Should Rocket Artillery Need to Setup?

[fromar]

Howdy forum,

With the addition of new ranged infantry like Gatling guns and machine guns, should modern rocket artillery require a setup turn? The 3 tile range of the rocket artillery plus no need to setup makes the rocket artillery much more powerful compared to a modern ranged infantry with one or two range than a trebuchet would be compared to a crossbowman. The setup turn is the price you pay for the power. The strength in ranged infantry is mobility, not raw power.

That is assuming there will be some modern generation of the machine gun. I've seen no indication of this. If that's a unit for a future expansion, the issue will still come up later.

What should the designers do?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think it will depend on whether there is a modern unit. Until that point, no, Rocket Artillery shouldn't be changed.

 

[fromar]

Are there anymore TBA units left?

 

[Bechhold]

In short. No.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Depending on how they will nerf the efficiency of siege units when attacking other units,then It might not be so necessary to nerf them . What I would like to know is if Machine gun is the last ranged unit in the game or if it can be upgrade to another unit .

 

[CoolLizy]

Why remove it? That's part of advantage of getting rocket artillery. I literally look forward to it the entire game.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Are there anymore TBA units left?

There is either one or two. Not all the civ traits are announced to know how many UUs are left to account for.

 

[smallfish]

Why remove it? That's part of advantage of getting rocket artillery. I literally look forward to it the entire game.

There ought to be two more classes of artillery in the game. One is your standard Rocket Artillery, the other is Self-Propelled Artillery which will be motorized like the former but needs setting up.

 

[CoolLizy]

There ought to be two more classes of artillery in the game. One is your standard Rocket Artillery, the other is Self-Propelled Artillery which will be motorized like the former but needs setting up.

There's already an overload of units in the late game. I don't think we need many more.

 

[Camikaze]

It'd be difficult for Rocket Artillery to remain competitive against Stealth Bombers if they had an impediment such as this. I mean, if you have one aluminium left, what are you going to buy? It's not particularly likely to be Rocket Artillery.

 

[nokmirt]

In short. No.

I agree with a big resounding no. In modern war things don't have time to set up or they are dead. They are likely dead anyway, especially if one side has air superiority.

There ought to be two more classes of artillery in the game. One is your standard Rocket Artillery, the other is Self-Propelled Artillery which will be motorized like the former but needs setting up.

I agree with this too, it seems strange to not have self propelled artillery. Something like an M7 Priest would be nice.

 

[CYZ]

I agree with a big resounding no. In modern war things don't have time to set up or they are dead. They are likely dead anyway, especially if one side has air superiority.



I agree with this too, it seems strange to not have self propelled artillery. Something like an M7 Priest would be nice.

No to rocket artillery setting up. And a big NOOO to more units in the modern era.


We have a rock-paper-scissor all through the techtree. There's units focussed on strength, units focussed on ranged and units focussed on mobilty. Infantry, archers, cavalry. Infantry, machineguns and tanks. This works!

Then we get air units and everything gets screwed up. All of a sudden there are AA units as an additional class, together with anti-tank. Then there's paratroopers too. Not to mention missiles and nukes. The entire mechanic is gone and it's just a clutter. The AI doesn't know how to handle this. Hell, still don't really know, I just know how to abuse the AI. The very last thing we need is more units!

In fact, IMO, we need to find a new balance in the modern era. A few different roles with a different focus. It needs to make sense.

 

[fromar]

We have a rock-paper-scissor all through the techtree. There's units focussed on strength, units focussed on ranged and units focussed on mobilty. Infantry, archers, cavalry. Infantry, machineguns and tanks. This works!

Then we get air units and everything gets screwed up. All of a sudden there are AA units as an additional class, together with anti-tank.

I asked the question to keep rock-paper-scissors consistant for the entire game, but I hadn't really considered the extra modern unit classes. I agree with you on that, there's a lot going on there.

What's gonna' happen to all those machine gunners in the modern era? Will they just upgrade to mechanical infantry?

 

[Deggial]

What's gonna' happen to all those machine gunners in the modern era? Will they just upgrade to mechanical infantry?

