Skirmisher Units

[CrazyG]

1) Skirmisher rely on mobility for survival. So the trade off of an extra movement is quite high. Archer units will commonly just stand their ground and attack.
2) The slinger provides logistics to the archer line....whose damage is balanced around 1 attack. In this proposal, skirmisher damage would be balanced with the expectation of a second attack...so logistics will not "upset the math"

You are right that skirmishers use their movement to avoid damage, so they are choosing between dealing more damage or moving to safety. I think the problem is the XP gain (which is a huge part of slingers being broken)

 

[pineappledan]

It seemed to me that stalker basically said heavy skirmishers were bad, but in more polite terms.

Yeah I think I'll need to increase heavy skirmisher RCS to 13. I need to increase the Cossack's CS/RCS and the CS/RCS of light tanks too.
I didn't get it perfect at the start, It was my first try after all

 

[Stalker0]

You are right that skirmishers use their movement to avoid damage, so they are choosing between dealing more damage or moving to safety. I think the problem is the XP gain (which is a huge part of slingers being broken)

so if we already give them logistics, and take out parthenian tactics...is there any other promotion we think would cause a real issue thst the extra Xp would be too much of a problem?

again, the unit would have to be able to double hit a good portion of the time (which is going to be tough as when it’s stationary it’s vulnerable. I don’t think that will be common until you have a “defending one my strong road network” scenario later in the game

 

[Gazebo]

I'm curious how you can 100% guarantee me this?


It seemed to me that stalker basically said heavy skirmishers were bad, but in more polite terms. There is no niche. Pillager is not a niche, all units can pillage.

Scout isn't a niche, there is already a unit line for scouting that has much better promotions, and doesn't require horses.

Harasser, I don't know what this even means in terms of gameplay, but dealing small amounts of damage isn't a niche and taking hits poorly isn't a niche. Rather that just harass the enemy, other units types could just kill it.

I think I'm basically suggesting your idea but with bonus damage on open terrain, so that the units aren't useless in areas without forests.

On a somewhat related note, giving Mongolia logistics to start is a really bad balance change. See the Inca thread for evidence of how broken early logistics is. Mongolia is already an amazing warmonger (even with the relatively weak status of skirmisher units) and ignoring ZOC is much, much less valuable that attacking twice.

I'm still in favor of trying a drop in RCS but a boost in open terrain. Or the reverse for rough terrain. Either way having mounted units suffer in rough terrain gives them a drawback and a place for non-mounted units to step in.

G

 

[amateurgamer88]

I personally don't like Logistics on a default unit. I can understand if they are available to UU but a default unit getting it is a bit much. First, these units get promotions very quickly and people tend to underestimate how the stacking of the various bonuses become very powerful, especially when combined with Logistics. Secondly, I'm assuming you also get Great Generals faster with Logistic units as well? Wouldn't this be a good unit to spam for Japan where they benefit from the spawning of Great Generals?

I honestly prefer the skirmisher line having the following (numbers to be adjusted):
-very low RCS (a quarter or half of their archer line counterparts)
-bonus damage when attacking enemies on open terrain (+100% RCS)
-bonus damage when attacking enemies below 50% health (+25% RCS)
-no rough terrain penalty
-4 movements

Of course, we will need a different approach for Cavalry onward as they need better tools to stay relevant.

 

[vyyt]

@amateurgamer88 , completely agree.

 

[pineappledan]

-very low RCS (a quarter or half of their archer line counterparts)
-bonus damage when attacking enemies on open terrain (+100% RCS)
-bonus damage when attacking enemies below 50% health (+25% RCS)

All good points re: logistics being dangerous not just for damage potential.

eh.... I really don't want to go back to ranged attacks being terrain dependent.
I will point out that any suggestion which gives massive 50%+ bonuses on certain conditions will harshly dampen the effect of other promotions. If you drastically reduce a unit's RCS and give it back percent bonuses to bring it back up to "acceptable" power, then stuff like the 10% bonus off of your base barrage/accuracy promotions are swamped.

In other words, additional % bonuses in the existing promotion trees will be very weak because they are augmenting very small base numbers alongside existing 50-100% bonuses.

Don't touch melee horses. They're fine.

 

[Guynemer]

Regarding promotions being swamped, should skirmishers have a different promotion tree from archers?

 

[phantomaxl1207]

Mounted Ranged Units have access to Coup de Grace (+30% RCS vs Units below 50 HP).
We could have early Mounted Ranged have a Penalty vs Fortified Units, like Machine Guns.
I would prefer them to have a bonus in Open Terrain, however.
Light Tanks and Helicopter Gunships should stay relevant if they have 5/6 Movement and good stats.

 

[Omen of Peace]

All good points re: logistics being dangerous not just for damage potenI will point out that any suggestion which gives massive 50%+ bonuses on certain conditions will harshly dampen the effect of other promotions. If you drastically reduce a unit's RCS and give it back percent bonuses to bring it back up to "acceptable" power, then stuff like the 10% bonus off of your base barrage/accuracy promotions are swamped.

In other words, additional % bonuses in the existing promotion trees will be very weak because they are augmenting very small base numbers alongside existing 50-100% bonuses.

You're right mathematically speaking... but I'll point out this is how the siege line works. Low RCs but +100% vs cities. We still have promotions that provide +X% vs cities.

 

[pineappledan]

You're right mathematically speaking... but I'll point out this is how the siege line works. Low RCs but +100% vs cities. We still have promotions that provide +X% vs cities.

