(Poll) New Skirmisher Concept

[Stalker0]

We have had a lengthy debate on discord, and have a new skirmisher concept to show the community. I am going to show the concept, and then I will add notes below to explain why this new concept is superior to the existing one.

The Proposal

• Reduce Skirmisher CS/RCS
• Increase base speed to 5
• Skirmisher Doctrine changed to: Counts as two units for the purpose of flanking bonuses.

The Issue with Skirmishers
First, what is the problem? When the skirmisher was first introduced as a brand new thing in VP, it had to carve its own niche between the 3 unit types that already existed (mounted melee, melee, ranged). And....it struggled. The unit was either superior to other types and became the dominant unit made, or too weak and never used.

After several tries, the skirmisher doctrine concept was created, in which the unit received significant bonus or penalty depending on the terrain type its on. This fixed the niche issue, on certain areas of the map the skimisher was the best unit...on others the worst. So you building it was a strategic decision depending on the war terrain you would be engaging on.

However, this has not been without problems. It can be hard for players to remember such an incredibly swingy bonus which leads to frustration on the battlefield (especially with more casual players). It also means that as the field of war shifts, the unit can become utterly useless, a uniquely human issue as humans have limited hammers and supply to work with. On the flip side, humans have learned how to defensively dominate with the unit, with flat areas and a lot of roads, a swarm of skirmishers can decimate any AI force coming near, giving the human a perfected defense that no other unit can equally manage.

Several attempts at alternate models have been tried, the most common being the "logistics skirmishers", in which the skirmisher starts with 2 attacks (the idea being you can either hit and run with the unit, or "commit" for extra damage). This however has the same problem as the old versions.... its generally either UP or OP depending on the stats, with no in between.

The Solution
The solution is to make skirmishers "self-regulating". We want the unit to be useful enough to be built, but prevent the desire from making nothing but skirmishers and ignore other unit classes. The way to do this...is a combined arms approach.

We want the skirmisher to be a support unit that enhances other unit types. It possesses a weak attack, and so is not ideal for massing. However, it provides a support power strong enough that you always want a few with your army. This solidifies the skimisher's niche without sacrificing the niche of other unit classes.

In this proposal, first the skimisher has a 5 speed, giving it a range to be where its needed and move around enemy forces.

Second, the skirmisher's CS/RCS values are reduced. The unit can do some damage, but not enough to mass them, and is not meant to be a tank for damage.

Third and most important, the new skirmisher doctrine provides "double flanking", which significantly increases the power of melee units next to them. However, the unit itself still does not benefit from flanking, meaning once again a swarm of skirmishers is not that powerful. The ideal combination then is a melee group supported by a few skirmishers that can weaken the enemy a bit with their ranged attack while the melee guys move in, gaining a big flanking bonus from the skirmisher. This makes melee a litle more interesting, skirmishers gain a new tactical niche, and other unit roles maintain their own strong niches without overlap or conflict.

 

[pineappledan]

In essence, skirmishers main toll becomes to be the best “warm body” on the map:

• It’s the best at hitting strategics, because it has the highest base movement, and can go deep to knock out an enemy’s infrastructure until paratroopers come in.
• With double flanking, it becomes the best tactical “body blocker”, which can get into position easier than any other unit, and creates more damage for all your units around it, with the increased flanking. This also works on defense, neutralizing the flank of enemy units that are attacking your own units, so you can use skirmishers on your back line to lower damage to your front line units on defense.

It sounds like a nice way to tie in existing mechanics into something new. I like it. Skirmishers will need some innate RCS defense though, because low RCS means they can get sniped for huge damage by archers.

 

[Rekk]

Skirmishers will need some innate RCS defense though, because low RCS means they can get sniped for huge damage by archers

They should lose pretty heavily to archers, but I agree that what your tweaks have with "moving target" feels okay .

 

[DeAnno]

If foraging and flanking are their primary purposes, maybe they should have different promo lines than archers. Survivalism sounds like it fits well, for instance.

