Slinger v Warrior
- Thread starter MIS
- Start date
JimmyBanks
Warlord
Now that we've seen more gameplays with the slinger in the game what do we think? Personally I like having a ranged unit earlier than archer, even if it is only 1 range.
stealth_nsk
Deity
We've seen slingers useful for defending city and for hunting barbs. Also, they could work as cheap damage without reply. But surely you can't use them as archers.
First off stealth_nsk is wrong when he says we don't know if combat works the same way in civ 6. We have seen the combat and it is exactly the same system.
Secondly as to why slingers are so bad, as people are saying, or more importantly why is it so much worse than archers, which get 2 range, 15melee combat and 25ranged.
The reason is simple: Due to the way terrain now works, unless things change if a slinger runs back (upon meeting a warrior) onto a forrest/hill/river/rainforest tile: even a warrior with 2 moves can't attack it, even if it moves forward 1 tile, it cannot use its last movement point to charge them.
In civ 5 they could.
In the early game since only Warriors and Slingers exist, it's somewhat fine that they are weaker and need to get up close. If they could shoot over 2 range (which I'm guessing the Civ6 team had tried at some point before nerfing them) then no one would build warriors, you'd have massive armies of slingers moving and shooting everything in sight without taking damage.
Now the next tier introduces a new unit:
Chariots.
This unit gets 2 movenent. BUT if it starts on a flat tile it gets 3 movement. i.e. it can move and then move again onto a forrest/rainforrest/hill tile and kill the archer.
Here the ratio is lowers: A heavy chariot had ~28 combat strength vs. the defence of 15 for archers.
But that is fine since your new units can now chase them.
You will also notice heavy chariots don't require horses: This is because they are a vital part of the combat chain in civ6, without which archers would again rule (moreso than civ5 where they were totally dominant).
So we get chariots < spearmen < archer/warrior, where warriors get +10combat vs spearmen but take dmg, and are less countered by chariots, or you can make archers that can shoot down spearmen without taking damage but are more easily killed by chariots.
Edit:
What does this mean for slingers, are they then terrible?
Well NO, because everyone's example seems to be 1v1, 1 spear vs 1 slinger, or 1 warrior vs 1 slinger. The slinger is better when the number's change, so if you build 2 slingers and your starting warrior, you can kill barbarians without taking so much damage.
I also think slingers were slightly cheaper, and they give the eureka for archers, and they also upgrade to archers for gold not tying up your capital when archers become available.
Secondly as to why slingers are so bad, as people are saying, or more importantly why is it so much worse than archers, which get 2 range, 15melee combat and 25ranged.
The reason is simple: Due to the way terrain now works, unless things change if a slinger runs back (upon meeting a warrior) onto a forrest/hill/river/rainforest tile: even a warrior with 2 moves can't attack it, even if it moves forward 1 tile, it cannot use its last movement point to charge them.
In civ 5 they could.
In the early game since only Warriors and Slingers exist, it's somewhat fine that they are weaker and need to get up close. If they could shoot over 2 range (which I'm guessing the Civ6 team had tried at some point before nerfing them) then no one would build warriors, you'd have massive armies of slingers moving and shooting everything in sight without taking damage.
Now the next tier introduces a new unit:
Chariots.
This unit gets 2 movenent. BUT if it starts on a flat tile it gets 3 movement. i.e. it can move and then move again onto a forrest/rainforrest/hill tile and kill the archer.
Here the ratio is lowers: A heavy chariot had ~28 combat strength vs. the defence of 15 for archers.
But that is fine since your new units can now chase them.
You will also notice heavy chariots don't require horses: This is because they are a vital part of the combat chain in civ6, without which archers would again rule (moreso than civ5 where they were totally dominant).
So we get chariots < spearmen < archer/warrior, where warriors get +10combat vs spearmen but take dmg, and are less countered by chariots, or you can make archers that can shoot down spearmen without taking damage but are more easily killed by chariots.
Edit:
What does this mean for slingers, are they then terrible?
Well NO, because everyone's example seems to be 1v1, 1 spear vs 1 slinger, or 1 warrior vs 1 slinger. The slinger is better when the number's change, so if you build 2 slingers and your starting warrior, you can kill barbarians without taking so much damage.
I also think slingers were slightly cheaper, and they give the eureka for archers, and they also upgrade to archers for gold not tying up your capital when archers become available.
stealth_nsk
Deity
1. You're referring to my post from July, 1. At this point we didn't see it yet.
2. Now we've seen the combat in action and it's math is totally different from Civ5. Civ5 works with fraction, while Civ6 works with differences. For example:
In Civ5 20 vs. 5 gets the same combat results as 100 vs. 25.
