Small Observations General Thread (things not worth separate threads)

[Eagle Pursuit]

It makes sense that there would be multiple tiers of Modern cavalry units.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I really, really, really hope they get it right this time: the WWI heavy tanks like the Mk V were not 'tanks' the way everybody thinks of them: they were iege engines designed to get infantry through an enemy trench/fortification system and utterly incapable of anything else.

As an example, the British Mk V had a top speed of 8 kph and a range of 72 km before it needed refueling. It also had a little problem in that it had inadequate ventilation so its crews were occasionally subject to carbon monoxide poisoning from its engine. Exploiting success the way later tank units did was entirely beyond their capabilities.

Also, are we sure this is the Mark V? While they equipped one US tank battalion in the last few weeks of the war, the first heavy tank actually manufactured in the US was the Mark VIII "Liberty", of which about 100 were built right after World War One. They are essentially identical in capabilities and limitations.

If this is supposed to be a 'general' Unit, of course, it doesn't matter except that the rhomboidal British heavy tanks were used by only a few countries compared to the French Renault FT light tank, which was used by most early post-war tank units around the world, and variants of which were built in the USA and the Soviet Union.

​

 

[thecrazyscot]

I think it's pretty safe to expect tanks to be represented as they always have been in the Civ series - as the modern heavy cavalry line. It would be too confusing for the first tank you can build to be a different unit line than the later tanks you build.

We are getting Commanders and unit abilities, which is some intriguing innovation - I suspect they won't shake up the core unit lines much.

Edit: We have to remember that Civ will always have pop history as an integral part of it. The emblematic WWI tank is instantly recognizable and so whether or not its place in the heavy cavalry line is historically appropriate is kinda irrelevant.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think it's pretty safe to expect tanks to be represented as they always have been in the Civ series - as the modern heavy cavalry line. It would be too confusing for the first tank you can build to be a different unit line than the later tanks you build.

We are getting Commanders and unit abilities, which is some intriguing innovation - I suspect they won't shake up the core unit lines much.

Edit: We have to remember that Civ will always have pop history as an integral part of it. The emblematic WWI tank is instantly recognizable and so whether or not its place in the heavy cavalry line is historically appropriate is kinda irrelevant.

Is there a "Heavy Cavalry Line" in Civ VII?

My understanding was that the promotions now fall entirely on the Army Commanders rather than the individual units, so the old Civ VI "Lines" of Melee, Anti-Cav, Heavy/Light Cav, etc no longer exist in the same measure.

My point is that the 'Tanks' of WWI were Outliers: not capable of performing any of the traditional cavalry roles, but rather the role of Siege Engines to break through fixed defenses. On a related note, no army formed its first tank units from cavalry units. Armored Car units were formed from horse cavalry units, because they could perform some cavalry-type missions: reconnaissance, screening, advance guard, etc. Later, the armored cars were also part of the mechanized reconnaissance and armored cavalry units formed just before and during WWII: units that never had any of the medium tanks that are the models for Civ VII's 'Tank' units (Pz IVs, T-34s and M4 Shermans)

 

[AriochIV]

I don't think there's a distinction in Civ7 between light and heavy cavalry.

They have biplanes and early dreadnought battleships in addition to WWII-era forms, so it's not surprising that they'd have WWI vintage tanks too.

Given the apparent start of the Modern Age with the early industrial, it looks like the tier 1 cavalry will still be mid-19th century horse cavalry, followed by WWI and then WWII tanks.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't think there's a distinction in Civ7 between light and heavy cavalry.

They have biplanes and early dreadnought battleships in addition to WWII-era forms, so it's not surprising that they'd have WWI vintage tanks too.

Given the apparent start of the Modern Age with the early industrial, it looks like the tier 1 cavalry will still be mid-19th century horse cavalry, followed by WWI and then WWII tanks.

View attachment 708096 View attachment 708097

Assuming a roughly 18th century start to the Modern Age and roughly 200 turns to the end of the Age at the end of the 20th century (a lot of suppositions there, I know) then most of the Modern Age will be played at 1 - 2 years per Turn.

That, in turn, gives the Age plenty of time in Turns to build/raise, use, and upgrade several Tiers of units - like 18th - 19th century Battle Cavalry (in the graphics they are wearing Cuirasses, which no light cavalry would burden themselves with) followed by WWI era, followed by WWII era - after all, at 1 year per turn there are 21 turns between WWI and WWII, or in other terms, between the Mark V WWI tank and the PzKpw IV there are 21 - 24 turns.

And that still leaves up to 50 - 60 Turns after the introduction of medium tanks to, potentially, deploy Main Battle Tanks ("Modern Armor"), which historically were fielded starting around 1960, or 20 - 23 turns after the WWII medium tanks and with about another 20 - 30 turns before end of game.

