Unique Units

[SadoMacho]

Just Command for panzer might be a bit to weak for a UU, something against gunpowder units (infantry) would be needed

 

[scu98rkr]

1. More native units than European (this can be upgraded once you've captured your first city)

2. The conquerors event needs to be linked to your current power rating. At the moment you often get many more conquerors than you have other troops.

The Europe contingent of the conquerors should be linked to the Europeans nations power.
The Native contingent of the conquerors should be linked to the respective Native nations power.

The time limits for the conquerors event should be removed and it can happen any time after the maya spawn.

 

[PPK]

I remember playing another mod a while ago in which immortals were a strength 5 spearman, with free march promotions and a bonus when defending on hills. I forget what the mod was called, but I remember it having Texas and Israel as playable civs and also two UU's per civilization. It should be pretty easy to take the unit out of that mod - if it's creators are cool with that - and put it in Rhyes. And could someone help me remember the name of that mod? I'd love to play it again.

 

[Panopticon]

Good changes Rhye but
1. Will slow Immortals make Persian UHV more difficult?
2. Panzer seems weak.

 

[civ_king]

Immortals were armed with wicker shield, short spears, swords or large daggers, bow and arrow
how the heck do you convey that? also Persia had skilled archers
also, the immortals in the game are likely based off of the Sassinid "Immortals" which were indeed cavalry

 

[ThurinEthir]

Perhaps the "new" immortals still could could move 2 tiles per turn? Or would that be overpowered? They traveled very lightly, I'm pretty sure - they wore robes/light armor, and had wicker shields (as civ_king said). Nothing too heavy, so I'd assume they could still move pretty fast.
Oh, and ancient Persia had that highway. Of course, that has nothing to do with the unit - but we can twist it a bit if needed I'm sure.

 

[BurnEmDown]

Just remember that Bowmen and the new Persian Spearmen would have 50% against each other, which means no bonuses. Then we'll have the archer's +def from city, city's cultural defense, and fortify bonus, that could come up to Archer 6STR V immortal 4 STR, even with CR the archer would have about 4.5 STR.
I think keeping the Immortal the way they are and give them more withdraw rate is better (you can see the withdraw as units escaping the lost fight and then they heal (replace the fallen soldiers).
Also Camel archers can cross desert tiles with ease, check yourself in a 600AD start.

 

[civ_king]

yeah, better withdraw rate and March

 

[blizzrd]

these are the changes I'd like to do.
Are you OK with this?

Keshik: instead of +50% against siege, 3 movement to cover Asia's long distances (something will be done, on the other hand, to hamper Mongolia's easy stability)

A good improvement.

Camel Archer: ignores terrain movement cost (as they are in desert)

Seems logical, but I don't see any real need to improve what I already consider to be the most powerful UU for its era.

Immortal: as it's the only completely inaccurate unit in the game, replaced with a real immortal: a spearman that costs less (25) (for representing the ease of recruiting a constant 10000 men army) and has 50% attack against archers (babylonian bowmen included)

Something needs to be done about Immortals, but this doesn't seem like a solution. One movement will make the Persian UHV significantly harder to complete. Attack bonus against Archers will not mean much against the Babylonian UU, which essentially negates this with their ability. Then with the city defense bonuses inherent for the defenders, Persian is pushing uphill all the way into Babylon.

How about a cheaper Spearman with double movement through hills which ignores first strikes and also has a 50% attack against archers?

Jaguar: attack back to 6

Better than it was, but still hopeless against Dog Soldiers.

Quechua: replaces axeman (and will get its stats) instead of warrior, requires mining (so that it isnt necessary to give bronze working to Inca, like I previously did with Aztecs)

Much better.

Holkan: +25% against melee

This will give the Mayans some chance of surviving until the Aztec spawn. They probably still won't make it though, but isn't that what you want Rhye?

East Indiaman: 4 cargo

Wow, they were already strong as it was.

Panzer: no 50% against tanks; Commando instead

More relevant.

If there are to be no changes to the Carthaginian Numidian Cavalry, could you please please please please change the starting units for Carthage to include a War Elephant in the mix of units?

 

[civ_king]

the East Indiaman previously got 5!!!! which is more than a transport

 

[Rhye]

what if I restore Warlords settings for the babylonian bowman.
It was 2-3 first strike and collateral damage. No bonus against melee.
Otherwise, a bonus against mounted, which will help against barbarians but not against persians.
Immortals could be given 100% against archers instead.

 

[Rhye]

Seems logical, but I don't see any real need to improve what I already consider to be the most powerful UU for its era.

I forgot that I already set in the SDK the ignoring of desert cost.
Judgin from the stats, the camels looks a very little improvement over cavalry. I'd raise the percent of withdrawing from 15 to 25.

If there are to be no changes to the Carthaginian Numidian Cavalry, could you please please please please change the starting units for Carthage to include a War Elephant in the mix of units?

This one instead seems a quite good unit. What's wrong with that?

