[GS] New units in Gathering Storm

[Sostratus]

maybe along with adding a unit in between knights and tanks, the former will be reduced a bit in power.

It may be counter intuitive but adding a unit between knights and tanks, as there appears to be in the shot of the tech tree during the hungary stream, only increases the value of knights.
Status Quo: Knights are very effective units well into the renaissance (because they are way faster than infantry and still hit decently hard.)
Adding a new unit: knights can do everything the same as before, but you can also upgrade them to make them better
Since nothing about the status quo has been invalidated, and an option for more power has been added (which, regardless of specifics, player would only take if it was worth it) means knights won't be any weaker than before.

No, the only way to make knights less dominant is to add more competitive options to their contemporaries.
This would be, just looking at what units are available in each line when knights take the field:
swords
xbows
pikes
horsemen

When you look at this list, you probably notice all those units suck compared to knights. And they kinda do. Basic Swords in the Medieval just cannot really stand in as anything but pike slayers (promoted ones can kinda take crossbows) and crossbows just don't have the punch to stop knights without a meat-shield. Which would be the pikes, which are not effective. If they do not balance coursers properly, then we will end up with horse-> courser instead of chariot->knight because its easier to use horses than chariots and coursers may well be just as good as knights - the Black Army as shown would be even better!

The more you fill in a unit line, the closer its power curve gets to the "contemporary unit" curve and the less 'loss' there is from not being strong enough. Think of a step pyramid (unit gaps) vs a smooth pyramid (no gaps) - the step better approximates the smooth the more steps there are.

 

[nzcamel]

It may be counter intuitive but adding a unit between knights and tanks, as there appears to be in the shot of the tech tree during the hungary stream, only increases the value of knights.
Status Quo: Knights are very effective units well into the renaissance (because they are way faster than infantry and still hit decently hard.)
Adding a new unit: knights can do everything the same as before, but you can also upgrade them to make them better
Since nothing about the status quo has been invalidated, and an option for more power has been added (which, regardless of specifics, player would only take if it was worth it) means knights won't be any weaker than before.

No, the only way to make knights less dominant is to add more competitive options to their contemporaries.
This would be, just looking at what units are available in each line when knights take the field:
swords
xbows
pikes
horsemen

When you look at this list, you probably notice all those units suck compared to knights. And they kinda do. Basic Swords in the Medieval just cannot really stand in as anything but pike slayers (promoted ones can kinda take crossbows) and crossbows just don't have the punch to stop knights without a meat-shield. Which would be the pikes, which are not effective. If they do not balance coursers properly, then we will end up with horse-> courser instead of chariot->knight because its easier to use horses than chariots and coursers may well be just as good as knights - the Black Army as shown would be even better!

The more you fill in a unit line, the closer its power curve gets to the "contemporary unit" curve and the less 'loss' there is from not being strong enough. Think of a step pyramid (unit gaps) vs a smooth pyramid (no gaps) - the step better approximates the smooth the more steps there are.

I appreciate your angle, and like the every 2nd era upgrade model... yet my objection is about immersion in the first instance. Knights running around long after everything else has switched to firearms just doesn't do it for me. All the worse in any game where there is minimal land oil (which used to be a significant problem on some maps, but one they fixed); and you have to wait till you get offshore platforms to rid them from your nation!

It would appear that they are going to fill that gap; so hopefully accompanying units (like the Pike n Shot) get a shot in the arm to reflect their need to be more competitive.

 

[AriochIV]

So you don't give your knights the turtle promotion?

Yes, doesn't help a lot when they can't fortify or get defensive bonuses.

 

[nzcamel]

Yes, doesn't help a lot when they can't fortify or get defensive bonuses.

I'd say it's even more important for that reason. They do get defensive bonuses thou don't they? Or was that just in vanilla?

If I'm going to send them between a couple of enemy cities to get one of them under siege then I think that promotion is worth it.

 

[Haig]

Get knights to cost more production to build and more gold in upkeep.

 

[Pietato]

Am I sure? No. But, when a UU replaces a GU it almost always will say so in the unit description on the Civ/Leader screen - (Civilization) unique (Era) unit that replaces (General Unit) (See Hungary UU example attachment.). The Toa doesn't list it as a replacement for anything as of the build they used for the First Look.

If they cannot be upgraded to from warriors, then that is a massive negative.

 

[IdiotStyle]

i feel with the cultural approach maori gets, it would be ok to see the unit unlocked in the civics tree being not a swordmen replacement.

