Spain

[Hinin]

The trick as I noted above, is the Survivalism promotions provide a very strong defensive bonus, so any unit that has too high a base CS becomes an unmovable rock, which is both unbalancing but also a weird flavor for the civ.

That caps the base CS at 24, this gives you roughly equivalent defensive bonuses to the cataphract....which right now is setup as an extremely defensive UU for the time. The cataphract is still better against ranged units, the conquistador more generally defensive, and the conq would be later....so I think you have enough design space there to work with.

So now you have a CS 24 unit at compass, which you can decide what to do from there. I think a city attack bonus is fine if you want to maintain that flavor, but it would probably need to be +75% or so. The +100% bonus that siege might be too strong with a 48 attack....although this is coming later than your normal medieval warfare which might balance it back out....that part would at least be worth testing as that way you don't need another new promotion. We have talked vs wounded penalties, brute force, overrun....all are reasonable ideas. You could even go with a lower CS but give it like Drill I, II, and III....that covers some core combat proficiencies but weakens the impact of survivalism....and gives you the option of going City Assault for the unit if you want to... aka more options for specialization.

So yes I think you could do the job with the explorer. The key question that others are asking, which is a very reasonable question....is that a true "improvement" over what we have now? You give Spain faster settling but a later combat spike, is that "better" than what they have now?

Spoiler Long answer :

The main risk (and so why I wouldn't go beyond 22-23 base CS) is indeed that the survivalism promotions proves too powerful with such a high base stat. Three solutions to that I think (that can be added) :
- keep the unit mounted : it opens a real weakness for the unit (as it can for other atypical mounted units, like the elephant trebuchet of the Khmer mod)
- give it "no terrain defense" like for the rest of the mounted units : it would make the unit really dependant on Survivalism to stay in fight, and avoid the "Survivalism III Conquistador on a Citadel" problem
- as you said, keep its base CS lower (~21CS) but give it more combat promotions

I would be for ideas 1 and 2 : keep the "mounted feel" of the unit, but with specific free combat promotions and access to the recon tree that allows it to either become a really slippery heavy hitter, or a early juggernaut. Knowing that the unit would have reconnaissance and a easy time navigating around, it would surely be a mix of the two quite quickly.

As for the combat bonus themselves, there are several solutions as you said :

• pure combat bonus against cities (maybe a name referencing the siege of Tenochtitlan ?), staying on upgrade (that way, Spanish recon troops in the late game would be actual threats to difficult to reach cities, f.e. against the Incans)
• a bonus against melee units (so a reverse zulu) : that would be a timed bonus (no need for that starting the Renaissance era), but would allow the unit to really feel like a power spike for the civilization against tech-weak civs (and not only against barbarians).
• overrun and other kill-based promotions : less convinced by those frankly, since I don't think killing units should be this unit's focus

By adding all these elements, that could give something like this.

UU - Conquistadores (replaces Explorer)
Unlocked at Compass
Is considered mounted (but doesn't require Horse)

200 Production cost (instead of 160) => Can be reduced to 180 if needed
23 CS (instead of 17)
4 MP (instead of 3)
Brute Force
Can Cross Ocean tiles
Bonus Defense when embarked
Bonus Vision when embarked
No Terrain Defense
Fall of Ancient Walls (+50 % CS against cities) => Can be buffed if needed
New World (+25 % CS against Melee units and can found cities on other landmasses ; lost on unit upgrade)

So, what are the differences with the Knight ? :

• Access to Reconnaissance and the Recon promo tree means the unit will usually become proficient in defense or mobility very quickly
• No resource requirement : it makes the spawning and use of the unit much simpler, and liberates place for the Knights doing the anti-unit work
• With its promotions (Fall of Ancient Walls + Trailblazer), at least 40 CS against cities, which is really good, plus the ability to flee and flank easily (thx to the recon promotions)
• Far more fluid utilisation for settling : you unlock the unit, you can use it to settle other landmasses

All these elements are easy to code (could be done in an afternoon).

 

[Stalker0]

Long answer

Honestly this feels like an awful lot of work just to make an explorer feel more like a knight.... when with just one promotion adjustment (ocean crossing at compass), we could have a solid UU knight that could then handle its explore duties a bit sooner. Also note that the offensive potential of this unit is non-existant, its garbage attacking ranged and mounted units, and even with the +50% against cities is pathetically weak compared to a longsword with Drill II.

