Unit changes disscusion

[need my speed]

That, yes. In my opinion, cavalry should be the open field melee+siege counterpart, simply put.

 

[Ogi123]

I would argue that the lack of defensive bonusses sufficiently balanced out the advantages of extra movement. Also, 25% city combat penalty is significant. Especially when arquebusiers can get 25% defensive bonus from fortifying, plus any defensive bonusses.

Sufficiently fortified arquebusiers and pikemen were a match for heavy cavalry unless siege units come into play. That seems reasonable to me, since there's no reason cavalry couldn't and didn't dismount for siege battles. The question is if they were cost effective for the result, but there's no need for them not to be equally effective to other units in this. Example in case; cavalry equiped with pistols and grenadiers were apparantly a thing in attacking strong defensive positions during the English civil war.

I can agree that balance is needed to prevent all-heavy cavalry army (though the Mongols and Chinese might disagree), but all-arquebusier armies are equally ridiculous. That's the case now though, considering the very unfavourable cost-to-strength ratio of cavalry. Disproportionate costs should only be used when units are significantly stronger, not when they're on equal terms (even if they have their own niche).

The main problem with this is that in civ4 offence is superior in every way to defence. So no defensive bonuses aren't equal to increased mobility and higher strength.

 

[Leon Michiel]

Ok, it doesn't seem I'll be able to convince anybody here today.

Today I played a game where French arquebusiers were attacking a city with walls and a castle with longbowmen, and winning handily. No siege needed.

It comes down to flavour I suppose.

 

[Ogi123]

That's because gunpowder units ignore walls and castles. But usually I just bring siege units with CRII, then it doesn't matter what units mop up city defenders.

 

[Ogi123]

So about those naval units... hey I'm only three weeks late.

Transport ships - main thing here its that each next unit should have better cargo capacity and movement that previous versions. You will not risk loaded transport anyway so higher it's bit pointless. All units obsolete previous version. No withdrawal chance, they are transport not combat ships.

1)Galley - 3, 3, 2 cargo, 40.
2)Cog - 5, 4, 3 cargo, 60. Loses withdrawal but gains and cargo space. This IMHO makes it better at it intended role of transport.
3)Galleon - 8, 6, 4 cargo, 80.
4)Steamship - 12, 7, 5 cargo, 100. New transport unit at thermodynamics or metallurgy. Requires coal. To patch up hole between sail age galleon and transport.
5)Transport - 16, 8, 6 cargo, 120.

Raider ships - At beginning hidden nationality ships, in later stages resourceless coast boats and submarines. All units have 50% retreat chance.

1)Pirate - 3, 3, +50% vs transport ships, start with sentry and prize crew promotions (gold for destroying enemy ships), 40. Requires contract and shipbuilding. Hidden nationality.
2)Corsair - 5, 4, +50% vs transport ships, start with sentry and prize crew promotions, 60. Compass and shipbuilding. Hidden nationality. Obsoletes Pirate.
3)Privateer - 9, 6, +50% vs transport ships, start with sentry and prize crew promotions, 90. Hidden nationality. Slightly less but better at hunting enemy galleons. Obsoletes Corsair.
4)Caravel - 6, 6, 60. Upgrades to torpedo boat.
5)Torpedo boat - 14, 5, 1FS, +50% coast attack, 120. Made faster because 3 was way to slow, it also should be resourceless to give civs without access to coal or oil ability to build something. Obsoletes Privateer.
6)Submarine - 18, 8, 50% retreat, +50% attack vs transport and capital ships, flanking against transport type, 160. Reduced retreat chance and somewhat because of other bonuses.
7)Missile boat - 20, 6, 1FS, +50% coast attack, 160. At rocketry. Successor to torpedo boat, should also be resourceless. Obsoletes torpedo boat.
8)Attack submarine - 26, 10 , 50% retreat, +50% attack vs transport and capital ships, flanking against transport type, 220. Obsoletes submarine. Requires oil or uranium. This units got renamed to represent modern subs both nuclear and diesel.