 

[balparmak]

Can the AI properly utilize the double flank bonus, If it can, I'm in

 

[Rekk]

Can the AI properly utilize the double flank bonus, If it can, I'm in

If the AI can use mounted archers to improve flanking right now, then they'll be able to utilize better flanking.

 

[Stalker0]

A poll has been added to this thread.

 

[Legen]

The Solution
The solution is to make skirmishers "self-regulating". We want the unit to be useful enough to be built, but prevent the desire from making nothing but skirmishers and ignore other unit classes. The way to do this...is a combined arms approach.

We want the skirmisher to be a support unit that enhances other unit types. It possesses a weak attack, and so is not ideal for massing. However, it provides a support power strong enough that you always want a few with your army. This solidifies the skimisher's niche without sacrificing the niche of other unit classes.

Is there some historical basis for the concept? As far as I know, skirmishers weren't normally employed as flankers when compared to their mounted melee counterpart. Instead, they were usually amassed and didn't rely much on non-mounted units to perform.

The way they worked best was that they either punished poorly armored targets, or baited the enemy to charge and break formation, which would leave that enemy vulnerable to the rest of your army, mainly to your mounted melee.

The Issue with Skirmishers
First, what is the problem? When the skirmisher was first introduced as a brand new thing in VP, it had to carve its own niche between the 3 unit types that already existed (mounted melee, melee, ranged). And....it struggled. The unit was either superior to other types and became the dominant unit made, or too weak and never used.

The historical tactic that seemed to work best against mounted ranged units was to employ infantry that was both heavily armored and highly disciplined, alongside crossbowmen. That type of infantry negated the two ways mentioned before in which skirmishers could be effective, and the crossbowmen had favorable odds in combat against mounted archers: small target vs large target, and crossbows retained lethality over longer ranges than bows.

Skirmishers that engaged such army composition often found that they could only shoot at distances in which their arrows were ineffective, otherwise the skirmishers ended taking excessive casualties. And the heavy armor of that infantry made sure the skirmishers had to get really close if their arrows were to have any effectiveness at all, excessively close to the crossbowmen.

An example of how skirmisher units were to be modelled around that would be to make them have bonus combat strength against spearmen/pikemen (with Formation changed to only give +33% against mounted melee), but lower against swordsmen/longswordsmen. Similarly, crossbowmen would gain a promotion similar to the gatling gun's Covering Fire that worked specifically against mounted ranged units, with maybe the archer and the composite bowman gaining a weaker version of that.

The result from it would be that mounted melee and mounted ranged units would complement each other, as these two would be effective or weak against the opposite types of foot unit that the other is. This alone should be a solid niche for the mounted ranged units, especially on civs that emphasize cavalry-heavy armies.

Of course, this model is for before gunpowder units come into play; how to balance mounted units (both melee and ranged) when those arrive is another matter. Historically, though, mounted units did not fare well against gunpowder, and most armies reduced how much of their army composition was dedicated to cavalry. By Renaissance, mounted units started to fade out to their foot counterparts (which already happens right now), sometimes very abruptly (e.g. Battle of Nagashino).

 

[Rekk]

The flanking bonus is a simulation of skirmishers' use of distracting the enemy line and pulling it out of formation so that the main army can take advantage of it. This tactic was used on the flanks of the enemy.

Note that the Skirmisher itself doesn't get to benefit from flanking, and will get torn apart by archers, even with extra defense vs ranged.

With 5 moves, they are also excellent at pillaging, as well as finishing off an exposed weak unit.

Civ 5's combat system doesn't really have the space on the map for near-field reconnaissance and screening, light cav's later primary role; what little exists is relegated to the recon line.

The massed horse archers strategies employed by the Mongols should be developed in their UA. My first brush suggestion was to let Mongol skirmishers benefit from flanking, which immediately allows them to take advantage of the proposed skirmisher line benefit en mass.

 

[pineappledan]

Is there some historical basis for the concept? As far as I know, skirmishers weren't normally employed as flankers when compared to their mounted melee counterpart. Instead, they were usually amassed and didn't rely much on non-mounted units to perform.