I can respect if its a scenario where one side is just number changes and the other is new code, but if your new explorer needs new code it seems far easier to just code one new thing for the existing Conq and be done with it.

 

[pineappledan]

Honestly this feels like an awful lot of work just to make an explorer feel more like a knight.... when with just one promotion adjustment (ocean crossing at compass), we could have a solid UU knight that could then handle its explore duties a bit sooner.

Compass is a good timing, but ocean exploration at chivalry is very early. 1 full tech instead of 2 full techs for pioneers, and 1 full tech earlier ocean exploration is too much.

Long answer

I agree that the explorer should be considered mounted for anti-mounted promos. That will make it easier to understand, because the unit model involves a horse. I’d like to keep the benefits from defensive terrain though.

I don’t think going so far as to make it in every way a knight by every stat like that is necessary or desirable. It's possible, but just because we can doesn't mean we should. 4 moves (up to 5 with scouting III) would make for an insanely zoomy Conquistador with the Trailblazer line.

Spoiler Here's my draft :

UU - Conquistadores (replaces Explorer)
Unlocked at Compass
Is considered mounted (but doesn't require Horse)

160 Production cost
23 CS (instead of 17)
3 MP
Brute Force
Can Cross Ocean tiles
Treasure hunter
Ignores terrain costs
Experience from scouting
Bonus Defense when embarked
Bonus Vision when embarked
Overrun (+25% flanking bonus. 10 damage to adjacent units on kill)
Siege (+100% vs cities)
New World (can found cities on other landmasses; lost on unit upgrade)

Closer to an explorer than to a knight, but more dangerous than both. The overrun is more than the combined flanking bonuses of the core shock line. Siege is more than the combined anti-city bonuses from the core drill line. The conquistador can rely on its high mobility from trailblazer or its rock-solid defense from survivalism. And for everything else, there’s MasterCard.

 

[Stalker0]

Compass is a good timing, but ocean exploration at chivalry is very early.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we give conqusitadors ocean crossing at chivalry. Its compass at the earliest.

 

[Rekk]

I don't think anyone is suggesting we give conqusitadors ocean crossing at chivalry. Its compass at the earliest.

How do you do that without delaying conquistador to compass? Pdan's already said it's not possible to have the conquistador-specific ocean exploration be technology locked.

 

[pineappledan]

@InkAxis added an ability that allows buildings to perform a spread action on the city when built.

shall I make a poll about adding a unique Mission building to cities that are settled by a conquistador? I intend to have it replace the free Castle, and give 2, 3, 100 HP, and to auto convert the city to your religion on founding

 

[Gazebo]

@InkAxis added an ability that allows buildings to perform a spread action on the city when built.

shall I make a poll about adding a unique Mission building to cities that are settled by a conquistador? I intend to have it replace the free Castle, and give 2, 3, 100 HP, and to auto convert the city to your religion on founding

Needlessly complex, and that would effectively give Spain 3 uniques.

G

 

[pineappledan]

I’m trying to respond to criticism. From the end user perspective, this saves them moving a missionary to the new continent to convert the new city. So it’s less complex/tedious to them.

re: a third unique, it would be inseparable from the conquistador. Right now, conquistador gives a castle, because the mission used to be a castle, but it didn’t give walls. Overall, the number of free buildings stays the same, and gets rid of a bit of jank with policy/wonder boosts to castles, getting to skip walls, etc.

 

[stormfallen]

Would it make more sense to just have the conquistador create a dummy building that autoconverts, and make it part of their settling ability?

 

[pineappledan]

Would it make more sense to just have the conquistador create a dummy building that autoconverts, and make it part of their settling ability?

Thats something I can definitely do, if people don’t want a mission building, but they do want auto-conversion. With the Jan lines of the free castle, I just figured it was 2 birds with 1 stone. It also gives another opportunity to inject some CiV-specific flavor without making any more work, and brings back someone’s art asset that I’m sure they worked hard on, only for me to replace with the hacienda.

I hadn’t seriously considered people would think swapping a free building on conquistador would feel overdesigned.

 

[InkAxis]

Well it depends on what you see as a bigger issue:

• Conquistadors not converting their cities

or

• Adding another building

I don't think adding a simple building like that is a big issue but I also don't think it's solving a big problem.

 

[Stalker0]

Thats something I can definitely do, if people don’t want a mission building, but they do want auto-conversion.

