Rookie vs Elite units - lack of emotional attachment

[Pietato]

Guess so. I didn't know emotional attachment to individual clouds of 1s and 0s among hordes of identical 1s and 0s was a thing, but you have convinced me otherwise. Thank you. I can now express my true feelings for space marine #42,061 in my latest game. Don't you die on me space marine #42,061, I... I love you.



I missed this earlier, but the answer is as many as you want given the bug that lets you get xenomass infinitely with friendly aliens.

So does not compute? Illogical?

 

[Manannan]

Guess so. Again, I don't see why you would have some emotional connection with the first space marine bros you build just because they were the first space marine bros you built over the giant pewpew-death-machine walker/tank/godzilla monster things you built later in this game, but to each their own.

 

[Jacozilla]

I didn't intend this to become an argument thread. So let me steer the convo back to what I hope we can all agree on - whether you choose to use the easier to identify features (hopefully patched later) to further attachment to that unit or just improve the logistics of utilizing whichever space marine #4116 that is more veteran and stronger to lead your suicide attacks, it surely doesn't hurt either camp to have the one or couple suggestions I've made.

1. Allow renaming units - even if you don't care and don't use it for attachment purposes, it doesn't affect you and can't hurt. Just like you can rename cities in BE today, but never use it.

2. Show much clearer and easily identifiable promoted units vs rookies - I don't think any side has had an issue with this basic ask.

3. Allow branch promo paths ala CiV - this one is debateable in terms of personal preference and play style. I personally like the idea that space marine 101 is medic Bob line vs space marine 201 that is combat sponge GI Joe line.

But I realize some like the less management of units style of single base type always the same - as a poster above said, it's easier to march your units into attack if all soldiers for example were the same becaus in 1UPT, it's more file and order management to get not only unit type mix but base type mix in correct sequence.

So #1 and 2 I don't think anyone should object to. It not only gives back ease of play UI and for those that want it the attachment angle, but really doesn't affect anyone's play style.

#3 is admittedly more CiV style and maybe the greater uniformity of BE is to your cup of tea.

 

[Kaigen]

WTH is a Cndr? How do I even say that?

I've been pronouncing it "Cinder."

 

[Roxlimn]

Jacozilla:

I think devs ought to spend their time patching or tweaking other aspects of the game before they get to renaming units. If manhours were free and we were all in heaven, all things would be nice to have, but we gotta have priorities.

As for upgrades, I think CiV had a great idea, but I think BE has a better one. Powerful individual upgrades allowed you both to have everything at once and devalued the nature of unique units. A Cho Ku No is significantly less unique when all your Crossbowmen in every game have that upgrade at the start of medieval anyway. March Riflemen are less unique when every Rifleman that comes out the gate can get March.

Limiting powerful ability upgrades to specific Civs allows for a greater difference in feel on the tactical map. When I see a Dragoon, I don't need to mouse over it to know that it's probably going to be bad for my cities.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Jacozilla:

I think devs ought to spend their time patching or tweaking other aspects of the game before they get to renaming units. If manhours were free and we were all in heaven, all things would be nice to have, but we gotta have priorities.

I don't know why people think talking about anything but patches to dire problems will result in those problems not being fixed. The developers can think about more than one thing at a time and so can we. This forum would be pretty uninteresting if all we ever talked about was what we already all agree needs fixing in the short term.

 

[Roxlimn]

I'm not saying we can't talk about them, or that it's wrong to do so. I certainly want the ability to rename my units! If nothing else, that'll allow me to differentiate between my +30% veterans from the rank rookies.

 

[Monado]

As for upgrades, I think CiV had a great idea, but I think BE has a better one. Powerful individual upgrades allowed you both to have everything at once and devalued the nature of unique units. A Cho Ku No is significantly less unique when all your Crossbowmen in every game have that upgrade at the start of medieval anyway. March Riflemen are less unique when every Rifleman that comes out the gate can get March.

