Speculation on units

[Ornen]

personally I'd love to see muskets as a hybrid. capable in melee, but with a punchy 1-tile ranged attack on cooldown

with tech upgrades, you can not only up the strength, but expand the range and reduce/remove the cooldown, as small arms go from being a tool in the kit to the mainstay of modern armies

I could use more unit diversity in general, there's no reason a stone age warrior and a rifleman should behave the same way. give me shoot-and-scoot, one tile ranged attacks, AOE, units that play with zones-of-control. Civ 6 units are pretty boring but the early uniques we've seen have me intrigued

 

[stealth_nsk]

After looking at videos in details, it looks like those units are actually in melee range if you try to draw hexes:

 

[stealth_nsk]

personally I'd love to see muskets as a hybrid. capable in melee, but with a punchy 1-tile ranged attack on cooldown

with tech upgrades, you can not only up the strength, but expand the range and reduce/remove the cooldown, as small arms go from being a tool in the kit to the mainstay of modern armies

I could use more unit diversity in general, there's no reason a stone age warrior and a rifleman should behave the same way. give me shoot-and-scoot, one tile ranged attacks, AOE, units that play with zones-of-control. Civ 6 units are pretty boring but the early uniques we've seen have me intrigued

I don't think that sort of customization is needed for base units - those just need to provide some working tactics. Unique units are much more fun territory (especially now when we get a unique unit in each age). So, I totally expect some unique gunpowder unit replacement to have 1-tile range ranged attack, for example.

 

[AriochIV]

After looking at videos in details, it looks like those units are actually in melee range if you try to draw hexes:

View attachment 703570

View attachment 703569

In the second clip, I'm referring to the infantry -- they're doing the firing animation but they're clearly not adjacent to the enemy T-34's.

As for the first clip... are you being serious or is that a joke?

edit: Heh, sorry for the snark. I tried putting a hex grid over the top trying to fit over the map features (particularly the wonder behind the unit), but it's not quite perfect.

 

[stealth_nsk]

In the second clip, I'm referring to the infantry -- they're doing the firing animation but they're clearly not adjacent to the enemy T-34's.

As for the first clip... are you being serious or is that a joke?

edit: Heh, sorry for the snark. I tried putting a hex grid over the top trying to fit over the map features (particularly the wonder behind the unit), but it's not quite perfect.

View attachment 703575

I think you're breaking perspective here. People on the front are more than twice taller than people at the back (in pixels), so hexes should be twice as big.

EDIT: in the second clip I also see only engaged units. From left to right, upper units first: tank vs. tank, infantry vs. infantry, mobile infantry vs. tank, infantry vs. infantry, tank vs. tank

 

[AriochIV]

I think you're breaking perspective here. People on the front are more than twice taller than people at the back (in pixels), so hexes should be twice as big.

Yeah, I think the perspective isn't extreme enough, which is why it doesn't fit. But I think it can clearly be said that the units are not adjacent.

Engaged units that are adjacent are right on top of each other. In this clip you can see the hex lines.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Engaged units that are adjacent are right on top of each other. In this clip you can see the hex lines.

Those are engaged animation when both units use melee weapons. When at least one unit has rifles, the animation doesn't involve physical engagement

 

[AriochIV]

Those are engaged animation when both units use melee weapons. When at least one unit has rifles, the animation doesn't involve physical engagement

So, is it your argument that those modern infantry in the second clip are adjacent to the T-34's?

 

[stealth_nsk]

So, is it your argument that those modern infantry in the second clip are adjacent to the T-34's?

Yeah, it looks like they are.

Also, speaking about those elephants against rifles - you drew hexes in the way what one of the elephant is on the border between hexes. If you imaging them standing in the center of adjacent hexes, everything just snaps together. It looks like a weird perspective thing to me.

 

[AriochIV]

Yeah, it looks like they are.

What? How is A here adjacent to B?

 

[AriochIV]

I had another go at the elephant shot, and it sort of works if the elephants are set way in the back of their hexes. So I think you may be right on that one.

 

[Leyrann]

What? How is A here adjacent to B?
View attachment 703581

They're not, however there is a unit on the oasis, which is what A is fighting.

 

[Krikkit1]

The way I see it happening

Melee & Ranged upgrades to Hybrid Muskets (with some aspects of both)

When the Era changes, the Muskets upgrade to a pure Melee Modern Age Infantry (since it happens with everyone at once, everyone loses their non-Siege range attacks simultaneously.

 

[AriochIV]

They're not, however there is a unit on the oasis, which is what A is fighting.

Oh, heheh. Derp.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Oh, heheh. Derp.

The likely reason you didn't see them is that they're obscured by smoke/dust. Which begs of the question of whether that's a tactical factor or purely visual? Is it intended to represent dust from the tank unit you labelled "B" or is it intended to represent that it is harder to hit them because they're obscured? Or is that trying to represent that they are under fire? Not just that unit, either. The tank unit labelled "B" is unobscured, but the tank to it's left (almost offscreen) looks to be heavily obscured.

 

[AriochIV]

The likely reason you didn't see them is that they're obscured by smoke/dust. Which begs of the question of whether that's a tactical factor or purely visual? Is it intended to represent dust from the tank unit you labelled "B" or is it intended to represent that it is harder to hit them because they're obscured? Or is that trying to represent that they are under fire? Not just that unit, either. The tank unit labelled "B" is unobscured, but the tank to it's left (almost offscreen) looks to be heavily obscured.

It looks like smoke and dust is part of the combat engagement animation, which is pretty cool.

They have some really nice smoke effects all over the place. There are some shots of rain forest where there's mist rolling up from the ground.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The way I see it happening

Melee & Ranged upgrades to Hybrid Muskets (with some aspects of both)

When the Era changes, the Muskets upgrade to a pure Melee Modern Age Infantry (since it happens with everyone at once, everyone loses their non-Siege range attacks simultaneously.

Yes, I also thought what joining melee and ranged infantry together is best done on age transition. It's like "scale just changed" thing.

One of the ways to do it is to shuffle units a bit. Potentially Musketeers could be a ranged unit, an upgrade for Crossbowmen. And melee path would go up to Pikemen instead (not sure how to call base exploration unit in this case). So, on age transition both Pikemen and Musketeers could upgrade to Line Infantry, now fully melee. And Cannons, upgraded from Bombards, no longer require setup, take role of ranged units.

 

[sTAPler27]

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.

Like if it was consistent I could tolerate it you know but what do you mean that archers are a ranged unit but musketeers aren't?

 

[Olleus]

Distance scales is always nonsense in Civ, trying to make it coherent just breaks everything else. Making muskets ranged units because archers/crossbows are ranged just delays the problem. Do you then make riflemen / WW1 infantry ranged because muskets are ranged? So you also make tanks and mechanised infantry ranged too? Then you're just saying that post 1600 all combat is ranged, which completely destroys the balance.

Much better to keep muskets as melee, but give them (eg) +50% vs archery units (both attack and defence) to represent how they dominated, and move on. The interpretation is that we're viewing gunpowder combat at a more zoomed scale than ancient combat (but still less zoomed out than the global map until the 20th century).

 

[Black Gate]

I've always seen ranged vs melee in Civ to be about how your projectile moves. Shoot in an arc? Ranged. Shoot in a line? Melee. Apparently the really old games (maybe this changed in Civ3?) didn't really have this distinction.