Should Rocket Artillery Need to Setup?

[nokmirt]

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.

I am not sure if I get it myself. The whole idea is very complicated. We'll just have to see how it plays out in GnK. One thing is for certain we need a better AI.

In modern times warfare is much more complicated, even though its more technical. There are a lot more types of units to worry about. Most of these are specialized and used for a certain purpose. Technology does not make the logistics of it all any easier. You have to get the correct type of unit, in the correct position, at the right time. If not your dead. You may end up dead anyway. Warfare faster and much more deadly. Modern wars should be portrayed in CiV in this way.

This is why many times I play to the Medieval or Renaissance era, and go for victory point victories. Besides, I am into those time periods anyway. If I go further, WWII is as far as I like to go. Modern war is not my thing for the most part. See the thing about the Modern era and even WWII is the fact that you not only have to worry about land and air units, but several types of ships as well.

In the old days its riflemen/cavalry/cannon and frigates. With four types of units it is so much easier to organize your forces and fight wars. In modern times, I am looking around the map trying to decide what type of unit I should build. Then you have to figure out where that type of unit would be best used. Indeed much more complicated, but I have to say it still is a lot of fun. That is the way it should be though.

 

[CYZ]

I am not sure if I get it myself. The whole idea is very complicated. We'll just have to see how it plays out in GnK. One thing is for certain we need a better AI.

In modern times warfare is much more complicated, even though its more technical. There are a lot more types of units to worry about. Most of these are specialized and used for a certain purpose. Technology does not make the logistics of it all any easier. You have to get the correct type of unit, in the correct position, at the right time. If not your dead. You may end up dead anyway. Warfare faster and much more deadly. Modern wars should be portrayed in CiV in this way.

This is why many times I play to the Medieval or Renaissance era, and go for victory point victories. Besides, I am into those time periods anyway. If I go further, WWII is as far as I like to go. Modern war is not my thing for the most part. See the thing about the Modern era and even WWII is the fact that you not only have to worry about land and air units, but several types of ships as well.

In the old days its riflemen/cavalry/cannon and frigates. With four types of units it is so much easier to organize your forces and fight wars. In modern times, I am looking around the map trying to decide what type of unit I should build. Then you have to figure out where that type of unit would be best used. Indeed much more complicated, but I have to say it still is a lot of fun. That is the way it should be though.

Exactly. It's reality that modern warfare is much more complicated. However, a game does not have to be realistic all the time

I think the developers tried to make the modern era as realistic as possible. And to be fair, they did well, all important units seem to be represented. However, gameplaywise it does simply not work.

I think realism should be forsaken somewhat and the modern era units should be ''dumbed down''. Fewer roles and a rock-paper-scissor mechanism.


For starters, paratroopers and helicopters need to go.

Then we have 6 roles left, still twice as much as earlier in the game.

Infantry
Short ranged
Long ranged
Tank
Air units (anti-air units and anti-ground units, but okay)
Specialized (antitank and AA)

There's also cruise missiles and nukes, but they don't effect the mechanism as much.

So:

Infantry->tanks->long ranged->short ranged->infantry

Air->short and long ranged
Specialized->tank and air

It's not very simple, but better than current and still preserving alot of realism. And I'm sure the AI can grasp, at least a bit.

 

[nokmirt]

Exactly. It's reality that modern warfare is much more complicated. However, a game does not have to be realistic all the time

I think the developers tried to make the modern era as realistic as possible. And to be fair, they did well, all important units seem to be represented. However, gameplaywise it does simply not work.

I think realism should be forsaken somewhat and the modern era units should be ''dumbed down''. Fewer roles and a rock-paper-scissor mechanism.


For starters, paratroopers and helicopters need to go.

No, I like my paratroopers. Helicopters I have not used much. I only built one in my last game. Still, all these units should have a role to play and I feel should be in the game. If it does not work gameplay wise, then it should be fixed.

Gunships are awesome for taking out tanks. Paratroopers I used for parachuting into enemy territory and pillaging production etc. These are a specialized units, for a specific role. We should separate standard units from specialized ones. Simply, because, I don't see an overload of specialized units on the map. Other than AA units, which should be built in greater numbers. Of course, the AI goes overboard with AA, something I am certain the devs will work out. They need to fine tune a balance for the AI to produce what AAs it needs, but also better use its airplanes. The AI does not build too many specialized units, not from what I have seen.

