Speculation on units

[stealth_nsk]

It looks like we know the least about units. What differ here from previous civs:

1. Heavy focus on unique units as civilizations are age-specific. So, with 2 units per age (what we've seen so far), roughly half of the time during your game unique units are actual
2. We know what previous age units are automatically updated to basic units of the next age, which means
   1. Every unit line, which is presented in previous age, have upgrade available instantly or very early in the next age
   2. Which, in turn, means most likely we'll see at least 2 units per age for each such line
3. Emphasis on commander in combat seem to reduce role of cavalry. Commanders are fast, bring troops with them and could get reinforcement fast as well, generally replacing cavalry as fast moving force. They also give bonuses only within small radius, which makes cavalry flanking less impressive

So, with this I expect number of upgrade lines to be reduced compared to Civ6. Most likely we'll see only one cavalry upgrade line (no more light / heavy distinction), but also I'm not sure if we'll have a separate anti-cavalry infantry, or just generic infantry line and distinction on unique unit level.

Also, I'm really curious, how ranged unit upgrade line would look this time. Since Civ5 (where ranged attack on the map was introduced) it's always a trouble to find historic ranged unit analogue, once regular infantry starts using rifles.

 

[Siptah]

Also, I'm really curious, how ranged unit upgrade line would look this time. Since Civ5 (where ranged attack on the map was introduced) it's always a trouble to find historic ranged unit analogue, once regular infantry starts using rifles.

I never understood why civ V and VI thought that it would be a good idea to have Musketeers and consorts as melee units. I hope this more akin to how Humankind does it in VII. It‘s certainly a way to make combat feel different in the last era.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I never understood why civ V and VI thought that it would be a good idea to have Musketeers and consorts as melee units. I hope this more akin to how Humankind does it in VII. It‘s certainly a way to make combat feel different in the last era.

Joining ranged and infantry lines into single line looks really logical. Not sure if they should still be ranged, though:

1. There's a standard rock-paper-scissors tactical balance of infantry-ranged-cavalry (in civ6 expanded with additional ring of sword-cavalry-spear). If we remove melee infantry, this balance has to be replaced with something
2. Historically, even with rifles infantry kept the role of short-range combat and long range niche took artillery. It's just range grew

 

[Leyrann]

Joining ranged and infantry lines into single line looks really logical. Not sure if they should still be ranged, though:

1. There's a standard rock-paper-scissors tactical balance of infantry-ranged-cavalry (in civ6 expanded with additional ring of sword-cavalry-spear). If we remove melee infantry, this balance has to be replaced with something
2. Historically, even with rifles infantry kept the role of short-range combat and long range niche took artillery. It's just range grew

So I suppose ranged units merge into the melee line at either Musketmen or Riflemen, while the siege line goes from providing only siege power to being usable in both sieges and regular combat (e.g. losing it's penalty vs units starting at Artillery or even Bombard)?

 

[stealth_nsk]

So I suppose ranged units merge into the melee line at either Musketmen or Riflemen, while the siege line goes from providing only siege power to being usable in both sieges and regular combat (e.g. losing it's penalty vs units starting at Artillery or even Bombard)?

Yep, though about it as well. Something like:

Infantry: (Antiquity) -> Warrior (confirmed) -> Swordsman (confirmed without name) -> (Exploration) -> Pikeman -> Musketeer -> (Modern) -> Line Infantry -> Modern Infantry
Ranged: (Antiquity) -> Slinger (confirmed) -> Archer (confirmed) -> (Exploration) -> Crossbowman (Confirmed) -> Musketeer
Artillery: (Antiquity) -> Catapult -> (Exploration) -> Trebuchet -> Bombard (also takes role of ranged units) -> (Modern) -> Cannon -> Artillery
Cavalry: (Antiquity) -> Chariot (confirmed) -> Horseman -> (Exploration) -> Knight...

Another possibility could be Crossbowman upgrading to Bombard, but I found the concept of ranged turned into melee to be more fun as it requires rebalancing army

EDIT: Added "confirmed" to Chariot as they are in Egypt description

 

[Arent11]

I never understood why civ V and VI thought that it would be a good idea to have Musketeers and consorts as melee units. I hope this more akin to how Humankind does it in VII. It‘s certainly a way to make combat feel different in the last era.

Well, in the earlier civs you didn't have ranged units.

Now that we have ranged units firing over 2 squares, giving musketeers some kind of 1 square firing would be appropriate. But it might also confuse players.

So, a better solution in my opinion would be to give archers & musketeers a special ability (for example attacking without retaliation but in melee) and have *only* artillery/cannons/catapults firing over several squares.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well, in the earlier civs you didn't have ranged units.

Now that we have ranged units firing over 2 squares, giving musketeers some kind of 1 square firing would be appropriate. But it might also confuse players.