 

[AriochIV]

The Toa should be a Warrior replacement; it's literally (dancing) naked guys with clubs. They should have done it like in Civ V: a Warrior replacement with sufficient perks to make them viable in later eras. Making them into essentially a Swordsman-equivalent that is superior to Roman legions is... just stupid. I understand that Maori were supposed to be super badass, but they're still just dancing naked guys with clubs.

I don't know whether the Toa literally replaces the Swordsman, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't, since it fills the same role at the same era and is obviously superior to the Swordsman. As with the Hungarian's Black Army, there will be literally no reason for the Maori player to ever build a Swordsman when they can build a Toa instead. The only reason I can see to make the Toa a separate unit is to move it somewhere else in the tech tree... and I don't see any particular reason for that, either.

 

[nzcamel]

The Toa should be a Warrior replacement; it's literally (dancing) naked guys with clubs. They should have done it like in Civ V: a Warrior replacement with sufficient perks to make them viable in later eras. Making them into essentially a Swordsman-equivalent that is superior to Roman legions is... just stupid. I understand that Maori were supposed to be super badass, but they're still just dancing naked guys with clubs.

I don't know whether the Toa literally replaces the Swordsman, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't, since it fills the same role at the same era and is obviously superior to the Swordsman. As with the Hungarian's Black Army, there will be literally no reason for the Maori player to ever build a Swordsman when they can build a Toa instead.

They were the most bad-ass guys with clubs ever but yeah, I agree a warrior replacement is far more logical.

I'm guessing Toa will be more expensive than swordsmen, so you may have a couple of the latter to complement them.

 

[Uberfrog]

The Toa replacing the Swordsman is a gameplay, not historical decision, like with the Zulu Impi replacing the Pikeman. It means the player has to develop a military in the classical instead of rushing the enemy straight out the gate, a privilege currently reserved for the Aztecs. (Edit: oh, and "Sumeria")

 

[Siptah]

The Toa replacing the Swordsman is a gameplay, not historical decision, like with the Zulu Impi replacing the Pikeman. It means the player has to develop a military in the classical instead of rushing the enemy straight out the gate, a privilege currently reserved for the Aztecs.

Well, historically, it should replace the Musketman rather than the warrior anyway. Let's see tomorrow if it replaces anything. If it needs to be hard build and maybe with higher cost than swordsman, it may not be that good after all. We'll know soon.

 

[Disgustipated]

Toa will be more expensive than swordsmen,

Which would be weird since how expensive can it be to make a jade club? It's not like you need all that iron that swordsmen have.

 

[acluewithout]

The Toa should be a Warrior replacement; it's literally (dancing) naked guys with clubs. They should have done it like in Civ V: a Warrior replacement with sufficient perks to make them viable in later eras. Making them into essentially a Swordsman-equivalent that is superior to Roman legions is... just stupid. I understand that Maori were supposed to be super badass, but they're still just dancing naked guys with clubs.

I don't know whether the Toa literally replaces the Swordsman, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't, since it fills the same role at the same era and is obviously superior to the Swordsman. As with the Hungarian's Black Army, there will be literally no reason for the Maori player to ever build a Swordsman when they can build a Toa instead. The only reason I can see to make the Toa a separate unit is to move it somewhere else in the tech tree... and I don't see any particular reason for that, either.

England turned up to NZ with guns and soldiers... and decided they were maybe better off negotiating with the locals rather than just conquering...

Sure, big dancing naked guys with clubs... but big dancing naked guys with clubs that will totally, totally wreck you...

 

[Uberfrog]

Well, historically, it should replace the Musketman rather than the warrior anyway.

The Māori, like pretty much everyone else, were enthusiastic adopters of the musket in the 19th century (see, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars), even if they had difficulty obtaining them from Europeans.

 

[Siptah]

England turned up to NZ with guns and soldiers... and decided they were maybe better off negotiating with the locals rather than just conquering...

Sure, big dancing naked guys with clubs... but big dancing naked guys with clubs that will totally, totally wreck you...

Fighting wars has always been a decision based on profit and loss account.

Fighting a war that might end up with a lot of casualties in mountainous terrain at the end of the world with all the disadvantages that it has doesn't sound promising to begin with. And the land you are fighting for is not spoiled with riches as much as others and neither is it an important transit zone or of strategic importance beyond regional thinking. It seems a logical move to negotiate if there is a possibility. Not saying the Maori were not good and scary fighters, and they certainly surprised the British with their successful resistance. Just pointing out that it was a smart move to negotiate under these circumstances in the first place. I think a similar situation as New Zealand was found in Nepal in that respect: a lot to lose but not too much to gain from the British perspective. But in that case, the British didn't even fight much from the start iirc and rather hired the Nepalese as mercenaries (and still do today).