That's an interesting point about upgrade paths affecting UU's, though I think you over exaggerated the Cho-ku-no part a bit (not a single crossbowman would have the upgrade if you peacefully turtled early ). Using the example of a the march rifleman. To me, there is a big difference in unique gameplay between any individual rifleman potentially able to (if it had survived long enough and won enough battles) acquire march and fielding an entire army of march Caroleans instantly. (Stacking the +xp building/wonders to have highly upgraded units took more away from the uniqueness of UU's I think. Glad to see those gone in BE)

Limiting powerful ability upgrades to specific Civs allows for a greater difference in feel on the tactical map. When I see a Dragoon, I don't need to mouse over it to know that it's probably going to be bad for my cities.

I think individual civs having a greater advantage is exactly what makes Civ combat and gameplay as a whole exciting to me. Everyone having the same Dragoons, putting all factions on par, makes the game so gray.

 

[Roxlimn]

But everyone doesn't have the same Dragoons! There are three affinites and at least three different ways you can promote each of your your units at every level. An Evolved Battlesuit that anime-duels itself all by its lonesome in every fight is different from a Prime Battlesuit that always wants an Aegis around to patch up its boo-boos.

Both of those are different from a True Battlesuit that likes nothing better than to charge into some poor unit. Defense is for wusses!

 

[Quineloe]

I do wish for a mod that showed effective base strength right on the unit when selected, though. Like... if his base strength is 30, and he has two +10% bonuses, he's really 36 strength, regardless of terrain. So it'd be nice to click him and see 36. Maybe in parenthesis next to the base strength, so you don't confuse 36 for just what that kind of unit is worth, or something?

No, not really. A 36 strength unit would fortify in rough terrain to 52.2 Strength
a 30 Strength unit with 2 +10% promotions that foritifies there only gets to 49.5

I've been pronouncing it "Cinder."

It's actually pronounced Cognitive Neuroelectronic Defense Registry.

 

[bhavv]

Shouldn't that be C.N.D.R then, not Cndr?

 

[Quineloe]

It's called CNDR and with periods in the name it would be a massive pain to look up in the Civilopedia.

 

[m15a]

They could have used the 3 chevrons above your unit type icon - at first I actually did think it was my veteran status, but nope - units with 3 chevrons above it are all generic - they could be level 1 or level 3.

They could have just used those chevrons. 1 chevron for level 1, etc up to level 3. Then simply use a different kind of chevron to indicate 4-6, 7-10, etc

That already indicates the level of your unit from affinity upgrades. It's not really useful for differentiating your own units, but you can quickly see the affinity-based levels of the AI's units that way.

 

[Fabio1701]

If chevrons above the unit depict affinity level, perhaps they could use some I've military insignia next to the unit icon, like stars or oak leaves to depict strength upgrades.

 

[Roxlimn]

Spikier hair. More experienced units grow spikier and blonder hair as they grow more powerful.

 

[Valatros]

No, not really. A 36 strength unit would fortify in rough terrain to 52.2 Strength
a 30 Strength unit with 2 +10% promotions that foritifies there only gets to 49.5

Oh bloody hell, civ stacks the increases from promotions and terrain and stuff THEN applies them? For whatever reason I assumed the promotion bonuses cooked into the base strength. Wishful thinking, I guess.

1. Allow renaming units - even if you don't care and don't use it for attachment purposes, it doesn't affect you and can't hurt. Just like you can rename cities in BE today, but never use it.

The really, really sad thing? I'm bad about remembering city names, and with trade routes how they are, I find i DO use the ability to rename cities... "Capital" "ShoreCity1" "LandCity3", etcetera. Remembering that Shore cities 1-5 are overbuilt and don't need production bonuses, while land cities 1-3 are the same, is a lot easier then memorizing all the city names for me...

 

[Jacozilla]

Jacozilla:

I think devs ought to spend their time patching or tweaking other aspects of the game before they get to renaming units. If manhours were free and we were all in heaven, all things would be nice to have, but we gotta have priorities.