Anyway, in my last game Germany built two gunships that I saw. I also, destroyed two of his paratroop divisions. So, in the game I built 3 paratroops and 1 gunship. For the AI, I saw Persia use a paratrooper, and Germany built three paratroopers and two gunships. When Germany attacked me two turns before I launched the spaceship, he began a huge offensive with 20-30 units.

Let me break it down from my screenshots.

9 mechanized infantry
2 tanks
2 infantry
1 paratrooper
2 rocket artillery
15-20? aircraft and the screenshot does not tell all, because I lost my northern city and therefore line of sight with a large portion of their northern army group.

So, I would say at least 30 land units, and 20 air units, were involved in the offensive. The point is there is not an overload of specialized units. The AI builds them in a small percentage when compared to standard units. That is how it should be. So, taking units out of the game would not only dumb it down, furthermore IMO it is unneeded.

Now, I could see perhaps taking out paratroopers, because there are too many being built by the AI, but that simply is not the case. Even if it was, there is a way to control the importance of units being built. I know that from modding Civ 4, from what I hear the xml for 5 is not much different, if at all.

I like the fact that there are many types of units in the late game. And rock/paper/scissors can apply to any unit against any other. Even if you have to add two categories to make it rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock.

Also, everyone is saying the AI cannot handle this or that. I saw that it came and fought pretty hard at the end of the game. The AI brought a huge army, and the turn end went on for like five minutes, while he bombed me with fighters and stealth bombers. The one big issue with the AI, is that it does not follow up its main thrusts. Once you break their initial onslaught, you can defeat them in detail. With new rules in GnK for units. I feel that war will be tougher against the AI. See, because, it will be harder to destroy that initial onslaught, and they will be able to get more units to the front. Hopefully, the AI also, learns to retreat better, so hurt units can be sent to the rear, and fresh forces take their place in front. In this way combat should become a battle of wills. Rather than just a one sided affair, after the initial attack is stopped.

 

[CYZ]

No, I like my paratroopers. Helicopters I have not used much. I only built one in my last game. Still, all these units should have a role to play and I feel should be in the game. If it does not work gameplay wise, then it should be fixed.

Gunships are awesome for taking out tanks. Paratroopers I used for parachuting into enemy territory and pillaging production etc. These are a specialized units, for a specific role. We should separate standard units from specialized ones. Simply, because, I don't see an overload of specialized units on the map. Other than AA units, which should be built in greater numbers. Of course, the AI goes overboard with AA, something I am certain the devs will work out. They need to fine tune a balance for the AI to produce what AAs it needs, but also better use its airplanes. The AI does not build too many specialized units, not from what I have seen.

Anyway, in my last game Germany built two gunships that I saw. I also, destroyed two of his paratroop divisions. So, in the game I built 3 paratroops and 1 gunship. For the AI, I saw Persia use a paratrooper, and Germany built three paratroopers and two gunships. When Germany attacked me two turns before I launched the spaceship, he began a huge offensive with 20-30 units.

Let me break it down from my screenshots.

9 mechanized infantry
2 tanks
2 infantry
1 paratrooper
2 rocket artillery
15-20? aircraft and the screenshot does not tell all, because I lost my northern city and therefore line of sight with a large portion of their northern army group.

So, I would say at least 30 land units, and 20 air units, were involved in the offensive. The point is there is not an overload of specialized units. The AI builds them in a small percentage when compared to standard units. That is how it should be. So, taking units out of the game would not only dumb it down, furthermore IMO it is unneeded.

Now, I could see perhaps taking out paratroopers, because there are too many being built by the AI, but that simply is not the case. Even if it was, there is a way to control the importance of units being built. I know that from modding Civ 4, from what I hear the xml for 5 is not much different, if at all.

I like the fact that there are many types of units in the late game. And rock/paper/scissors can apply to any unit against any other. Even if you have to add two categories to make it rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock.

