New and Changed Unit Stats

[Slobadog]

It true that the phalanax was effective versus melees and such. I don't have a problem with it haveing axeman like traits. But to have it in the axeman catagory and not in the spear man catagory implies that it is a axeman and not a spearman. A phalanx is a spear man. All thats different is the formation used. (And for the Macedonions the spear lenth) So i don't want it to pick up the axman's traits whil losing the spearman' traits. Phalanxes like Spearman can sometimes be effective against calvary. If calvary had no choice but to charge directly against the phlananx it would likley die . Its when calvary adopt different tactics like hit and run archery that they triumph.

 

[Edgecrusher]

It true that the phalanax was effective versus melees and such. I don't have a problem with it haveing axeman like traits. But to have it in the axeman catagory and not in the spear man catagory implies that it is a axeman and not a spearman. A phalanx is a spear man. All thats different is the formation used. (And for the Macedonions the spear lenth) So i don't want it to pick up the axman's traits whil losing the spearman' traits. Phalanxes like Spearman can sometimes be effective against calvary. If calvary had no choice but to charge directly against the phlananx it would likley die . Its when calvary adopt different tactics like hit and run archery that they triumph.

I guess my point is that I dont see the unit catagory by weapon, i.e. a phalanx has a spear, therefore it has to be a spearman. I see the unit catagories by tactic/use.

The Spearman's role is to counter Cavalry
The Axeman's role is Melee superiority, (beat Spearman).
*Note that with a STR of 5, the Axeman can occasionally beat the Horse Archer whose STR is 6

The Phalanx, were exceptional fighters vs Melee units, and as you mention, could occasionally beat Cavalry, depending on the situation.... To me, that sounds like an Axeman, armed with a Spear.

Thus Greece, would have the Spearman and the Phalanx, which is probably mroe historcially accurate.

 

[Slobadog]

But then why would greece even have a spear man as well as a phalanx. Spearmen wouldn't be any better vs cavalry than a phalanx. Since spear men are only good vs cavalry in a tight formation. But nothing is tighter than a phalanx.

 

[Tsukasa]

I hope they change the +25% Hills Defense for the Phalanx to something useful when attacking. I think the March Promotion is more an offensive Promotion so it would be nice if the Phalanx has an additional offencive Bonus.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I wonder what strength the cuirassier will have. It is a unit in between the knight and the cavalry, so a value of 12 (between 10 and 15) would be reasonable at first thought, but it would make the unit superior to every other unit of its era. The best unit versus horse based units of its era is the pikeman with strength 6 and a 100% bonus vs horse based units. So if you make the cuirassier strength 12, then there will be no counter against the unit with a better than 50% chance of victory. And since offensive units gain more experience than defensive units, chances are that the cuirassier has more promotions than the pikeman. The cuirassier also has a building (the stable) that gives it extra experience making it more powerful than the pikeman. So what would be well-balanced stats for the cuirassier? Will the musketman be changed to fight the cuirassier? In the present game the musketman isn't that great. On the other hand, if you give musketmen a bonus that will make them beat the cuirassier, then what will beat musketmen in that era? Knights (which beat musketmen in warlords) would probably suffer from the same bonus that musketmen would receive against cuirassiers.

When gunpowder units were arriving on the battlefield in history, cavalry type units were slowly but surely becoming less dominant on the battlefield, so I wouldn't want the game to show the cuirassier as the most dominant horse based unit. Historically, pikemen were used for some time next to musketmen to guard against cavalry charges. So historically the pikeman should be the unit to counter the cuirassier. However, the pikeman can't really do that if it keeps its current stats and the cuirassier becomes a strength 12 unit.

There are multiple ways to solve this by giving certain units specific bonuses (for instance by giving pikemen an extra bonus vs cuirassiers), but I wonder what choises Firaxis has made.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I wonder what strength the cuirassier will have. It is a unit in between the knight and the cavalry, so a value of 12 (between 10 and 15) would be reasonable at first thought, but it would make the unit superior to every other unit of its era. The best unit versus horse based units of its era is the pikeman with strength 6 and a 100% bonus vs horse based units. So if you make the cuirassier strength 12, then there will be no counter against the unit with a better than 50% chance of victory. And since offensive units gain more experience than defensive units, chances are that the cuirassier has more promotions than the pikeman. The cuirassier also has a building (the stable) that gives it extra experience making it more powerful than the pikeman. So what would be well-balanced stats for the cuirassier? Will the musketman be changed to fight the cuirassier? In the present game the musketman isn't that great. On the other hand, if you give musketmen a bonus that will make them beat the cuirassier, then what will beat musketmen in that era? Knights (which beat musketmen in warlords) would probably suffer from the same bonus that musketmen would receive against cuirassiers.