Rest later. Going sleep.

 

[Ogi123]

So about those escort and capital ships. Main problem here is that in current version, in age of coal ships, they are all cluttered one after another. You have SoL, ironclad and cruiser in consecutive tech rows.
I know that it's because of crazy tech pace in latter half of XIX century. Glorie was launched in 1859 and dreadnought in 1906. That's mere 46 years or what 23 turns. No way to portrait staggering tech pace correctly. We could try split it into coastal attack battleship and high seas armoured cruiser, but here gameplay should triumph over historical accuracy.
Still by splitting naval units into it's own distinctive combat types and doing some reshuffling in tech tree we can at least try alleviate this.

Escort ships/Light ships - Initially main combat ships in later game transition to anti raider anti aircraft ships. All units have 25% retreat chance.

1)War galley - 4, 3, 40.
2)Heavy galley - 6, 4, 60.
3)Galleass - 8, 4, 80.
First three ships are basically just stronger versions of one another, galleass lost coast bonus but gained . No point of this bonus for unit that cannot enter ocean.
4)Frigate - 10, 6, +50% vs raider ships, 100. Made weaker but with bonus against raiders, to often it was winning against SoL. This way it can be useful in it's own niche.
5)Destroyer - 16, 8, +50% vs raider ships, 20% interception, 160. At ballistics. Detects invisible units, and shots down biplanes. Because currently there no way to do it until electronics. Obsoletes frigate. New graphics will be needed, something akin to WWI era destroyer.
6)Escort destroyer - 20, 10, +50% vs raider ships, 35% interception, 200. Replaced and improved anti submarine/torpedo boat bonus. Obsoletes destroyer.
7)Stealth destroyer/Modern destroyer - 26, 12, +50% vs raider ships, 50% interception, 230. Gain interception to make it better escort. Obsoletes escort destroyer.

Capital ships - You main sea combatant, high , lower than escorts/light ships, cause collateral damage.

1)Ship of the Line - 12, 5, 120. Somewhat slower to differentiate it from frigate.
2)Cruiser - 20, 6, 200. Engine, collateral as ironclad. Ironclad by itself was removed to not crowd SoL.
3)Battleship - 30, 8, 240. Weaker to not needlessly inflate other ships .
4)Missile cruiser - 40, 10, 300. Relatively stronger to beat battleship easier.
5)Carrier - 18, 8, 3 cargo(fighters), 200.
6)Super carrier - 22, 10, 4 cargo(fighters), 240. Available at aerodynamics.

There also will be need for new promotions +25% vs combat type.
I also thought about going with capital/escort split from start but then new unit graphic and reshuffling early tech tree units will be necessary. Any ideas?

EDIT: Changed unit to lower, otherwise there was to much cliff between units and missile cruiser should be 50 or more. Added price. Please reread unit listing.

 

[Ogi123]

So to finalize this list, quick mention of air units. They are more or less OK with one glaring problem of biplane -> fighter. Biplanes are almost newer build because you can research aviation directly after flight.
Solution here is remove biplane and bring back airship, who will obsolete at synthetics.
Airship - 8, 6, can destroy title improvements and bombard cities 8%, detects submarines, 100, upgrades to bomber.
I would also increase fighter to sixteen, but that because I don't usually like uneven numbers on units.
Thoughts and opinions?

 

[Ogi123]

Since nobody commented on naval units I copied them into second post to have everything in one place.

 

[1SDANi]

What's the XML tag for ignoring enemy terrain defense modifiers as stated for skirmishers? Or does that not exist?

 

[Ogi123]

Doesn't exist I'm afraid. If you don't want to brother with making it, you can substitute it with appropriate +% attack bonuses.

 

[1SDANi]

Doesn't exist I'm afraid. If you don't want to brother with making it, you can substitute it with appropriate +% attack bonuses.

That's what I ended up doing, I'll be pushing the skirmisher changes soon.