Also, everyone is saying the AI cannot handle this or that. I saw that it came and fought pretty hard at the end of the game. The AI brought a huge army, and the turn end went on for like five minutes, while he bombed me with fighters and stealth bombers. The one big issue with the AI, is that it does not follow up its main thrusts. Once you break their initial onslaught, you can defeat them in detail. With new rules in GnK for units. I feel that war will be tougher against the AI. See, because, it will be harder to destroy that initial onslaught, and they will be able to get more units to the front. Hopefully, the AI also, learns to retreat better, so hurt units can be sent to the rear, and fresh forces take their place in front. In this way combat should become a battle of wills. Rather than just a one sided affair, after the initial attack is stopped.

Haha, lot's of info again

Well, paratroopers are, in my opinion, infantry thrown from a plane. Yes, it is obviously much more specialized in reality. But in the game, you can't deny that's what it is.

I just don't see why paratroopers are a unit of their own and not just a promotion for infantry.


Also, it's easy to say the AI needs to be fixed if something is wrong. But right now gameplay is going from rock-paper-scissors to rock->paper->scissors->rock2->paper2-Scissors2.0<-rock->paper

It's just too complicated, and personally I find it not fun.


Also in your example, the AI did not build anti-tank guns nor AA guns. This could be again be seen as a flaw in the AI, but I don't blame them, creating a ''balanced'' army with so many unit types seems impossible in a 1upt game. Then again, perhaps they didn't need those units, which would kindof prove a point

 

[Arilian]

Now I see there is really a demand for simplier and simplier games.
Do not dumb down anything please, I find early eras lacking variety already.

It is dumb enough already compared to civ4.

 

[elprofesor]

I don't find the modern era unit system that difficult. On one hand you keep the classic rock-paper-scissor-shotgun, with the only difference that the anti-mounted unit gets a ton of extra movement, so that it becomes a worthwhile unit by itself:
-mech. infantry>gunship>modern armour>mech. infantry

Then you get the ranged unit (rocket artillery), which is good against anything that moves slowly, and bad against anything that moves quickly, just like in the ancient eras (only now anti-mounted becomes good against it). The "ranged R-P-S" evolves during the game depending on the movement of the units in their era, and the modern era is now exception (horsemen are definetely a counter against archers, and swordmen can constitute a counter against horsement, while knight's and longswordmen's roles in this R-P-S is less clear).

The only difference is the introduction of a third rock-paper-scissor system:
-Stealth Bomber>Land Units>Anti-Air Missiles>Stealth Bomber.

The only points where the system gets somewhat complicated are:
-when attacking cities, since you've got much more units that can tackle a city (mech. infantry, rocket artillery, modern armour, GDR, instead of simply longswordmen); you still keep only one basic siege unit though(stealth bombers);
-you get two different counters against bombers (fighters and AAs), and one of them constitutes its only counter (fighters);
-paratroopers' and carriers' strength isn't because of their position in a R-P-S;
-cruise missiles and atomic weapons don't have a counter (although the first one can usually be ignored).

In my opinion, Rocket Artillery is the ranged unit that you can use it as a siege unit if you really want, but it's less efficient than bombers. So I don't believe they need to be changed.

 

[Deggial]

All this (interesting) discussion is about the present system, by the way. Things will change tremendously in G&K.

With siege weapons not as usefull against units any more and MGs to take theit place in this respect, roles are newly defined. We'll see, how this works out.

Regarding the discussion about the current system:
I don't mind (more precise: I like), if there is a "fork" in the stone/scissor/paper-system. I don't see, why it should be so bad to have a non-linear counter line.

The role of "special units", as paratroopers, could be sharpened, though. I liked the proposal of a defending bonus for them, to enhance their ability to hold an area until reinforcements arrive.

