(Poll) New Skirmisher Concept

[azum4roll]

No movement cost to attack would make you question your choice of building mounted melee even more.

 

[Rekk]

We could also turn off roads working within 2-3 tiles of an enemy unit.

 

[usadefcon1]

I got "no movement cost to attack" working last night using @pineappledan's Mamluk code and I have to say that it just feels right.

You always know how far you can run after your attack, there's no guesswork.

Obviously I haven't played it much but for something so easy to code I think you should try it.

 

[pineappledan]

No movement cost to attack would make you question your choice of building mounted melee even more.

If it was no movement cost to attack, but 4 moves total instead of the 5 my skirmishers have then it's a nerf. That's functionally 5 moves still, but 1 of them is always dog-eared for a specific mission instead of being able to use that extra move for another move or pillage action. I think we would have to remove logistics as a pickable promotion for skirmishers though, because logistics with no movement cost to attack on a ranged unit is very good.

I would be okay with that. I'm thinking in the context of Mongolia where I gave them +1 attack, which makes that UA even stronger. It would also slightly weaken skirmishers in the hands of Denmark, Inca, Songhai, and Iroquois, who have terrain movement bonuses that augment skirmisher movement a lot. Those civs can't use those 5 moves to such powerful effect if one of them is reserved only for an attack.

 

[usadefcon1]

If it was no movement cost to attack, but 4 moves total instead of the 5 my skirmishers have then it's a nerf. That's functionally 5 moves still, but 1 of them is always dog-eared for a specific mission instead of being able to use that extra move for another move or pillage action. I think we would have to remove logistics as a pickable promotion for skirmishers though, because logistics with no movement cost to attack on a ranged unit is very good.

I would be okay with that. I'm thinking in the context of Mongolia where I gave them +1 attack, which makes that UA even stronger. It would also slightly weaken skirmishers in the hands of Denmark, Inca, Songhai, and Iroquois, who have terrain movement bonuses that augment skirmisher movement a lot. Those civs can't use those 5 moves to such powerful effect if one of them is reserved only for an attack.

Ahh yes, I see now in your Tweeks you made their movement 5.

As far as I can tell, I'm using current VP Skirmisher RCS numbers with 4 movement, deleted the Rough Terrain Half Turn penalty promotion (I have no idea if base VP still has this), and added the "no movement cost to attack" promotion which I named "Screening"

I also gave them Formation 1 for free, but that probably would be controversial.

 

[azum4roll]

If it was no movement cost to attack, but 4 moves total instead of the 5 my skirmishers have then it's a nerf. That's functionally 5 moves still, but 1 of them is always dog-eared for a specific mission instead of being able to use that extra move for another move or pillage action. I think we would have to remove logistics as a pickable promotion for skirmishers though, because logistics with no movement cost to attack on a ranged unit is very good.

I would be okay with that. I'm thinking in the context of Mongolia where I gave them +1 attack, which makes that UA even stronger. It would also slightly weaken skirmishers in the hands of Denmark, Inca, Songhai, and Iroquois, who have terrain movement bonuses that augment skirmisher movement a lot. Those civs can't use those 5 moves to such powerful effect if one of them is reserved only for an attack.

My skirmishers essentially have 4 moves if they don't attack, 3 moves if they attack once (slightly harder than pdan's version), and 2 moves if they attack twice (full damage).

I like how everyone develops their own skirmisher line.

 

[pineappledan]

Yup. Everyone thinks they have the best version, can’t agree, and so we are left with no change and the worst of all options.

 

[usadefcon1]

I quite like the double flanking bonus idea, I was under the impression that it would take a while to code.

 

[azum4roll]

I like the double flanking bonus, but I would just make it a Mongolian trait.

 

[Stalker0]

Yup. Everyone thinks they have the best version, can’t agree, and so we are left with no change and the worst of all options.

Or....left with the best of the bad options presented so far

 

[azum4roll]

Luckily modmods exist!