I could see the argument that for new players, or ones that just haven't upgraded in a while, if they see a "unique building" aka the mission, they are going to assume there is something special about the stats, and when they realize there's not it might add confusion or assumption that there is a bug. Obviously more veterans won't care either way.

I would vote for the dummy building unless there is a drawback from the coding standpoint that we haven't discussed?

 

[pineappledan]

No issue save for it being a dummy building. I can code the SQL, but it's a bit sloppy.

I hadn't expected re-adding the mission in some way to be controversial, and it's not a hill I'm particularly interested in dying on. This whole auto-conversion thing becomes much more of a concern if Conquistadors were changed to unlock deep ocean crossing before missionaries etc do. With deep ocean at astronomy, it's just an inconvenience, so perhaps we leave it as that. I will leave the Mission as part of my tweaks mod, which also changes the Conq to an explorer, so the auto-conversion is much more useful there, and leave base VP Spain alone.

 

[chicorbeef]

This isn't like a necessary change or anything, and it might be a bit late to propose this now, but what if Conquistadors were unique Lancers unlocked at Gunpowder or Astronomy rather than unique Knights?

There are a few reasons why I thought this could be worth considering:

• It's more accurate historically, the Conquistadors referenced in the civpedia weren't medieval knights, they were the ones who conquered Central/Southern America in the 16th/17th centuries, so early Renaissance would be the accurate time period historically.
• It makes the city-founding ability make more sense. Right now, Conquistador's can found cities with everything a Pioneer has but also with Harbours IIRC, so they can found better cities than Pioneers with buildings that haven't even been unlocked yet, but only on different continents, so the situation rn is if you're lucky and you have nearby islands you're golden, but tough luck if you don't have nearby islands accessible by coast. By having it unlock at the same time as ocean travel unlocks and at the same tech tier as Pioneers.
• There's currently 4 Knight UU's in base VP (Mandekalus, Naresuan's, Cataphracts, Conquistadors) which is the most for any unit I can think of, whereas there's only 1 Lancer UU (Winged Hussars). Conquistador's also happen to share the lack of a city attack penalty with Mandekalu's, so unstacking the two could help with that.

I see that there's been some debate over this before, sorry to necro that, but with the recent Mandekalu/Carolean change I think it's time to consider moving the Conquistador too.

 

[azum4roll]

This isn't like a necessary change or anything, and it might be a bit late to propose this now, but what if Conquistadors were unique Lancers unlocked at Gunpowder or Astronomy rather than unique Knights?

There are a few reasons why I thought this could be worth considering:

• It's more accurate historically, the Conquistadors referenced in the civpedia weren't medieval knights, they were the ones who conquered Central/Southern America in the 16th/17th centuries, so early Renaissance would be the accurate time period historically.
• It makes the city-founding ability make more sense. Right now, Conquistador's can found cities with everything a Pioneer has but also with Harbours IIRC, so they can found better cities than Pioneers with buildings that haven't even been unlocked yet, but only on different continents, so the situation rn is if you're lucky and you have nearby islands you're golden, but tough luck if you don't have nearby islands accessible by coast. By having it unlock at the same time as ocean travel unlocks and at the same tech tier as Pioneers.
• There's currently 4 Knight UU's in base VP (Mandekalus, Naresuan's, Cataphracts, Conquistadors) which is the most for any unit I can think of, whereas there's only 1 Lancer UU (Winged Hussars). Conquistador's also happen to share the lack of a city attack penalty with Mandekalu's, so unstacking the two could help with that.

I see that there's been some debate over this before, sorry to necro that, but with the recent Mandekalu/Carolean change I think it's time to consider moving the Conquistador too.

This is nice, but a 37CS mounted unit at that point could be too OP.

 

[ridjack]

This is nice, but a 37CS mounted unit at that point could be too OP.

I mean, that's still in the same era. Just first half instead of second, and that's right around the time the pace of science has started to pick up after everyone has built universities, and Lancers as it stands are probably the least impactful of the mounted melee lineup. One single tech (Metallurgy) that's just in the other half of the era brings other civs their own Lancers, Musketmen and Cuirassiers. I think it's fine, and I would fine seeing this version implemented.

I like PDan's version that makes them Explorers. It feels thematically appropriate, makes for a very unique unit overall and is fun to play with. I do agree that they could probably stand to lose the terrain and/or fortification abilities, if for no other reason than I think those traits should stay unique to the Cataphract or risk this becoming an almost objectively superior version of it.