Now that I set that out, it looks very much like the Modern Age will start out at 2 - 3 years/turn until the late 19th century equivalent, then switch to 1 year per turn. Given the turns approximation for the 20th century units above, potentially there is another 100 turns or so before that to introduce not only the 18th/19th century cuirass-wearing cavalry but also, possibly, another 'cavalry' unit before the 20th century - BUT the modern cavalry graphics argue against this: the figures in the picture on the right are wearing tricornes, which date them to the early 18th century, while on the left they appear to be wearing helmets, which are late 18th, 19th century gear. Of course, mixing uniforms from various parts of a century or so was normal in Civ VI, and may be normal in Civ VII, so this may mean nothing

Since we haven't, to my knowledge, seen anything of the Modern Age Tech Tree yet, we cannot be certain of how many military Units are missing from what we know, and I suspect that Modern Age information will remain unrevealed until they've teased us with a few weeks of Exploration Age mechanics and Civs.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Is there a "Heavy Cavalry Line" in Civ VII?

My understanding was that the promotions now fall entirely on the Army Commanders rather than the individual units, so the old Civ VI "Lines" of Melee, Anti-Cav, Heavy/Light Cav, etc no longer exist in the same measure.

My point is that the 'Tanks' of WWI were Outliers: not capable of performing any of the traditional cavalry roles, but rather the role of Siege Engines to break through fixed defenses. On a related note, no army formed its first tank units from cavalry units. Armored Car units were formed from horse cavalry units, because they could perform some cavalry-type missions: reconnaissance, screening, advance guard, etc. Later, the armored cars were also part of the mechanized reconnaissance and armored cavalry units formed just before and during WWII: units that never had any of the medium tanks that are the models for Civ VII's 'Tank' units (Pz IVs, T-34s and M4 Shermans)

Infantry evolution path is now converged to just 'Infantry' suits me well. it could be better though as in previous 'early' civ games, there were distinctions beteween spearmen and swordsmen lineage until the distinction was eventually converged with the first musketeers shows up. (this unit was not represented properly in early games). but is there any sense having separate 'light cavalry' and 'heavy cavalry' lineage in this game?

The other point is that there should never be machineguns as separate unit. there never was a regiment of machinegunners. the weapons were treated as equipments, originally like regimental light artillery (those no bigger than 6 pounders and usually hauled by guncrews who were elements of either infantry or cavalry regiments), later with regimental weapons loadout concepts miniaturized to company, and later platoon levels. and above all, as standard weapons to almost every combat vehicles, vessels, and aircrafts.

Also 'First Tanks' of WW1 NEVER WAS a 'cavalry' either. they wre assigned to Infantry , even the most advanced of that time did not have a speed of warhorse even. Tanks became 'cavalry' in 1930s . and still only 10 years apart. the first 'tank' as generic combat unit should be represented with Vickers 6ton Mark E

And your views on Riflemen. Should this unit returns?

 

[AriochIV]

There also weren't entire divisions of catapults or siege engines, but that's not really relevant. The game mechanics are more important than that level of historical detail. Arrows can't shoot kilometers over infantry, but they need to in order for the game scale to work.

If they want to have a similar unit I think mortars would fill the role better, but there weren't mortar divisions either.

The default tier 1 modern infantry will most likely be the same thing that we associate with Civilization Riflemen (mid-19th Century riflemen), whether or not that's what they are called.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

There also weren't entire divisions of catapults or siege engines, but that's not really relevant. The game mechanics are more important than that level of historical detail. Arrows can't shoot kilometers over infantry, but they need to in order for the game scale to work.

If they want to have a similar unit I think mortars would fill the role better, but there weren't mortar divisions either.

The default tier 1 modern infantry will most likely be the same thing that we associate with Civilization Riflemen (mid-19th Century riflemen), whether or not that's what they are called.

And what about musketeers. there were two graphics showing two different weapons configurations. One is Pike and Shotte, the other is Ming era Arquebusier.

 

[AriochIV]

And what about musketeers. there were two graphics showing two different weapons configurations. One is Pike and Shotte, the other is Ming era Arquebusier.

Pike and Shot may be a separate standard unit, but since we don't see it in the tech tree my guess is that it's a Spanish Tercio unique unit. It's possible though that the pikes are a normal part of the Musketman unit. The Persian Immortal has archers in it, but there's no sign of any ranged ability as yet. It might be simply cosmetic.

The Chinese looking one is probably just the Asian variant of the Musketman, but that would suggest that the pike and shot unit is different from the normal musketman. It may also be a Ming unique unit.

It's important to remember not only that there are regional variants of standard units, but also individual model variants within a unit. This makes it really hard to identify unfamiliar units based on a small number of visuals.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It makes sense that there would be multiple tiers of Modern cavalry units.