The way they worked best was that they either punished poorly armored targets, or baited the enemy to charge break formation, which would leave that enemy vulnerable to the rest of your army, mainly to your mounted melee.



The historical tactic that seemed to work best against mounted ranged units was to employ infantry that was both heavily armored and highly disciplined, alongside crossbowmen. That type of infantry negated the two ways mentioned before in which skirmishers could be effective, and the crossbowmen had favorable odds in combat against mounted archers: small target vs large target, and crossbows retained lethality over longer ranges than bows.

Skirmishers that engaged such army composition often found that they could only shoot at distances in which their arrows were ineffective, otherwise the skirmishers ended taking excessive casualties. And the heavy armor of that infantry made sure the skirmishers had to get really close if their arrows were to have any effectiveness at all, excessively close to the crossbowmen.

An example of how skirmisher units were to be modelled around that would be to make them have bonus combat strength against spearmen/pikemen (with Formation changed to only give +33% against mounted melee), but lower against swordsmen/longswordsmen. Similarly, crossbowmen would gain a promotion similar to the gatling gun's Covering Fire that worked specifically against mounted ranged units, with maybe the archer and the composite bowman gaining a weaker version of that.

The result from it would be that mounted melee and mounted ranged units would complement each other, as these two would be effective or weak against the opposite types of foot unit that the other is. This alone should be a solid niche for the mounted ranged units, especially on civs that emphasize cavalry-heavy armies.

Of course, this model is for before gunpowder units come into play; how to balance mounted units (both melee and ranged) when those arrive is another matter. Historically, though, mounted units did not fare well against gunpowder, and most armies reduced how much of their army composition was dedicated to cavalry. By Renaissance, mounted units started to fade out to their foot counterparts (which already happens right now), sometimes very abruptly (e.g. Battle of Nagashino).

I think both sides are trying to emphasize the same thing, but you just don't agree on how to do it. I think the 2x flanking bonus does get at precisely what you are talking about, disrupting unit formations. I think it also doubles as a sort of "screening" bonus, where skirmishers are effective at augmenting and obfuscating the number of units you have on the field. The second part of the proposal, lowering their RCS and giving skirmishers 5 moves, gets at that second part of scouting, and engaging the enemy with quick strikes and then retreating back to a safe distance. With 5 moves, skirmishers can move 2, shoot, move 2 back, giving an effective range of 3 in open terrain, taking them outside infantry range, but still vulnerable to archers and melee cavalry. In rough terrain, the move-shoot-move is the same as if they had 4 moves as they do now, 5 moves just extends this ability to attack and disengage in open terrain, so skirmishers don't fall into the old trap of being mainly a rough terrain fighter.

Another way to get at this same IRL tactic for skirmishers might be to give skirmishers some sort of plague placer for a "harrassed" debuff. We discussed that, but myself and others preferred the double flank as an expression of those tactics, because:

• Plagues are more computationally intense than the double-flanking
• Plagues currently have problems with communicating and correctly removing themselves when they are supposed to expire, which is not a solved issue yet even in itsexisting implementation for naval combat
• Plagues are mutually exclusive in the existing implementation, which means we can't do anything else with plagues if we give them to an entire unit line. So, the Incan UU's debuff now has to compete with skirmisher debuffs for priority
• In implementing Plagues for ships, we also implemented plague immunity, and we haven't discussed if, how, and where you would do the same for land units. Introducing plagues opens up a promotion tree pandora's box
• less elegant, because it introduces another plague mechanic for land, while double-flanking merely amps up an existing mechanic that is used in land combat already

 

[Solic]

Will unique skirmishers need a buff if they themselves don't benefit from flanking? I think it'd be fun if some civs could still have a strong big skirmisher army and have it be succesful.

 

[Rekk]

Will unique skirmishers need a buff if they themselves don't benefit from flanking? I think it'd be fun if some civs could still have a strong big skirmisher army and have it be succesful.

Unique skirmishers in general have other benefits (Hun Horse Archer as an exception, but have a strong CS increase). My previous post provides a suggestion for the Mongol UA.