 

[civ_king]

I forgot that I already set in the SDK the ignoring of desert cost.
Judgin from the stats, the camels looks a very little improvement over cavalry. I'd raise the percent of withdrawing from 15 to 25.




This one instead seems a quite good unit. What's wrong with that?

buff its strength by one and give it mobility and it would be good, otherwise it's weaker than the Praetorian but comes with a more expensive and dead end tech

 

[blizzrd]

This one instead seems a quite good unit. What's wrong with that?

Carthage hires units, doesn't build them. I haven't got my map handy, but from memory their aren't many horse resources in North Africa either? As civ_king says, Numidian Cavalry are inferior to Praetorians.

They don't have flavour either. My point with Carthage needing a starting War Elephant is that it would add flavour. The flavour is what makes RFC special to play, these sort of little details.

 

[blizzrd]

what if I restore Warlords settings for the babylonian bowman.
It was 2-3 first strike and collateral damage. No bonus against melee.
Otherwise, a bonus against mounted, which will help against barbarians but not against persians.
Immortals could be given 100% against archers instead.

Babylonian bowman is really tough to beat currently. Babylon which has researched the UU is really harsh for Persia or anyone else who wants to conquer, it often takes a re-rolled start to get Babylon without access to their UU to make a fist of conquering them.

The lack of mobility by switching Immortals from mounted to spearman will make a large difference to Persia's chances of conquering lands between India and Egypt to get the UHV.

While I like the suggested change to spearman, they need to still be able to move quickly across Persia's empire. Without giving them 2 movement everywhere, I suggested double movement in hills only - of which there are still plenty across Persia's territory.

 

[SadoMacho]

I would really add flanking against infantry to panzers. This would show the superiour tactical strenght of the blitzkrieg tacticts of the German armored spearheaddoctine during WWII.

 

[Rhye]

latest updates:

Keshik: instead of +50% against siege, 3 movement to cover Asia's long distances (something will be done, on the other hand, to hamper Mongolia's easy stability)

Jaguar: attack back to 6

Quechua: replaces axeman (and will get its stats) instead of warrior, requires mining (so that it isnt necessary to give bronze working to Inca, like I previously did with Aztecs)

Holkan: +25% against melee

East Indiaman: 4 cargo

Panzer: no 50% against tanks; Commando and 25% against gunpowder units (no flanking, didn't exist in Warlords and vanilla) instead

Camel Archer: 25% chance of withdrawing instead of 15%

Numidian cavalry: now ignores desert movement cost (added by SDK)

Immortal: as it's the only completely inaccurate unit in the game, replaced with a real immortal: a spearman that costs less (25) (for representing the ease of recruiting a constant 10000 men army) and has 100% attack against archers (babylonian bowmen included).
Chariots added to the mix of Persian starting units (old immortal replaced chariots, which is inaccutare since we know that Persians used them in battles)

Bowman: causes collateral damage (40%, close to a catapult) instead of bonus against melee

 

[blizzrd]

Numidian cavalry: now ignores desert movement cost (added by SDK)

Does this mean no starting War Elephant? I'm OK with the improvement, but I don't think I'm ever going to build a Numidian Cavalry unit - even if they can cross the desert quickly.

Immortal: as it's the only completely inaccurate unit in the game, replaced with a real immortal: a spearman that costs less (25) (for representing the ease of recruiting a constant 10000 men army) and has 100% attack against archers (babylonian bowmen included).
Chariots added to the mix of Persian starting units (old immortal replaced chariots, which is inaccutare since we know that Persians used them in battles)

This is a good idea. Persia can probably conquer still India with the Chariots while the Immortals head to the west.

Bowman: causes collateral damage (40%, close to a catapult) instead of bonus against melee

Will the AI know how to use this ability? Or does the AI only know how to use siege units to cause collateral damage? I've never seen the AI use a tank for collateral damage for instance - just worried that the AI will never use a Babylonian bowman either if you give it collateral damage abilities.

Taking away the bonus against melee is good, as these were otherwise overly strong against the pre-mounted units that they typically have to face up to.

I'm liking these suggested changes already Rhye. Now if only you could find a way to include a War Elephant in Carthage's starting units and Christmas will really come early this year. Well, I suppose I'd just have to fall off my chair completely if both the War Elephant thing and the Australian resources thing were included in the next patch.

 

[Rhye]

Australian resources are partially included.

UNITAI_COLLATERAL can easily be set

But I don't see how a war elephant in the starting units will make you build more numidian cavalry (without counting that Carthage starts much earlier than Construction)

 

[vidimce]

Wanna add that the Panzer that is shown in the game is a Panzer V or Panther tank, one of the best tank designs in WW2. Its argued to be the one of best tanks in WW2 and gave hell to the allies. It was also primarily used for fighting enemy armor and not infantry. The Panzers that you are talking about are the early Panzer IVs that were infantry fighting tanks. However even the Panzer 4s switched later in the war to engage armor as well and were equipped with heavier guns.

So changing the Panzer in that way would not really be accurate.
Maybe a 25 % for armor and 25% for gunpowder units instead of eliminating the armor bonus completely.