Spec Ops doubts, Ideas and strategies.

[Ticio]

Sounds like I am 6 months ahead of you. I sometimes take the double XP but very rarely try to keep them alive

Screw Spec op... its the skirmisher I want. and because the unit is so weak and targeted heavily you shoudl use it full when it is best... spec op is pretty useless.

Then they should try to make it more useful. If the unit has no real use or purpose they should give it one, as right now there is no reason for it to exist.

If Ranged units are better at distant attack and sometimes even exploring, why skirmishers?

if light calvary is better for scouting, razing and moving behind enemy lines (no ZOC), why skirmishers?


As it seems, you could remove the whole skirmisher class and it would be okay, nothing would be lost.



I read in the past some complaints about how limited variation was with land units. I'm personally pretty okay with the amount of land units we have now, but I cannot help but feel that Spec Ops (and the previous skirmishers units) have potential to give something more and new.


Something that could make them feel a unique land unit, with a real purpose... or at least turned them useful to some degree!

 

[Victoria]

if light calvary is better for scouting, razing and moving behind enemy lines (no ZOC), why skirmishers?

I disagree on this point to some degree. LC cannot attack then move which is a skirmish action (although they were mounted skirmishers) Skirmish rough terrain use is good. Yes LC are pretty handy to the point of why would you separate them from your main force, they are great pillagers which skirmishers are not. Skirmishers do attract attack amd are hard to catch. They are misdirection troops, even as scouts they are great at this but with shoot and move they get a sting in their tail. The main issue is skirmishers are too expensive (so you just use your upgraded scout if it survives that long) and they are more vulnerable to ranged than they should be.
Primarily I find them invaluable for drawing fire . It seems you do not do this nor use them to draw troops away.

As it seems, you could remove the whole skirmisher class and it would be okay, nothing would be lost.

And here I completely disagree, it is half there and works quite well, too vulnerable to ranged but suitable vulnerable to LC.
The thing is, you do not need them but they can be useful and can in fact be more useful than not having them at times. But you have to use them in that way for a while to appreciate this.
Their target priority status is great but their vulnerability to ranged is just wrong.

100% agree they are not right, just think people misunderstand their use.

 

[Ticio]

I disagree on this point to some degree. LC cannot attack then move which is a skirmish action (although they were mounted skirmishers) Skirmish rough terrain use is good. Yes LC are pretty handy to the point of why would you separate them from your main force, they are great pillagers which skirmishers are not. Skirmishers do attract attack amd are hard to catch. They are misdirection troops, even as scouts they are great at this but with shoot and move they get a sting in their tail. The main issue is skirmishers are too expensive (so you just use your upgraded scout if it survives that long) and they are more vulnerable to ranged than they should be.
Primarily I find them invaluable for drawing fire . It seems you do not do this nor use them to draw troops away.

And here I completely disagree, it is half there and works quite well, too vulnerable to ranged but suitable vulnerable to LC.
The thing is, you do not need them but they can be useful and can in fact be more useful than not having them at times. But you have to use them in that way for a while to appreciate this.
Their target priority status is great but their vulnerability to ranged is just wrong.

100% agree they are not right, just think people misunderstand their use.

You are totally right when pointing the ambush ability. Is a very good ability that help make constant harrasment!

I was refering more to the purpose of pillaging and going behind enemy lines to do this. After I discovered that Skirmishers (mainly Spec Ops) do not ignore ZOC I just realized that LC is better to this purpose.
With the promotion to raid only for 1 movement and ignoring ZOC they can go pillaging everything and still have movement to scape.

Meanwhile Special Ops have to wait to pillage (as it consumes all their movement), and they can barely scape as they have to go throught ZOC.

This is the main reason I got frustrated with Special Ops, I'm okay with them being bad at pillaging, but then why they gave them the "Paradrop ability" if they will die 2 turns after without doing anything?
Do not give them this kind of ability if you do not want me to use them in enemy territory!!

For this reason I proposed these changes, let them has they are (except for paradroping taking a turn of movement), but if they manage to pillage, make it count (floods and radioactive releases) so enemy has to invest units to their bases, or let them be "assassins" that have a purpose on battle taking great generals out of the field (like snipers).


But it is true that used as you say they have more useful, is just that they have a lot of potential but it is not use

 

[AsH2]

..let them be "assassins" that have a purpose on battle taking great generals out of the field (like snipers).
..