I would also suggest @pineappledan's tweaks to chariots, wherein they would not have this role.

 

[Rekk]

Plagues

Yes, plagues will take a lot more DLL work to be expanded into more frequently being used on the battlefield. Auras also require quite a bit of restructuring to reduce their computational load.

Expanding the flanking code will take a lot less effort in comparison.

 

[Legen]

I think both sides are trying to emphasize the same thing, but you just don't agree on how to do it. I think the 2x flanking bonus does get at precisely what you are talking about, disrupting unit formations. I think it also doubles as a sort of "screening" bonus, where skirmishers are effective at augmenting and obfuscating the number of units you have on the field. The second part of the proposal, lowering their RCS and giving skirmishers 5 moves, gets at that second part of scouting, and engaging the enemy with quick strikes and then retreating back to a safe distance. With 5 moves, skirmishers can move 2, shoot, move 2 back, giving an effective range of 3 in open terrain, taking them outside infantry range, but still vulnerable to archers and melee cavalry. In rough terrain, the move-shoot-move is the same as if they had 4 moves as they do now, 5 moves just extends this ability to attack and disengage in open terrain, so skirmishers don't fall into the old trap of being mainly a rough terrain fighter.

Another way to get at this same IRL tactic for skirmishers might be to give skirmishers some sort of plague placer for a "harrassed" debuff. We discussed that, but myself and others preferred the double flank as an expression of those tactics, because:

• Plagues are more computationally intense than the double-flanking
• Plagues currently have problems with communicating and correctly removing themselves when they are supposed to expire, which is not a solved issue yet even in itsexisting implementation for naval combat
• Plagues are mutually exclusive in the existing implementation, which means we can't do anything else with plagues if we give them to an entire unit line. So, the Incan UU's debuff now has to compete with skirmisher debuffs for priority
• In implementing Plagues for ships, we also implemented plague immunity, and we haven't discussed if, how, and where you would do the same for land units. Introducing plagues opens up a promotion tree pandora's box
• less elegant, because it introduces another plague mechanic for land, while double-flanking merely amps up an existing mechanic that is used in land combat already

Makes sense, though the movement 5 makes them even harder to deal with in the presence of roads. Moreover, that effective range 3 tends to be over a melee unit in front of the ranged one, as archers need protection from a charge by mounted melee. It is already hard to deal with skirmishers at movement 4, an extra movement seems to push that further. I have no issue on the other two points.

 

[Fluffball]

Certainly interested in the decreased CS/RCS in trade off for increased movement although would like to know what sort of decrease we are talking here.

The flanking bonus might be interested around the point of tanks when they can be used to support tank units but not sure how useful it will be before that point. Flanking bonus on defense for standard melee units doesn't sound good as that means the skirmisher is on the from line and with reduced CS is just going to die. Bonus on attack could be situationally useful where you may not just have quite enough damage to finish off a unit. I would find something that reduces enemy movement or reduces enemy defense on attack a much more 'utilitarian' ability and make them more individual and support like on the battelfield so they act more as a harrassing/disruptive unit which is more in line with what they represent. They in essense are used to 'disorganise' an enemy unit to make them less effective in some way.

 

[Rekk]

reduces enemy defense on attack a much more 'utilitarian' ability and make them more individual

This is essentially what flanking does. If you think the skirmisher is going to die when attacked, then you have the movement to pull it back out of range after it and the rest of the relevant melee have attacked.

See PDan's tweaks as an example of what the new CS/RCS would be. Essentially take that unit and add the flanking bonus promotion to it.

 

[Fluffball]

This is essentially what flanking does. If you think the skirmisher is going to die when attacked, then you have the movement to pull it back out of range.

Just trying to think of easier ways to make them utilitarian without them being micro managy and fiddly to use as a lot of people already hate shuffling units around. Having to withdraw them before the end of the turn, which you generally need to do already before they get a proposed nerf to their defense, doesn't help on defense either so the proposed utility aspect seems very situational. If you do leave the skirmisher there not only does it become an easy kill it will then also remove the buff from the adjacent unit when it dies and provide additional flanking against that remaining unit as it is now likely getting additionally flanked by the unit which killed the skirmisher, so doubly bad when used on defense.