If New Zealand would have been thought of as promising and important as the Cape of Good Hope or India, things might have been different. Also, it was quite common to not "just conquer" every locals you meet in the colonial era, even if there were horrible crimes against natives.

 

[nzcamel]

Well, historically, it should replace the Musketman rather than the warrior anyway. Let's see tomorrow if it replaces anything. If it needs to be hard build and maybe with higher cost than swordsman, it may not be that good after all. We'll know soon.

Yeah, Civ 6 is all over the show on this. Like the Toa you have Eagle Warriors in an era they never actually existed in; but it feels like they should if their civilization had existed since the dawn of time. On the other hand you have the Impi and that Brazilian battleship existing in eras where they actually did in the real world; yet they in turn are buffed to an unrealistic degree to make them more powerful than real world rivals.

Which would be weird since how expensive can it be to make a jade club? It's not like you need all that iron that swordsmen have.

Ah, well. From the Maori's POV pre European contact it was very expensive. They had no metal working, so making taiaha or mere (greenstone spears and clubs) was not cheap at all. But yes, like everything to do with economics, the arrival of new technologies reduced the value of those things.

England turned up to NZ with guns and soldiers... and decided they were maybe better off negotiating with the locals rather than just conquering...

Sure, big dancing naked guys with clubs... but big dancing naked guys with clubs that will totally, totally wreck you...

Fighting wars has always been a decision based on profit and loss account.

Fighting a war that might end up with a lot of casualties in mountainous terrain at the end of the world with all the disadvantages that it has doesn't sound promising to begin with. And the land you are fighting for is not spoiled with riches as much as others and neither is it an important transit zone or of strategic importance beyond regional thinking. It seems a logical move to negotiate if there is a possibility. Not saying the Maori were not good and scary fighters, and they certainly surprised the British with their successful resistance. Just pointing out that it was a smart move to negotiate under these circumstances in the first place. I think a similar situation as New Zealand was found in Nepal in that respect: a lot to lose but not too much to gain from the British perspective. But in that case, the British didn't even fight much from the start iirc and rather hired the Nepalese as mercenaries (and still do today).

If New Zealand would have been thought of as promising and important as the Cape of Good Hope or India, things might have been different. Also, it was quite common to not "just conquer" every locals you meet in the colonial era, even if there were horrible crimes against natives.

Siptah has the more accurate end of it. Yes the Maori were incredible melee fighters. Arguably the best the British ever met. In both world wars the Maori battalion performed with distinction; and were complimented and feared by their enemies.

But NZ was a -relatively- small country and the UK had a massive empire, including our neighbour Australia. A bit like the Swiss & their bigger neighbours - had the Brits wanted to take NZ down they could have. But it would have been a tonne of effort for very little reward given everything else they possesed from their perspective.
That and by the 19th century I think they had mellowed out a bit. Getting everything one wants has that effect.

Going back to the Maori battalion, that would have been the UU for New Zealand imho if we had been added as a country. I don't want us to be added (nor Australia, or Canada, or even the Maori if I'm brutally honest); but if they had gone down that path I think the Maori battalion would have been the NZ replacement or addition to WWI/WWII infantry. And at that place it could have been more powerful than other infantry and that would have been more realistic than the balancing act of brutes with Mere being more powerful than legions and many units that follow.

 

[kryat]

Thinking about the discussions on the fort thread, does anyone think one of the UU’s might be a military engineer? With the new uses for them, it seems plausible to me. Either that, or some existing civs may get reworked bonus to cooperate with tunnel, dam, or canal building, such as with Rome, Aztec, or China.

 

[Pietato]

Which would be weird since how expensive can it be to make a jade club? It's not like you need all that iron that swordsmen have.

That jade club they wield would be more expensive than 50 swords.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Thinking about the discussions on the fort thread, does anyone think one of the UU’s might be a military engineer? With the new uses for them, it seems plausible to me. Either that, or some existing civs may get reworked bonus to cooperate with tunnel, dam, or canal building, such as with Rome, Aztec, or China.

Seems unlikely since part of England's new UA is basically unique Military Engineers.

I would like to see a unique support unit though. It would be a refreshing change of pace.

 

[Siptah]

I would like to see a unique support unit though. It would be a refreshing change of pace.

Alternatively, the devs could just change support units to be more useful.

The only one I build regularly is the battering ram.
The balloon was really good in unpatched vanilla (+1 range for artillery), and everybody liked to build it until it was changed to +1 sight.
But siege towers? Medics? Supply convoys? The need to be changed in general to make it worth building, not just for one civ imho.

Side note: AA gun is actually quite a good support unit as is as well, but against the AI, it is not necessary right now.