Have you tried to take out embarked units?

 

[Ticio]

Have you tried to take out embarked units?

Like with regular attacks or using the "Priority target"? Neither of them, but do they do different damages?

That also make me wonder if the "prioty target" ability also let you target embarked units that are supported by a naval unit!

 

[Galvatron]

I'm sorry, I do not understand very well your point (english is not my first language), Do you mean to make 2 promotions trees so you can choose which paths to follow? or add this 2 trees to range units?

That's quite alright, I can assure you that native English speakers have as much trouble interpreting the written word in such cases... As it happens I had a few confrontations this week on the internet in that vain.

What I mean to say is that they should be entirely different unit lines. You should be able to train spec ops, and, skirmishers and they should be different unit types. They shouldn't share the same promotion tree, and they shouldn't perform the same role.

I personally would be glad if they had a higher cost but in exchange, they should be able to perform according to this price....

Yes, that's precisely my problem. The reason why they're not worth their price, imho, is that they're half spec ops, and thus need to be expensive, and half skirmisher, and thus need to be cheap. They both need to be cheaper and more expensive simultaneously, because they're trying to do two opposite roles at once.

That also make me wonder if the "prioty target" ability also let you target embarked units that are supported by a naval unit!

I'm pretty sure it does, doesn't it?

 

[Ticio]

That's quite alright, I can assure you that native English speakers have as much trouble interpreting the written word in such cases... As it happens I had a few confrontations this week on the internet in that vain.

What I mean to say is that they should be entirely different unit lines. You should be able to train spec ops, and, skirmishers and they should be different unit types. They shouldn't share the same promotion tree, and they shouldn't perform the same role.



Yes, that's precisely my problem. The reason why they're not worth their price, imho, is that they're half spec ops, and thus need to be expensive, and half skirmisher, and thus need to be cheap. They both need to be cheaper and more expensive simultaneously, because they're trying to do two opposite roles at once.




I'm pretty sure it does, doesn't it?

That's quite an interesting point!

For sure making 2 different units able to perform 2 specific tasks would be better.

And about the "priority target" being used on water, I really do not know... my game was in continental map so I did not have the opportunity to check. Maybe I can try today!

 

[Oldlamehand]

So far, I haven't had many opportunities to try Spec Ops in combat. But in GS they are one of the few land units that do not cost strategic resources. So, maybe if I were short of oil, they would be one of the units I would produce.

 

[Ticio]

So far, I haven't had many opportunities to try Spec Ops in combat. But in GS they are one of the few land units that do not cost strategic resources. So, maybe if I were short of oil, they would be one of the units I would produce.

Well, i been using them for a while now and I don't think they are worth the price or production. If they have all their abilities, they can be helpful, but is better to try to get other units or find a way to access the strategic resources.

 

[Oldlamehand]

Well, i been using them for a while now and I don't think they are worth the price or production. If they have all their abilities, they can be helpful, but is better to try to get other units or find a way to access the strategic resources.

Well, there are too many types of units that need oil. So a unit that doesn't need oil can always come in handy, even if you have access to oil.
If you upgrade a few musketeers to an infantry, you have a couple of tanks, destroyers, submarines, you can run out of oil quickly.

The only no-oil alternative to spec ops is a machine gun.

However, from the point of view of the logic of the real world, it does not make sense why infantry need oil and spec ops do not.

 

[HiRezAudio]

I do confess the lack of Oil is usually a huge issue for me, so I rarely - if ever - build Infantry. Another oddity with that requirement are the Barb Infantry units & Independent City State Infantry - where are they getting the dead dinosaurs from?
My usual unit builds in this era are Artillery (and I save all my Oil for these - it's superb how 3 separate units require 3 oil, but a full Army only needs just the one - great resource saver right there) and Machine Guns/Anti-Tank units.
It's also odd how Mech Infantry don't require Oil, whereas regular stubble-hoppers do.
Still, it is what it is there & we all have the same problems.

Getting back OT, I cannot say that I have ever really found Spec Ops to be worthwhile. They are too ineffectual (at least, apart from pillaging I have never found a use for them, but the problem with using them to pillage is they are so very weak in defence and tend to get single shotted to death with extreme ease on the part of the opponent. So, unless I just do not understand how to use them - a situation that is all too likely to be correct - I see little point in wasting production to build them or gold on promoting other units into them.