[GS] New units in Gathering Storm

[Kurtbob]

Reminiscing about the Civ III rubber resource, which was a requirement for infantry?

 

[AriochIV]

Reminiscing about the Civ III rubber resource, which was a requirement for infantry?

Tanks too. In Civ III, a unit could require more than one resource (Oil and Rubber for tanks, Horses and Saltpeter for cavalry, etc.).

 

[Kurtbob]

I had to look back on it and you are right!

https://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/civilopedia/units/

Modern Armor actually required THREE resources to build! Aluminum, Oil and Rubber.

 

[God of Kings]

I would like to see a civ with a unique skirmisher.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I was initially worried about this as well, but then the thought occurred that because of the new Strategic Resource system you may still be forced to continually field Mixed Era Armies. Extending the time in which certain Units can feature in a game.

Because even though you might have the Tech to build an army full of Tanks (and the money to upgrade), given the new demands on Oil (power, unit maintenance) you'll probably never going to be able to upgrade all your units at once.

So basically we'll all now face choices like, is it better for me to field 2 x Cuirassier and save my Oil to provide some Air cover, or just make do with 2 x Tanks? Because at the moment in R & F, the only real obstacle to upgrading your units is whether you have the required Tech or not.

Good Point, IF they have 'massaged' the numbers and amounts of resources to make it work this way. Given the lamentable lack of proper interaction among game systems so far (production versus rising costs, speed of Tech and Civics research versus ability to produce things, etc) I will wait and see how it works 'in game'.
I sincerely hope you are right.

I was going to say "But isnt that an argument for line infantry/rifleman again?", but then I remembered that melee line units weirdly stop requiring resources after musketman. <.<

On that note, there should be a rubber strategic resource.
The spearman line should be the go-to melee units that dont require resources, and the melee line should be like special forces requiring resources. And then the current late game units would kinda swap around. Like:
Spearman > Pikeman > Pike&Shot > Line infantry > Infantry > Mechanised Infantry

Swordman > Musketeer(or maybe a fancier name) > Grenadier(also uses nitre) > eeehm Marines? ... > Special Forces...or so...

I have actually no idea why i brought rubber into this, it was just a fancy idea. Or what to do with the AT-Crew. Help.

Late edit: Or maybe the go-to line stops at infantry and mechanised infantry is the last unit of the special line, requiring rubber (along with marines)...

I've come around to the conclusion after much wrestling with the Unit Upgrades that the 'gunpowder' units need to be in a Unit Class all their own.
Reasoning: the Musketman is not a separate unit, or shouldn't be: early muskets/arquebusses were always in formation with pikes for protection, since they had no melee factor at all (no bayonets). So, the Pike & Shot would be the last Anti-Mounted Unit, and the Swordsman the last 'melee' unit.
The Fusilier, armed with the flintlock musket and socket bayonet, would be the first Firepower Infantry unit. It would have a high melee factor, an anti-cab factor (bayonets, ability to form square) and a Ranged factor before Melee to represent the short-ranged firepower of the massed muskets.

The Firepower Infantry line would be:
Fusilier (Industrial Era) - Infantry (Modern Era) - Mechanized Infantry (Atomic Era)

Antitank weapons and Machine-guns would not be separate units, they would be Reinforcing or Heavy Weapons that could be added to the Firepower units by a Special Promotion: get the Tech, use Gold to add an Anti-Armor or extra Ranged Before Melee capability to the unit.

Anti-Mounted would not affect Tank or Modern Armor units - think about it: Spearman versus Sherman Tank and get back to me when you figure out how the spear gives him any advantage against the Sherman's 60mm of armor, 75mm cannon, two .30 caliber machine-guns, and the .50 caliber machine-gun on top of the turret - which you can't even reach with your spear from the ground. Ugly.

Of course, none of this is going to happen in Civ VI, but I think it would solve a lot of the silliness in the late game units...

 

[Victoria]

I would like to see a civ with a unique skirmisher.

I consider the scout a skirmisher and often use them this way. They are not really scouts because settlers have better vision than scouts, if scout had a vision of 3 they would be much more useful as scouts. The fact that they can fight and exert a ZOC to me means they are skirmishers whether intentional or not. They work better as skirmishers than scouts, they are great for getting 25 faith or culture off a CS early, not something a scout should be able to do.
@Larsenex ,scouts do count toward border threats which is another reason they are really skirmishers.
The current scout is really a skirmisher, they should have a non combat 4 MP 3 vision scout added.

 

[Jaybe]

The fact that they can fight and exert a ZOC to me means they are skirmishers whether intentional or not.

For my games I went the other way: I removed their ZOC so they are true scouts.

 

[Victoria]

For my games I went the other way: I removed their ZOC so they are true scouts.