Very likely not!

If yes, we would have the same problem as with crossbow -> riflemen. I think, MG is just the last step in the line. And why not? I see them usefull, even in modern era.

 

[AbbieRevo]

Very likely not!

If yes, we would have the same problem as with crossbow -> riflemen. I think, MG is just the last step in the line. And why not? I see them usefull, even in modern era.

They could give Mechs the ability to to do a one-tile ranged shot, but still have enough strength to handle being direct attacked.

But they won't . . .

 

[CYZ]

I asked the question to keep rock-paper-scissors consistant for the entire game, but I hadn't really considered the extra modern unit classes. I agree with you on that, there's a lot going on there.

What's gonna' happen to all those machine gunners in the modern era? Will they just upgrade to mechanical infantry?

I sure hope not, it is not needed.


I've been thinking about a modern rock-paper-scissors.

Basicly, now we have Infantry->cavalry->ranged->infantry

This becomes:

Infantry->tanks->machineguns/artillery->infantry

Still good!



But then air units come, and they are basicly good against anything equally, their only weakness being AA, which is bad against everything else.

Now, if you ask me, it isn't realistic that air units are as powerfull against infantry and tanks, as they are against stationary targets such as machineguns/artillery.

In fact, what are bombers really gonna do against moving tank divisions? Almost nothing. But against stationary artillery? They are excellent.

So:

Infantry->tanks->machineguns/artillery->infantry
air units/tanks->machineguns/artillery->AA, anti tank guns (single purpose support units)->air units/tanks

So it's still a bit complicated, but it would work. Now, how to make air units more effective against stationary units? Easy enough, make them alot weaker, but deal double or triple damage against units that are ''set up''. This is asuming machine guns actually set up ofcourse.

Then a single rock-paper-scissors mechanic is basicly unchanged untill the WWI Era. Then when the WWII era comes around another rock-paper-scissors mechanic is added on top of the other one.

This means all units need to clearly be in one category. So away with the paratrooper, make that a promotion. And the helicopter gunship should be put in with the AA/Anti Tank gun group. They will do extra damage against tanks, but little damage against other units.


Sorry for the long post! It's not OT because the conclusion is rocket artillery perhaps should set up in this new concept

 

[shaglio]

So it's still a bit complicated, but it would work. Now, how to make air units more effective against stationary units? Easy enough, make them alot weaker, but deal double or triple damage against units that are ''set up''. This is asuming machine guns actually set up ofcourse.

I don't know about the Machine Gunner (obviously), but Artillary don't need to set up. I think there's a simple solution: similar to the Spearman getting a bonus vs. mounted, give Air units a bonus vs. Siege and Ranged units.

 

[nokmirt]

I sure hope not, it is not needed.


I've been thinking about a modern rock-paper-scissors.

Basicly, now we have Infantry->cavalry->ranged->infantry

This becomes:

Infantry->tanks->machineguns/artillery->infantry

Still good!

This is how I see it.

Alright first things first.

1. The AI needs to be able to intercept with their aircraft and use airsweep properly. This is one thing I noticed playing the game recently. It is way too easy to get air superiority vs the AI. If that happens they simply have no chance. I simply just decimated any unit they brought out in the open with impunity. So, the first step is to make the AI better at using its airforces.

2. This is how artillery should be in my book. WWI artillery unit (setup) --> WWII self propelled artillery unit (no setup, that is the reason for a self propelled unit) --> Modern Era rocket artillery (again NO setup, the unit is self propelled) All these units upgrade to the next in line. If there is no WWII artillery unit, fine, but rocket artillery should certainly not need to setup.

3. I feel aircraft should stay about the same, but here is how I see things. Aircraft should be worried about AA and interceptors.

Bombers --> against any ground unit tanks/artillery/MGs/anti tank guns/infantry

Interceptors/AA --> bombers

Fighters --> against weaker ground units artillery/mgs/anti tank guns/infantry, of course with promotion they can become more effective vs tanks (armored vehicles)

AA/interceptors --> fighters (interceptors can still be effective vs fighters, but they should not be as vulnerable as bombers to interceptors. Interceptors vs fighters --> should depend on the experience of the units involved in air combat.) Of course a more experienced unit is better at doing its job, that is obvious.