When gunpowder units were arriving on the battlefield in history, cavalry type units were slowly but surely becoming less dominant on the battlefield, so I wouldn't want the game to show the cuirassier as the most dominant horse based unit. Historically, pikemen were used for some time next to musketmen to guard against cavalry charges. So historically the pikeman should be the unit to counter the cuirassier. However, the pikeman can't really do that if it keeps its current stats and the cuirassier becomes a strength 12 unit.

There are multiple ways to solve this by giving certain units specific bonuses (for instance by giving pikemen an extra bonus vs cuirassiers), but I wonder what choises Firaxis has made.

Well summed up as normal RJ ......Im guessing that they are having problems balancing the Cuirassier within its context, that's why we haven't been told of it's stats yet.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think that
1. It should be available reasonably early (since it apparently is the Conquistadors base unit) So Gunpowder+HR+Nationalism (Military Tradition seems a bit excessive)
2. I'd say Str 13 -25% for Gunpowder units, so they don't shorten the age of the Musket (almost the same as Knights v. Muskets), and Grenadiers would handle them just like Grenadiers handle Knights. They would also be just stronger than the Knight's enemies, and this would mean that Gunpowder armies would be Currasiers, Muskets, and Trebuchets... with the level of Currasiers depending on the tech level of your opponents, more low tech, more Currasiers.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Well I think that
1. It should be available reasonably early (since it apparently is the Conquistadors base unit) So Gunpowder+HR+Nationalism (Military Tradition seems a bit excessive)
2. I'd say Str 13 -25% for Gunpowder units, so they don't shorten the age of the Musket (almost the same as Knights v. Muskets), and Grenadiers would handle them just like Grenadiers handle Knights. They would also be just stronger than the Knight's enemies, and this would mean that Gunpowder armies would be Currasiers, Muskets, and Trebuchets... with the level of Currasiers depending on the tech level of your opponents, more low tech, more Currasiers.

The cuirassier was given less armour to make it more mobile because the armour wasn't that useful against gunpowder units. Why would the cuirassier get a penalty against gunpowder units and not the knight? Of course, there are more weird bonuses in civ4. Why do axemen get a bonus versus swordsman? It could work for balance because you can get to grenadiers at about the same time as you could get to cuirassiers if you do it like you suggest.

 

[UncleJJ]

Well I think a negative bonus on all mounted troops against pikes makes more sense than the pike having a 100% bonus against the mounted troops. It probably works out to be the same thing in the end, given how combat in Civ 4 works, but that is what actually happens - the mounted guys don't like fighting men with long pointy things - their weapons are simply outreached.

So one way around the problem would be to keep the pikeman as he is and make the cuirassier strength 12 with an additional -25% (maybe 50%) when attacking pikes and spears. That would allow stacks/ cities to be defended fairly cheaply by pike, considering the curassier is likely to cost 110 hammers and produced with barracks and stables (gives combat1 + shock)

 

[Emp. Killyouall]

Grenadiers are being moved up in the tech tree (probably more around rifling), so they will not be a counter to Curassiers.

 

[dutchking]

If you're at war with some idiot who keeps a city unguarded, can you land a paratrooper on it and it'll be yours, or is there a catch?

 

[Roland Johansen]

If you're at war with some idiot who keeps a city unguarded, can you land a paratrooper on it and it'll be yours, or is there a catch?

In civ3, this was not possible. If a paratrooper was dropped on an occupied tile or a foreign city, it resulted in the immediate death of the paratrooper.
In civ2, you could capture unprotected cities with paratroopers by dropping them on the city.

How it will work in civ4 is not clear yet. There was a video where you could see that a paratrooper still had movement points after a paradrop. But it was a paradrop in friendly territory, so even that doesn't tell us the whole story. It is also not clear if the movement points can be used for attacking or only for moving and pillaging.

 

[Spammurabi]

I heartily approve of the changes to seige units and cavalry being able to flank them. Kudos to Firaxis!

 

[PieceOfMind]

Well I think a negative bonus on all mounted troops against pikes makes more sense than the pike having a 100% bonus against the mounted troops. It probably works out to be the same thing in the end, given how combat in Civ 4 works, but that is what actually happens - the mounted guys don't like fighting men with long pointy things - their weapons are simply outreached.

You're right, whether the bonus was +100% against mounted or -100% vs. pikes would make no difference under the current battle mechanics of civ4. The modifiers are always added or subtracted from the defender with the combat promotions being the only exception. You were probably aware of this detail, but I really wish Firaxis would put it in the game manual because it is IMO the most commonly misunderstood aspect of civ4. I seem to remember in the older civ games the manual had at least 1 example of a combat calculation. This time they didn't bother with one at all.

How it will work in civ4 is not clear yet. There was a video where you could see that a paratrooper still had movement points after a paradrop. But it was a paradrop in friendly territory, so even that doesn't tell us the whole story. It is also not clear if the movement points can be used for attacking or only for moving and pillaging.

I think they'll be able to move and attack after landing but they'll have a very limited range from forts/cities. Perhaps 5 tile radius (using civ4 metric) would be feasible.

 

[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.