Did you give them far sight as well? without that they are NOT scouts

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I consider the scout a skirmisher and often use them this way. They are not really scouts because settlers have better vision than scouts, if scout had a vision of 3 they would be much more useful as scouts. The fact that they can fight and exert a ZOC to me means they are skirmishers whether intentional or not. They work better as skirmishers than scouts, they are great for getting 25 faith or culture off a CS early, not something a scout should be able to do.
@Larsenex ,scouts do count toward border threats which is another reason they are really skirmishers.
The current scout is really a skirmisher, they should have a non combat 4 MP 3 vision scout added.

Extra sight or extra movement should probably be part of the Survey policy card (along with bonus production).

 

[Victoria]

Extra sight or extra movement should probably be part of the Survey policy card (along with bonus production).

Why in the name of everything Gilgamesh would a scout start with less sight than a settler?, Using Survey sounds like gamesmanship for the card.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Why in the name of everything Gilgamesh would a scout start with less sight than a settler?, Using Survey sounds like gamesmanship for the card.

Obviously, the designers are assuming 'Settlers' include people scouting ahead for a good settlement site.
That produces two problems, as I see it:
1. We have no really useful 'scout' Unit; our current Starting Scouts don't have the vision to go with their mobility, while the 'scouting Settlers' don't have either the vision or the survivability to be Scouts.
2. Labeled Scouts get used as Combat Units, which is not really their function.

Now, it's obvious why Scout units have a useful Combat Factor: without it they would evaporate without accomplishing anything given the ubiquity and persistence of Barbarians in the early game. But the lack of vision tells against that, because they blunder into Barbarian Camps and units on a regular basis. You don't have to play too many turns of Civ VI before your Scout bumps into a horde of 3 - 4 Barbarian Warriors or Horsemen with Slingers or Horse Archers behind them and has to run for its life across half a continent...

Historically a Scout Unit is artificial: until very recently, armies used Skirmishers or Light Troops or semi-civilian spies for 'scouting'. At the Civ scale, people who 'scouted' unknown territory were Colonists, Traders, Envoys or Missionaries: military 'scout' units stayed pretty close to the armies.

But Civ has always had Scouts, and always had the mechanism where you sent a unit to find out what was on 'the other side of the hill' rather than (as in reality) getting most of that information from 'invisible' traders, travelers, or second-hand tales from foreigners.

Skirmishers would give us a unit that could survive Barbarians and a useful military unit and a unit with the mobility to go scouting in the Civ sense - exposing new territory.
Of course, 'light infantry' 'light troops' or skirmishers were almost always armed with some kind of missile weapon: most commonly javelins or throwing spears, less frequently (in Europe, at least) bows.

For me the ideal 'scout' at Start of Game, then, would be a Skirmisher (Greek Psiloi, Roman Velites), with current scout mobility and melee factor, a small Ranged Factor before Melee representing the thrown javelins, and Vision 3 to Start with, and the Recon Promotion 'Spyglass' changed from +1 Sight to something like "reveals exact Modified Strength and Promotions of any visible unit" - which would make them very dangerous scouts when accompanying friendly combat units!

 

[Victoria]

exact Modified Strength and Promotions of any visible unit

I guess replacing the dog for a crystal ball would not be a bad thing, but exact modified strength and promotions you can sort of see anyway by looking at the combat modifiers. The one that does not show correctly is the city one, but you can work that out anyway.

which would make them very dangerous scouts when accompanying friendly combat units!

... they already are, when used well, as skirmishers they are formidable. ZOC, ability to distract, ability to support and flank.... 2 visibility... they are skirmishers

 

[Pietato]

I have had City States entirely surrounded by mountains.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I have had City States entirely surrounded by mountains.

Now, that's a safe place to send your Envoys! No AI leader is taking them out.

 

[Disgustipated]

or humans for that matter. Although maybe you could do it late game with bombers and a paratrooper (I believe Spec ops can do this, correct?).

I would like to see that actually, I'd want to conquer a city state surrounded by mountains.

Could you imagine if you start your game, and capital is surrounded by mountains. A true one city challenge.

 

[Victoria]

I believe Spec ops can do this, correct?).

I think they have to land in a neutral tile then attack but I am not 100%

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

or humans for that matter. Although maybe you could do it late game with bombers and a paratrooper (I believe Spec ops can do this, correct?).

I would like to see that actually, I'd want to conquer a city state surrounded by mountains.

Could you imagine if you start your game, and capital is surrounded by mountains. A true one city challenge.

Well you will at least have to maybe wait for chemistry. Then you can build tunnels and explore and settle more.

 

[Guandao]

Thoughts on the Warak'aq?

 

[Disgustipated]

I am concerned about their uu. I just noticed it was a range of 1. Ouch. What's worse is their melee strength is 10 less than that of crossbowman. Double ouch. Although the movement is 3, which helps. But still dangerous as you can't move after attacking.

I will be leaving mine inside cities or encampments. Thanks.

 

[bbbt]

I am concerned about their uu. I just noticed it was a range of 1. Ouch. What's worse is their melee strength is 10 less than that of crossbowman. Double ouch.

I will be leaving mine inside cities or encampments. Thanks.

I think it's a unique of the new skirmisher (i.e. the scout upgrade) not in the Archer line.