So, a better solution in my opinion would be to give archers & musketeers a special ability (for example attacking without retaliation but in melee) and have *only* artillery/cannons/catapults firing over several squares.

It's possible, but we already saw archers having ranged fire, so it's surely not in this game.

 

[Takfloyd]

Well, in the earlier civs you didn't have ranged units.

Now that we have ranged units firing over 2 squares, giving musketeers some kind of 1 square firing would be appropriate. But it might also confuse players.

So, a better solution in my opinion would be to give archers & musketeers a special ability (for example attacking without retaliation but in melee) and have *only* artillery/cannons/catapults firing over several squares.

Civ III already did it exactly the way you suggest. Artillery/siege units including large naval units could fire from a distance, while "ranged" units like archers had the ability to get a free pre-emptive attack on enemy units attacking their tile. Usually this meant the enemy would be attacking your strong defensive unit like a spearman, and the archer sharing its tile would get an attack in without being directly attacked itself. Meanwhile, artillery units could damage multiple units on a single tile, counteracting doomstacking. I still think Civ III had the best combat in the series thanks to its elegant and intuitive systems.

 

[Arent11]

Civ III already did it exactly the way you suggest. Artillery/siege units including large naval units could fire from a distance, while "ranged" units like archers had the ability to get a free pre-emptive attack on enemy units attacking their tile. Usually this meant the enemy would be attacking your strong defensive unit like a spearman, and the archer sharing its tile would get an attack in without being directly attacked itself. Meanwhile, artillery units could damage multiple units on a single tile, counteracting doomstacking. I still think Civ III had the best combat in the series thanks to its elegant and intuitive systems.

That sounds pretty good.

But of course, it would also mean that you basically don't have melee units in modern times. Which is of course correct. But it might confuse players. They might ask "huh, why is my upgraded swordsman suddenly ranged"?

 

[Leyrann]

That sounds pretty good.

But of course, it would also mean that you basically don't have melee units in modern times. Which is of course correct. But it might confuse players. They might ask "huh, why is my upgraded swordsman suddenly ranged"?

To be fair, the answer "because he now has a gun" isn't that difficult to arrive at.

 

[Arent11]

To be fair, the answer "because he now has a gun" isn't that difficult to arrive at.

Well yes, having some kind of melee attack without retaliation might be a good compromise to simulate going from melee to ranged. You could imagine that your line infantry takes alternating shots at each other.

 

[stealth_nsk]

To be fair, the answer "because he now has a gun" isn't that difficult to arrive at.

I think the question here is the balance between gameplay and simulation. Having no melee units after gunpowder become popular is surely realistic, but it's not great for tactics. Keeping gunpowder infantry melee units (with ranged units being artillery) is much better for gameplay, while keeping very acceptable level of historical simulation.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think the question here is the balance between gameplay and simulation. Having no melee units after gunpowder become popular is surely realistic, but it's not great for tactics. Keeping gunpowder infantry melee units (with ranged units being artillery) is much better for gameplay, while keeping very acceptable level of historical simulation.

I'm not sure this is true. I think having war differ in the late game would be good for gameplay. Optimal tactics changing would help keep things fresh.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm not sure this is true. I think having war differ in the late game would be good for gameplay. Optimal tactics changing would help keep things fresh.

Yes, having different war late game is great, but it needs to still be tactical. And removing melee units doesn't help here as a lot of maneuvers are based on them.

I imaging late game changing with things like aerial units, new commander tricks, increased artillery range and so on.

 

[AriochIV]

It does appear as if gunpowder units fight each other at range. There are a few shots in the trailer in which gunpowder units appear to be engaged (firing animation) and not in adjacent hexes.

Hopefully they have something with indirect fire like a mortar for the modern ranged unit instead of machine gun.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It does appear as if gunpowder units fight each other at range. There are a few shots in the trailer in which gunpowder units appear to be engaged (firing animation) and not in adjacent hexes.

I don't think trailer is a reliable gameplay information source. At some point it has archers shooting 3 tiles away.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't think trailer is a reliable gameplay information source. At some point it has archers shooting 3 tiles away.

Not sure which clip you mean. The farthest shot I noticed was this, and it looks like they're 2 tiles away.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Not sure which clip you mean. The farthest shot I noticed was this, and it looks like they're 2 tiles away.

I'm speaking about trailer, here

The image:

 

[AriochIV]

I'm speaking about trailer, here

The image:
View attachment 703563

They're not firing in that clip. The units busy in the foreground are doing the Fortify animation.

 

[stealth_nsk]

They're not firing in that clip. The units busy in the foreground are doing the Fortify animation.

You're right! I rewatched it a couple of times and yes, no one seem to be firing