In Civ6 20 vs. 5 gets the same combat results as 100 vs. 85.
This is not accurate, 20 vs. 5 certainly isn't like 100 vs. 85, I've seen jaguars/warriors 1-shot slingers so unless it has changed since then, this certainly wouldn't be the case if it was 100 vs. 85.
In any case the exact number breakdown is irrelavent. The whole, combined arms idea etc. seems to have been scrapped. Although something something army/corps/fleet/navy... But it seems like its just stacking units for a stronger unit.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Why not? 15 is large difference in Civ6.
From all the things we saw (all bonuses are flat, all predicted combat results, etc.) the system works as I described.
I don't think I understand what you've just said. Corps/armies allow joining units of the same type only.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Jaguar warriors have 28 in strength not 20 like warriors. Add in lux bonus, oligarchy and policies and they can very well reach 35+ strength which should oneshoot slingers.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
That's always what it was.... they never had a "combined arms" concept
[other than the siege/healing/anti tank/ anti air support units, which basically act like a mobile promotion]
Stauffenberg
Chieftain
I think a good choice could be to build just one slinger to use for the eureka vs archery tech and upgrade the slinger once you get the archery tech. If you let the slinger fight alongside a warrior it should be possible to make the slinger get the kill.
Buying a slinger in a city that is threatened by barbarians could be possible since they get some protection from the city.
Getting a total of 3 archers seems good for the eureka moment vs the machinery tech.
Buying a slinger in a city that is threatened by barbarians could be possible since they get some protection from the city.
Getting a total of 3 archers seems good for the eureka moment vs the machinery tech.
According to your post 20 vs. 5 is liek 100 vs 85.
A 100Str unit certainly does not 1shot a 85str unit.
In any case this is all conjecture until we play it but it seems the mechanics are very similar to civ 5. The only difference is late game you can join multiple units up, but that seems more a patchwork fix to the problem of carpets of units on every tile (http://www.sullla.com/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html).
stealth_nsk
Deity
Yes, it could in Civ6. That's the point.
EDIT: Although I didn't see one-shot in Warrior vs. Slinger. Those I've seen were with about 25 strength difference. So, to be sure I should say 100 vs. 75 could be one-shot kill.
ClavisRa
Chieftain
Slingers themselves are quite weak, however the upgrade path to archery is very quick, and archers are quite powerful, especially with a two-tile range and the new movement rules.
I anticipate the most efficient early army for controlling barbarians, and stifling any aggressive civs, will be to build 4-6 slingers, and upgrade them all to archers, then push out quickly with 50% cost Settlers policy.
The follow up when you are ready to start conquering cities will be Rams and Swordsmen. (Obviously this will vary with unique units of your particular civ.)
I anticipate the most efficient early army for controlling barbarians, and stifling any aggressive civs, will be to build 4-6 slingers, and upgrade them all to archers, then push out quickly with 50% cost Settlers policy.
The follow up when you are ready to start conquering cities will be Rams and Swordsmen. (Obviously this will vary with unique units of your particular civ.)
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
There have been screen shots that showed it
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14400201&postcount=28
75 v 55 (a ~1.36 ratio
is the same combat results as
45 v 25 (a 1.8 ratio)
gfeier
King
Ehh i think its just an easier way for humans to gauge the difference. Rather than an actual gameplay difference.
Like the 10 percent combat bonuses are just becoming converted to flat number bonuses.
Edit: after reading stealth_nsk's similarity from exponential to linear I tried a simple conversion.
If this has already been done than sorry for repeating info.
So combining:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=170194443
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_units.html
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ6_units.html
The equation for converting new strength to old strength is approximately:
OldStrength =3.579*e^(0.037*NewStrength)
Archer 15 5 6.234406785
Warrior 20 8 7.501353206
Spearman 25 11 9.025766504
Horseman 35 12 13.06691459
Crossbow 30 13 10.85996869
Swordsman 35 14 13.06691459
bombard/cannon 43 14 17.56807671
Pikeman 41 16 16.31497556
Knight 48 20 21.13823386
field/artillery 50 21 22.76179407
Musketman 55 24 27.38741036
Infantry/GW 70 50 47.70725257
Tank 80 70 69.06744091
Modifications made to approximate era rather than exact name in some cases.
For example cannon in civ 5 is closer to bombard rather than field cannon in civ 6. Ranged strength not compared as finicky.
Of course this all might be wrong as most of the data is only in the early era, and I only have a few data points in the later era.
Similar threads
[Extension]
Naval Capital Units for VP
[Extension]
Torpedo Boat for VP