Okay. Siege units have their own promotion tree, so if the % numbers are off we can adjust them up/down. We can’t do that with skirmishers because the %s have to be good enough for archer units too.

regardless, surely VP isn’t going to skip just lowering RCS values and go straight to lowering RCS values AND adding this open terrain bonus? Baby steps, as I recall?

 

[Stalker0]

I think people are giving up on the logistics idea too easily. I think people assuming that it will mean "double XP" for the unit. Realistically I would expect to see it occur 25-30% in the field. If we are talking a high road defensive situation, maybe 75%. But mounted ranged promotions aren't like getting range, march, or overrun....they are nice bumps but not game changing ones.

I think this is a way to give the skirmisher a very distinct style different from melee horses and ranged units. Anything we can do to solidify the unit line's distinctiveness in a way that is not overpowered needs to be examined, and I think the built in logistics is not as powerful as people innately assume.

 

[HungryForFood]

If the concern for Logistics is that there will be too much XP, while for low RCS + attack bonus in open terrain is that promotions will be less effective, wouldn't combining both solutions kinda cancel out both concerns?

Also building on the Logistics idea, here's a crazy idea, ranged cavalry can attack as long as they have movement points. This shall be combined with low CS/RCS. So, you can try to do more damage, but doing so may leave you more vulnerable.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I think people are giving up on the logistics idea too easily. I think people assuming that it will mean "double XP" for the unit. Realistically I would expect to see it occur 25-30% in the field. If we are talking a high road defensive situation, maybe 75%. But mounted ranged promotions aren't like getting range, march, or overrun....they are nice bumps but not game changing ones.

I think this is a way to give the skirmisher a very distinct style different from melee horses and ranged units. Anything we can do to solidify the unit line's distinctiveness in a way that is not overpowered needs to be examined, and I think the built in logistics is not as powerful as people innately assume.

I just don't think it's neccesary tbh.

Reducing the RCS seems like it would help with balance. If we test that for the next version, then we can see if more significant changes are needed.

 

[CrazyG]

I just don't think it's neccesary tbh.

That's how I feel. I don't see what issue it really addresses, so even if we can address the other issues, I just don't get it. and I see a lot of potential issues, even if they only attack twice 30% of the time, an extra 30% XP and GG points is a huge deal.

Also building on the Logistics idea, here's a crazy idea, ranged cavalry can attack as long as they have movement points. This shall be combined with low CS/RCS. So, you can try to do more damage, but doing so may leave you more vulnerable.

I would LOVE a UU that does this.

 

[pineappledan]

Is it possible to make a -50% experience promotion? Can the extra XP promotion take negative numbers? If skirmishers has a -50% XP promotion and only got 1xp per hit then that solves it

 

[Stalker0]

That's how I feel. I don't see what issue it really addresses, so even if we can address the other issues, I just don't get it.

The issue we have debated in this entire thread. We want Skirmishers to be mobile without overtaking the melee horse. We want them to be ok in rough terrain but not OP. We want them to have enough of a niche to build them but also want to build archers as well.

The reason I am looking at this idea over the rough terrain penalty is that:

1) Logistics is something the AI understands, will it understand the terrain penalty to the same extent.
2) I think its a more interesting tactical problem than the terrain one for the human. The human is always playing around with survivability of the unit, trying to maximize the double hit...but always having to be weary of keeping the unit away from danger. This is versus having to "look at the terrain under the unit's feet all the time".
3) Its a clear and cool ability that differentiates from all other units. Instead of being defined by its "penalty in rough", its defined by the "double tap unit".
4) The power curve is smoother, as now you don't have to worry about what acquiring logistics later on will do to the power of the unit. It still gets promotions, but none as gamechanging in the same way as logistics is.
5) The unit becomes less pigeonholed. If the map is cover in forest, its no longer "oh the skirmisher sucks don't build it." Its "the skirmisher is more limited, how do I build roads and find ways to maximize its use"

 

[ridjack]

I expected to be completely against the Logistics suggestion @Stalker0 gave, but after reading his thoughts on it I think I'm at least for trying it out. Slingers are disgusting with it, but that's largely because they do it from range and never have to get hit. Assuming Skirmishers would completely lose the separate "can move after attacking" promotion since Logistics effectively grants that unless you use both hits, I agree that it *would* be an interesting tactical choice.

Keep in mind that warfare on the player's side is almost entirely dependent on losing units as absolutely little as possible; even two deaths during a war is a huge hit to take. I would have to feel very confident about my Skirmisher's survival chances to use that second attack instead of run away.

It also makes for an interesting juxtaposition with the extra XP they'll be getting; the more promotions the unit has, the less likely you are to risk it by attacking twice and leaving it vulnerable. That in and of itself would probably balance the XP for me; after it got to a certain point I would almost certainly never be attacking twice with certain units.

 

[pineappledan]

I hadn’t realized people were talking about removing the can move after attacking promotion, and letting skirmishers end their turn if they used their 2nd attack. Sounds very spicy/risky

that also opens up where Mongolia can give its bonuses. It can add its 1-2 moves and re-add the move after attack. Then we can unstacks the ZOC off Parthian tactics.

or Parthian tactics can drop ZOC and allow move after attacking instead

mans if skirmishers were given an XP penalty, Mongolia could reverse it so they gain XP normally

 

[JamesNinelives]

Again, I'm not completely against the idea. I just think there are simpler options that we should try first, because they are less likely to create new problems (or require more tweaking).