As for upgrades, I think CiV had a great idea, but I think BE has a better one. Powerful individual upgrades allowed you both to have everything at once and devalued the nature of unique units. A Cho Ku No is significantly less unique when all your Crossbowmen in every game have that upgrade at the start of medieval anyway. March Riflemen are less unique when every Rifleman that comes out the gate can get March.

Limiting powerful ability upgrades to specific Civs allows for a greater difference in feel on the tactical map. When I see a Dragoon, I don't need to mouse over it to know that it's probably going to be bad for my cities.

Just to be clear, this is a bit of a straw man reply - you seem to be moving me into the position where I'm asking for a simple renaming of units...period.

Re-read my posts, the OP and all followups - my ask and general conversation starter was and is centered around the overall theme of differentiation between rookie and elite units. A simple rename only was not my only ask, and I'd agree if that's all that was to be or not to be implemented, it would make very little difference in adding attachment and differentiation.

To quote myself, what I would like is the set of updates that:

"1. Allow renaming units - even if you don't care and don't use it for attachment purposes, it doesn't affect you and can't hurt. Just like you can rename cities in BE today, but never use it.

2. Show much clearer and easily identifiable promoted units vs rookies - I don't think any side has had an issue with this basic ask.

3. Allow branch promo paths ala CiV - this one is debateable in terms of personal preference and play style. I personally like the idea that space marine 101 is medic Bob line vs space marine 201 that is combat sponge GI Joe line.

But I realize some like the less management of units style of single base type always the same - as a poster above said, it's easier to march your units into attack if all soldiers for example were the same becaus in 1UPT, it's more file and order management to get not only unit type mix but base type mix in correct sequence.

So #1 and 2 I don't think anyone should object to. It not only gives back ease of play UI and for those that want it the attachment angle, but really doesn't affect anyone's play style.

#3 is admittedly more CiV style and maybe the greater uniformity of BE is to your cup of tea. "

 

[Roxlimn]

Pretty sure I directly said that BE's implementation of promos is a better idea than CiV, IMO.

 

[Jacozilla]

Jacozilla:

As for upgrades, I think CiV had a great idea, but I think BE has a better one. Powerful individual upgrades allowed you both to have everything at once and devalued the nature of unique units. A Cho Ku No is significantly less unique when all your Crossbowmen in every game have that upgrade at the start of medieval anyway. March Riflemen are less unique when every Rifleman that comes out the gate can get March.

Limiting powerful ability upgrades to specific Civs allows for a greater difference in feel on the tactical map. When I see a Dragoon, I don't need to mouse over it to know that it's probably going to be bad for my cities.

Focusing on this portion of your reply now - I'm really not sure how your own logic here applies.

You seem to be saying
a) powerful individual upgrades devalue the nature of unique units (cho ku nu v crossbowman with range +1 promo example)

and

b) limiting powerful ability upgrades to specific civs is a good thing

Let's take A) this is not a equivalent comparison - you're comparing a heavily promoted crossbowman that you'd need to earn on each and every crossbowman by actual action vs just being born with it - vs - a rookie cho ku nu.

I get what you're saying in a general sense, but if you're going to compare equivalently, it wouldn't be a crossbowman with +1 range that is the same as a cho ku no, the more accurate comparison would be a crossbowman with +1 range vs cho ku no with double attack AND +1 range.

Because in the time the crossbowman force is earning their +1 range, the cho ku nu force is getting ready to double attack you in the face, from artillery range. Therefore the individual unit upgrade did NOT devalue the unique unit. It in fact makes the unique unit even more unique and powerful if it can branch path into promotions that supplement what it already gets for free as a unique unit

Now take B) - in BE there are no powerful upgrades to specific civs (aka sponsors), something which I would like ala CiV (e.g. Carolina's march infantry, dutch beggars, etc)

Any sponsor/civ in BE can take any affinity, which is where you get the semi-sort of unique upgrades. Many of the affinity units actually share similar promotion upgrades (20% next to a unit, 30% when attacking ,etc.