4. Land units

Tanks --> infantry (Tanks should have a big advantage against infantry in open terrain)/artillery/MGs

Infantry --> tanks (when tanks attack infantry that is in fortified or in rugged terrain, they are more vulnerable)

Therefore, I would say that infantry attacking tanks in the open are at a disadvantage.

However, infantry attacking tanks that are fortified or in rugged terrain should have an advantage. Tanks that are in a fixed position, or in terrain where they cannot move around as easy, should be more vulnerable to infantry.

Anti tank guns/AA --> tanks/air units (single purpose support is right)

AA --> infantry/air units

MGs --> infantry (when infantry attack MGs, MGs should have the advantage.) MGs should be defensive units at first, until they get a promotion allowing them to attack. At least thats how I feel they should be dealt with.

When MGs can attack, and they will be able to in GnK. In open terrain vs infantry, MGs have the advantage, moreso than infantry that is fortified, or in rugged terrain.

Artillery --> infantry/MGs/AA/ antitank guns

This is getting complicated. Sorry for leaving anything out.

 

[MaximusK]

My answer is no way. By the time you have Rocket artillery I'm about ready to feed them to the enemy or simply delete them for stealth bombers. With a setup movement point even their marginal worth in late game would be eliminated.

 

[CYZ]

This is how I see it.

Alright first things first.

1. The AI needs to be able to intercept with their aircraft and use airsweep properly. This is one thing I noticed playing the game recently. It is way too easy to get air superiority vs the AI. If that happens they simply have no chance. I simply just decimated any unit they brought out in the open with impunity. So, the first step is to make the AI better at using its airforces.

2. This is how artillery should be in my book. WWI artillery unit (setup) --> WWII self propelled artillery unit (no setup, that is the reason for a self propelled unit) --> Modern Era rocket artillery (again NO setup, the unit is self propelled) All these units upgrade to the next in line. If there is no WWII artillery unit, fine, but rocket artillery should certainly not need to setup.

3. I feel aircraft should stay about the same, but here is how I see things. Aircraft should be worried about AA and interceptors.

Bombers --> against any ground unit tanks/artillery/MGs/anti tank guns/infantry

Interceptors/AA --> bombers

Fighters --> against weaker ground units artillery/mgs/anti tank guns/infantry, of course with promotion they can become more effective vs tanks (armored vehicles)

AA/interceptors --> fighters (interceptors can still be effective vs fighters, but they should not be as vulnerable as bombers to interceptors. Interceptors vs fighters --> should depend on the experience of the units involved in air combat.) Of course a more experienced unit is better at doing its job, that is obvious.

4. Land units

Tanks --> infantry (Tanks should have a big advantage against infantry in open terrain)/artillery/MGs

Infantry --> tanks (when tanks attack infantry that is in fortified or in rugged terrain, they are more vulnerable)

Therefore, I would say that infantry attacking tanks in the open are at a disadvantage.

However, infantry attacking tanks that are fortified or in rugged terrain should have an advantage. Tanks that are in a fixed position, or in terrain where they cannot move around as easy, should be more vulnerable to infantry.

Anti tank guns/AA --> tanks/air units (single purpose support is right)

AA --> infantry/air units

MGs --> infantry (when infantry attack MGs, MGs should have the advantage.) MGs should be defensive units at first, until they get a promotion allowing them to attack. At least thats how I feel they should be dealt with.

When MGs can attack, and they will be able to in GnK. In open terrain vs infantry, MGs have the advantage, moreso than infantry that is fortified, or in rugged terrain.

Artillery --> infantry/MGs/AA/ antitank guns

This is getting complicated. Sorry for leaving anything out.

I'm really trying to understand, but I don't think I do. For now, all I can say it seems realistic but also very complicated. I'm big on keeping it simple. That's why I like the three basic roles that exist before gunpowder, it works. And I feel that the modern eras are too complicated and there isn't really a balance between classes.

I'll try to remember to come back and read your post again to try and get it.