifleman
Knight ---> Cavalry
Maceman ---> Sharpshooter

The rifle was developed specifically to get better accuracy and range. It was the sharpshooting weapon of its age. The spiraling effect on the bullet by a rifled gun made the gun more accurate than the smooth-bore musket. So, I don't exactly know what you mean with sharpshooters. We're talking about 1850-1930 here. Shortly after the riflemen appeared also early machine guns appeared and then repeating rifles and then you're close to the era of the unit represented by infantry in this game. The modern sniper unit with telescope vision is something I would place in WWII in city fighting. The sniper is more used to kill officers disrupting the command structure and demoralizing the enemy and not to win a battle on its own. It's part of a unit and not a unit on itself. Whenever I see an infantry unit in this game, I imagine that some of the soldiers in the unit are snipers.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

The rifle was developed specifically to get better accuracy and range. It was the sharpshooting weapon of its age. The spiraling effect on the bullet by a rifled gun made the gun more accurate than the smooth-bore musket. So, I don't exactly know what you mean with sharpshooters. We're talking about 1850-1930 here. Shortly after the riflemen appeared also early machine guns appeared and then repeating rifles and then you're close to the era of the unit represented by infantry in this game. The modern sniper unit with telescope vision is something I would place in WWII in city fighting. The sniper is more used to kill officers disrupting the command structure and demoralizing the enemy and not to win a battle on its own. It's part of a unit and not a unit on itself. Whenever I see an infantry unit in this game, I imagine that some of the soldiers in the unit are snipers.

Well, sharpshooters were used long before WWII... certainly during the American Civil War and before too. However, a sharpshooter unit, to me, is a bad idea as is any kind of sniper units. While deadly and capable of doing a lot of damage by killing higher-ranking officers, snipers would never be able to kill a whole "unit" of infantry.

Personally, I think they should just get rid of the Grenadier and let the Riflemen just slug it out... Let the better-trained (i.e. more highly promoted) units win.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Well, sharpshooters were used long before WWII... certainly during the American Civil War and before too. However, a sharpshooter unit, to me, is a bad idea as is any kind of sniper units. While deadly and capable of doing a lot of damage by killing higher-ranking officers, snipers would never be able to kill a whole "unit" of infantry.

Personally, I think they should just get rid of the Grenadier and let the Riflemen just slug it out... Let the better-trained (i.e. more highly promoted) units win.

I know that sharpshooters existed before the modern sniper and you're right that they would never be a complete unit that would completely destroy another unit.

Removing the grenadier might be more realistic. Although elite units that were used for storming the line did exist, they could well be represented by highly promoted units. But I guess, you would quickly get the player complaint that the era in the game is a bit boring for warfare (as it historically was in terms of different units).

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Removing the grenadier might be more realistic. Although elite units that were used for storming the line did exist, they could well be represented by highly promoted units. But I guess, you would quickly get the player complaint that the era in the game is a bit boring for warfare (as it historically was in terms of different units).

Well, if you could have Artillery units providing support when stacked with infantry units, you might get some more interesting combinations.. it's not a particularly long period of the game anyway... That's beyond the scope of this.. especially since some people are already playing the game, but it's something I'll keep in mind for mods.