It is only a very few actual unique to affinity unit abilities unlocked at higher levels - e.g. supremacy seraphs with x2 intercept, vindicator transport, harmory artillery, etc

Aside from all that though, I don't see how allow different veteran branch promotion paths ( 2 main paths per veteran levels) as well as the 2 main paths per affinity tier 1-4 unlock wouldn't add to the greater difference in feel on the tactical map you said would be good.

If I'm playing harmony and the AI has supremacy with seraphs - like your dragoon example I know that's going to be bad for my air cover, with their double intercepts. But if those seraphs also have veteran promotions that further add to their uniqueness, that would be even more bad - let's say seraphs that intercept twice (via affinity) and have +2 range via veteran levels.

The tactical nature of surprise is a key factor we all want from the AI. We all hate the same old AI scenario. Right now, take the seraph example again - without veteran promos, as bad as I may think double intercept seraphs are, I know that EVERY seraph - his, mine, everyones - has the exact same range, exact same combat power, exact same everything.

I really don't see how addition of veteran branch promo paths would no anything but ADD to the uniqueness of units you face in the field.

 

[Roxlimn]

Jacozilla:

Let's take A) this is not a equivalent comparison - you're comparing a heavily promoted crossbowman that you'd need to earn on each and every crossbowman by actual action vs just being born with it - vs - a rookie cho ku nu.

I get what you're saying in a general sense, but if you're going to compare equivalently, it wouldn't be a crossbowman with +1 range that is the same as a cho ku no, the more accurate comparison would be a crossbowman with +1 range vs cho ku no with double attack AND +1 range.

Because in the time the crossbowman force is earning their +1 range, the cho ku nu force is getting ready to double attack you in the face, from artillery range. Therefore the individual unit upgrade did NOT devalue the unique unit. It in fact makes the unique unit even more unique and powerful if it can branch path into promotions that supplement what it already gets for free as a unique unit.

I'm talking about Crossbowmen that have double attack AND +1 Range and Cho Ku No that also have the same thing. Or Caroleans and making Riflemen that have March promotion immediately on completion.

Now take B) - in BE there are no powerful upgrades to specific civs (aka sponsors), something which I would like ala CiV (e.g. Carolina's march infantry, dutch beggars, etc)

Any sponsor/civ in BE can take any affinity, which is where you get the semi-sort of unique upgrades. Many of the affinity units actually share similar promotion upgrades (20% next to a unit, 30% when attacking ,etc.

It is only a very few actual unique to affinity unit abilities unlocked at higher levels - e.g. supremacy seraphs with x2 intercept, vindicator transport, harmory artillery, etc

Aside from all that though, I don't see how allow different veteran branch promotion paths ( 2 main paths per veteran levels) as well as the 2 main paths per affinity tier 1-4 unlock wouldn't add to the greater difference in feel on the tactical map you said would be good.

If I'm playing harmony and the AI has supremacy with seraphs - like your dragoon example I know that's going to be bad for my air cover, with their double intercepts. But if those seraphs also have veteran promotions that further add to their uniqueness, that would be even more bad - let's say seraphs that intercept twice (via affinity) and have +2 range via veteran levels.

The tactical nature of surprise is a key factor we all want from the AI. We all hate the same old AI scenario. Right now, take the seraph example again - without veteran promos, as bad as I may think double intercept seraphs are, I know that EVERY seraph - his, mine, everyones - has the exact same range, exact same combat power, exact same everything.

I really don't see how addition of veteran branch promo paths would no anything but ADD to the uniqueness of units you face in the field.

Not to the units. The factions. The reason the UUs flavor a faction is because all the units get those upgrades. The fact that BE disallows any other unit from getting those same upgrades protects their uniqueness even more.