Well, at least there should be some Cavalry and Tanks, which are likely to be both "cavalry". But I'd clearly expect 2 horse based-units (i.e. Cuirassiers and Cavalry) with Tanks appearing in the end of the tech tree, similarly to how we have 2 infantry units in Exploration with Musketeers appearing in the end.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Well, at least there should be some Cavalry and Tanks, which are likely to be both "cavalry". But I'd clearly expect 2 horse based-units (i.e. Cuirassiers and Cavalry) with Tanks appearing in the end of the tech tree, similarly to how we have 2 infantry units in Exploration with Musketeers appearing in the end.

Actually Three in Age 2

1. Man At Arms
2. Pikeman
3. Musketeer / Pike and Shotte

Age 3
There might be
1. Fusilier
2. Rifleman
3. Infantry

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I am annoyed by the fact that the leader speech lines don't account for the fact that they won't necessarily be leading the civ they historically ruled over. Example, Ashoka calls himself the ruler of India when introducing himself (which is already ahistorical and anachronistic, considering that the Mauryans viewed themselves as ruling different lands rather than just one, and the word "India" was probably popularised much later), when he could very possibly be leading Axum or the Mississippians.

Another thing I am concerned for is mod leaders. In Civ5 and Civ6 we usually had 2D unanimated leaders because of how difficult and time-consuming it is to produce 3D animated leaders. It worked in those games, but they would look very odd in Civ7's diplomatic view where the two leaders interact with one another

 

[Krikkit1]

I am annoyed by the fact that the leader speech lines don't account for the fact that they won't necessarily be leading the civ they historically ruled over. Example, Ashoka calls himself the ruler of India when introducing himself (which is already ahistorical and anachronistic, considering that the Mauryans viewed themselves as ruling different lands rather than just one, and the word "India" was probably popularised much later), when he could very possibly be leading Axum or the Mississippians.

Another thing I am concerned for is mod leaders. In Civ5 and Civ6 we usually had 2D unanimated leaders because of how difficult and time-consuming it is to produce 3D animated leaders. It worked in those games, but they would look very odd in Civ7's diplomatic view where the two leaders interact with one another

Well obviously if Ashoka rules the Mauryans the land they take over will be called India later.... if he rules Han China or the Greeks they will be a core peoples of the lands known as India in that world.

 

[gdr_willter]

Well obviously if Ashoka rules the Mauryans the land they take over will be called India later.... if he rules Han China or the Greeks they will be a core peoples of the lands known as India in that world.

This has kinda corresponding point with my idea: the Leader represent the people (national or ideological group) in Civ 7. I will consider that my people are Indian when I'm playng Ashoka, regardless what civs I play. In the situation of facing outer threats, my Indian population will develop their defensive society and technology, and I will name it the Han civilization.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And your views on Riflemen. Should this unit returns?

I preferred them as Line Infantry, how Civ 7 called them.

Also 'First Tanks' of WW1 NEVER WAS a 'cavalry' either. they wre assigned to Infantry , even the most advanced of that time did not have a speed of warhorse even. Tanks became 'cavalry' in 1930s . and still only 10 years apart. the first 'tank' as generic combat unit should be represented with Vickers 6ton Mark E

As far as tanks go there would be no need to separate different tank units on the tech tree, especially if those would only be separated by a single tech in an age. I'm fine with them being covered by the WWII tanks in game.

There also weren't entire divisions of catapults or siege engines, but that's not really relevant. The game mechanics are more important than that level of historical detail. Arrows can't shoot kilometers over infantry, but they need to in order for the game scale to work.

If they want to have a similar unit I think mortars would fill the role better, but there weren't mortar divisions either.

Isn't a mortar basically what the Artillery unit has been in the past several games?

Well obviously if Ashoka rules the Mauryans the land they take over will be called India later.... if he rules Han China or the Greeks they will be a core peoples of the lands known as India in that world.

I guess the question is the civ called Maurya India in game though?

 

[thecrazyscot]

Assuming a roughly 18th century start to the Modern Age and roughly 200 turns to the end of the Age at the end of the 20th century (a lot of suppositions there, I know) then most of the Modern Age will be played at 1 - 2 years per Turn.

That, in turn, gives the Age plenty of time in Turns to build/raise, use, and upgrade several Tiers of units - like 18th - 19th century Battle Cavalry (in the graphics they are wearing Cuirasses, which no light cavalry would burden themselves with) followed by WWI era, followed by WWII era - after all, at 1 year per turn there are 21 turns between WWI and WWII, or in other terms, between the Mark V WWI tank and the PzKpw IV there are 21 - 24 turns.