Having them provide a one turn, none stacking debuff when they attack seems an option that doesn't mean you need to essentially trade a skirmisher for a buff which is lost when the skirmisher inevitably dies anyway.

 

[pineappledan]

Certainly interested in the decreased CS/RCS in trade off for increased movement although would like to know what sort of decrease we are talking here.

The flanking bonus might be interested around the point of tanks when they can be used to support tank units but not sure how useful it will be before that point. Flanking bonus on defense for standard melee units doesn't sound good as that means the skirmisher is on the from line and with reduced CS is just going to die. Bonus on attack could be situationally useful where you may not just have quite enough damage to finish off a unit. I would find something that reduces enemy movement or reduces enemy defense on attack a much more 'utilitarian' ability and make them more individual and support like on the battelfield so they act more as a harrassing/disruptive unit which is more in line with what they represent. They in essense are used to 'disorganise' an enemy unit to make them less effective in some way.

If this tweak goes forward then I believe my tweaks mod is being used as a baseline for the skirmisher RCS and CS numbers.

The Skirmisher's CS numbers will pretty much stay where they are, meaning they will take about the same amount of damage from melee attackers. Their RCS is calibrated to deal about 1/8th of a contemporary melee unit's health in damage, or about 15-17 damage. This puts them in a range that is usually equivalent to the previous era's archer unit. For example, a heavy skirmisher will hit similar to a composite bowman. Ranged units defend from other ranged attacks with their RCS value, and since the RCS values for these new skirmishers is low, they are vulnerable to archer units and other skirmishers. I gave them an innate +50% defense vs ranged attacks to compensate. Without the ranged defense, they were sometimes getting 1-shotted by cities. Contemporary ranged units and cities currently do 40-50 damage to a contemporary skirmisher, while melee units do somewhere around 25-35.

In my tests, I have found that this arrangement generally means that UUs with even slightly higher RCS relative to their base unit hit noticeably harder. It also means that tech leads can make skirmisher units devastating, because they hit sufficiently hard to deal lethal damage to lower-tier units, and can deploy quickly and have lots of degrees of movement to hit almost anywhere.

doesn't help on defense either so the proposed utility aspect seems very situational.

It absolutely helps on defense, I don't think you understand how flanking works. The flanking bonus we are proposing would always give the skirmisher a flanking advantage. Since they are ranged, they can't take advantage of that to attack, but it increases their own defense against melee units.

 

[Rekk]

Having to withdraw them before the end of the turn, which you generally need to do already before they get a proposed nerf to their defense, doesn't help on defense either so the proposed utility aspect seems very situational.

If you're already withdrawing them after attacking, then there is no increase in micro. In fact, as PDan points out, since their CS isn't decreasing and
they actually benefit defensively from flanking, you may not want to retreat your skirmishers at all in certain situations.

Having them provide a one turn, none stacking debuff when they attack seems an option that doesn't mean you need to essentially trade a skirmisher for a buff which is lost when the skirmisher inevitably dies anyway.

See the problems with plagues noted above.

It absolutely helps on defense, I don't think you understand how flanking works. The flanking bonus we are proposing would always give the skirmisher a flanking advantage. Since they are ranged, they can't take advantage of that to attack, but it increases their own defense against melee units.

I'd forgotten completely about Skirmishers benefiting from flanking defensively, so yes, this change would actually improve their defensive CS in melee. Because it counts as two units for flanking, even when it's alone, it will again a flanking defensive bonus a single enemy. Three enemies are required for the opponent to gain a flanking bonus. I was wrong.

 

[azum4roll]

I'd forgotten completely about Skirmishers benefiting from flanking defensively, so yes, this change would actually improve their defensive CS in melee. Because it counts as two units for flanking, even when it's alone, it will again a flanking defensive bonus a single enemy. Three enemies are required for the opponent to gain a flanking bonus.

Is the melee attack target counted in the calculation of flanking at all?