 

[nokmirt]

Also in your example, the AI did not build anti-tank guns nor AA guns. This could be again be seen as a flaw in the AI, but I don't blame them, creating a ''balanced'' army with so many unit types seems impossible in a 1upt game. Then again, perhaps they didn't need those units, which would kindof prove a point

Actually, the AI does build AA and antitank guns. AA moreso, and the antitank guns it built I destroyed with artillery. It put them too often in range of my guns. One thing I did notice is the AI bringing up AA guns to attack infantry, which worked quite well. This of course was earlier on in the game. At the end the AI was trying to win, it just came too little too late. If the game had been all out domination. I would have had a fight on my hands. My army was far away in Korea, and most of my forces guarding my frontier in that area the Germans invaded were outdated. Even with railroads it would have taken time to bring enough forces to bear against them. They also had air superiority in a big way. To me the game is still fun. With GnK it will add much more depth. I can only imagine how crazy things will get with religion and espionage, and AI naval invasions added into the mix.

 

[aj_killer]

Rocket artillery should not need to be set up. If it does then what will be the difference between it and artillery?

Although, there is one thing that needs to be worked on, the range of paratroopers should be increased to 10. They are just useless units with just 5 , hardly anyone makes them

 

[Deggial]

Although, there is one thing that needs to be worked on, the range of paratroopers should be increased to 10. They are just useless units with just 5 , hardly anyone makes them

I agree. But 10 might be to far (to powerfull), though. Maybe 8 would be far enough.

On the other hand, what is bomber rage? If taken realism aspects into account, paratroopers should have the same range. But then, realism is not everything.
It's all about balance and fun.

 

[CYZ]

Rocket artillery should not need to be set up. If it does then what will be the difference between it and artillery?

Then what is the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet?

 

[Deggial]

That's true, of course.

But additionally to the strength increase, rocket artillery represents the modern, highly mobile warfare. Erverything speeds up: modern tanks and Mobile Infantry move faster; *Gunships* appear!
So, rocket artillery matches this idea and definitely should *not* need to setup.

 

[CYZ]

That's true, of course.

But additionally to the strength increase, rocket artillery represents the modern, highly mobile warfare. Erverything speeds up: modern tanks and Mobile Infantry move faster; *Gunships* appear!
So, rocket artillery matches this idea and definetly should *not* need to setup.

Trebuchets represent a range and accuracy increase that is not represented.

I'm not saying you're wrong, you are right ofcourse. But the question is, does it make sense to also incorporate this into the game.

In the current system I'd certainly say yes though. Rocket artillery already don't have much going for them sine the airplanes took their role for the most part.

 

[aj_killer]

Then what is the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet?

They are early game units, and needed setting up historically.

But, Rocket artillery does not need any major setting-up, but artillery does.
It cant be moved on its own,has to be carried by a truck and has to be set up after moving.

It would be purely unrealistic to take away that ability of rocket artillery. They can reduce the damage, but not this ability.

 

[aj_killer]

Trebuchets represent a range and accuracy increase that is not represented.

True, the cost of catapult is 100p's and that of trebuchet is 170p's with damage 14 and 20.
Its better to use 200p's and make 2 catapults instead of waiting for trebuchets, 8 more damage and just 1 or 2 turns extra.
Although if we take combat strength in equation then its 4 and 6. But again, melee units are there for protection.

 

[elprofesor]

I don't believe that two 14 strength ranged attacks do as much damage as one 28 ranged strength attack, but given how nasty the damage formula is and how much it depends on the city strength, I won't give the exact numbers (you can look it up on the War Academy's article thoug).

After a very quick calculation, if the city has less than 30 strength, you are better off with the single stronger attack, otherwise you are better off with the two weaker attacks; but then you'd be better off with two archers than with two catapults because of minimum damage...

 

[aj_killer]

Ah thanks, I've been living in an illusion that 2 pults are better than one treb. The damage formula is really nasty though.

 

[CYZ]

1 treduchet is better because it only takes half the space of two catapults and thus it is easier to protect from melee attacks.

 

[elprofesor]

Ah thanks, I've been living in an illusion that 2 pults are better than one treb. The damage formula is really nasty though.

Note that I am comparing a 28 strength ranged unit against two 14 ranged units (ignoring their promotions), and doing a very quick calculation, and not taking into account logistical considerations.

So there are times where indeed two catapults are better than one trebuchet.

 

[aj_killer]

Nah, the combat strength of trebuchet is 20 not 28.
2 pults are definitely better in any case
Space is not a problem for me in hex grid,but,IRON is actually.