And that still leaves up to 50 - 60 Turns after the introduction of medium tanks to, potentially, deploy Main Battle Tanks ("Modern Armor"), which historically were fielded starting around 1960, or 20 - 23 turns after the WWII medium tanks and with about another 20 - 30 turns before end of game.

Now that I set that out, it looks very much like the Modern Age will start out at 2 - 3 years/turn until the late 19th century equivalent, then switch to 1 year per turn. Given the turns approximation for the 20th century units above, potentially there is another 100 turns or so before that to introduce not only the 18th/19th century cuirass-wearing cavalry but also, possibly, another 'cavalry' unit before the 20th century - BUT the modern cavalry graphics argue against this: the figures in the picture on the right are wearing tricornes, which date them to the early 18th century, while on the left they appear to be wearing helmets, which are late 18th, 19th century gear. Of course, mixing uniforms from various parts of a century or so was normal in Civ VI, and may be normal in Civ VII, so this may mean nothing

Since we haven't, to my knowledge, seen anything of the Modern Age Tech Tree yet, we cannot be certain of how many military Units are missing from what we know, and I suspect that Modern Age information will remain unrevealed until they've teased us with a few weeks of Exploration Age mechanics and Civs.

I set off quite the discussion didn't I with the "heavy cavalry" comment To be clear I have no idea if there will be a light/heavy cavalry distinction in Civ7.

I have no argument with you in terms of historicity. I greatly appreciate your extensive knowledge on the subject and contextual contributions - I find them quite educational. What I am saying though is that the popular conception of tanks is "hit fast hit hard", pop blitzkrieg if you will.

Since Civ has abstracted military units into distinct "lines" it doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective to have tanks start in the siege line then move to the cavalry line. It would be confusing to most players and mess with upgrade directions. I could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if we get an accurate depiction of early tanks as they don't fit nicely in the abstracted lines already defined.

I will also say that I hope the modern age doesn't present us with just 20-30 turns to use units before they become obsolete - I suspect further abstraction or blobbing of the rapid technological innovations in the 20th century to avoid the frustration of not getting to use your units before needing to upgrade them. At least, I hope they address this issue, as it was just another issue plaguing the late game. I honestly wouldn't mind the modern age ending in the 1950s as we would avoid having handle an absurd amount of military innovation in a really compressed time.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I am annoyed by the fact that the leader speech lines don't account for the fact that they won't necessarily be leading the civ they historically ruled over. Example, Ashoka calls himself the ruler of India when introducing himself (which is already ahistorical and anachronistic, considering that the Mauryans viewed themselves as ruling different lands rather than just one, and the word "India" was probably popularised much later), when he could very possibly be leading Axum or the Mississippians.

Even in previous games with leaders tied to civilizations, they referred to their historical role, not the civilization in game. For example, in Civ6 Philip II says "Nos somos Felipe, rey de España y Portugal", while he clearly doesn't lead Portugal in the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I set off quite the discussion didn't I with the "heavy cavalry" comment To be clear I have no idea if there will be a light/heavy cavalry distinction in Civ7.

This was already discussed. We've seen antiquity and exploration tech tree and clearly there's no distinction between light and heavy cavalry.

Moreover, as discussed before, from gameplay point of view, there's no need in this distinction, especially now with troops mostly supposed to move together with commanders.

 

[Krikkit1]

I set off quite the discussion didn't I with the "heavy cavalry" comment To be clear I have no idea if there will be a light/heavy cavalry distinction in Civ7.

I have no argument with you in terms of historicity. I greatly appreciate your extensive knowledge on the subject and contextual contributions. What I am saying though is that the popular conception of tanks is "hit fast hit hard", pop blitzkrieg if you will.

Since Civ has abstracted military units into distinct "lines" it doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective to have tanks start in the siege line then move to the cavalry line. It would be confusing to most players and mess with upgrade directions. I could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if we get an accurate depiction of early tanks as they don't fit nicely in the abstracted lines already defined.

I will also say that I hope the modern age doesn't present us with just 20-30 turns to use units before they become obsolete - I suspect further abstraction or blobbing of the rapid technological innovations in the 20th century to avoid the frustration of not getting to use your units before needing to upgrade them. At least, I hope they address this issue, as it was just another issue plaguing the late game. I honestly wouldn't mind the modern age ending in the 1950s as we would avoid having handle an absurd amount of military innovation in a really compressed time.

The Masteries might help with this
4 total units, but the 3 that aren't the base level all have bonuses from other techs/Masteries
So Modern Tanks are just 1930s/40s tanks with a boost from a ?Composites? tech (+X str to Tanks, and Air units?)
'Those T-34/Sherman/Panzer graphics we saw with Japan could actually be "modern tanks"...they just don't show the graphics only on the stats.