Unit changes disscusion

[1SDANi]

Random thought I had, perhaps (Archery/Siege) units could be (good/bad) at dealing collateral damage to units (not in/in) cities, effectively making archery units a good shock and city defense unit and siege units good at attacking cities. Perhaps cannons could be the first siege units that are good at dealing collateral damage to units who are not in cities, making siege units take Archery units' role when they leave the tech tree.

I'm not sure if this is even close to historical, but it would give another reason to use Archery units outside of city/hill defense and weaken siege units' role as the unconditional combat unit to build.

 

[Ogi123]

I have thought of that, but this is basically splitting single function of collateral damage into two units, so I'm not great fan of such solution.
If we want find bit more universal niche for early archery units perhaps dual use counter could be solution?
So archer is 3 1FS +50% vs melee and light cavalry, while crossbow becomes 6 1FS +50% vs melee and light cavalry. Of course this warrant changes to heavy cavalry as to not make them city attack units, so -50% city is solution I guess. This is overall problem with changing even single unit, you need to rebalance rest of unit roster.
For example in my game I finally decided to change heavy sword to 9, this made necessary to change pike into 9 +50% vs melee and heavy horse. I also needed to change horse archer. So I initially give it 1FS and +50% vs heavy sword, this however made swordsman better at fighting HA. After some deliberation I finally changed it to +50% vs melee units.

 

[Ogi123]

Okay edited everything into second post for consistency sake. Now I will think about naval and air units, because let me tell you navy needs massive overhaul.

 

[Ogi123]

So about that navy I think it should be split in four unit types:

-Transport ships, they well transport you troops...
-Escort ships, initially you main combatant in later eras they defend against raiders and aircraft.
-Capital ships, start at age of sail from ship of the line, takes over as main sea combatant.
-Raider ships, at beginning pirate ships with hidden nationality. Later splits into resourceless coast ships and submarines.

 

[Leon Michiel]

New update, mostly unit balance changes:
- Swordsman: +10% city attack
- Heavy Swordsman: requires Civil Service and Stell, removed +25% against Melee units, +10% city attack
- Pikeman: strength 8, +50% against Melee and Heavy Cavalry units
- Arquebusier: strength 10, reduced cost to 70
- Musketman: +10% against Arquebusier, reduced cost to 90
- Skirmisher: +25% forest and rainforest attack
- Kelebolo: +50% against Heavy Cavalry units
- Longbowman: +50% forest and rainforest attack, removed +25% against Light Cavalry units
- Crossbowman: +25% against Light Cavalry
- Lancer: increased cost to 100
- Pistolier: 40% retreat chance, reduced cost to 80
- Cuirassier: increased cost to 120
- Hussar: 50% retreat chance, reduced cost to 100
- Dragoon: increased cost to 140
- Cavalry: now Light Cavalry, 50% retreat chance
- War Elephant: removed -25% against Archery units
- Siege units: 50% retreat chance, reduced number of units affected by collateral damage
- Catapult, Trebuchet: reduced collateral damage

I'm not sure I like the change to the power balance between arquebusiers and lancers considering their cost. Arquabusiers now have a .14 strength per tool value and lancers and cuirassiers.10 strength per tool value. Effectively arquabusiers are 40% stronger than lancers and cuirassiers?

From both game balance and historicity, this doesn't seem right to me. Cuirassiers were used as late as the Napoleonic wars and lancers were employed as late as the first world war so they must have had some utility.

Perhaps a significant strength bonus in open terrain or alternatively outside cities, but otherwise weak on defence? Or make arquebusiers cost and strength match, with arquabusiers being the cheap but plentiful option and the heavy cavalry line the expensive but powerful.

Haven't really considered and looked into musketmen yet btw

 

[Leoreth]

I don't think your calculation is entirely fair, because it assumes the only unit value is its combat strength. Cavalry needs to be more expensive than infantry because they have 2 moves alone, which significantly increases their strategic utility. I also think it is very historical that Arquebusiers are stronger than Lancers. While the longbow was already fatal to heavy cavalry, the wide availability of easily trained arquebusiers is what put an end to the era of heavily armoured cavalry.

Cuirassiers are a different question, maybe they need to be a bit stronger against Arquebusiers. But that needs to be situational, otherwise Cuirassier armies are still the best way to go, even if they are more expensive. I originally had an open terrain attack modifier for them, I will consider bringing it back now that Arquebusiers are stronger again.

Also, please don't be too literal in the interpretation of unit names. Terms like Lancer, Cuirassier or Hussar (or even "Cavalry") were in use over very long time periods with varying meanings. In the game, those names are used loosely to refer to different generations of technology and military doctrine. So a Lancer is very much a medieval cavalry unit (i.e. knights in Europe), a Cuirassier is a Renaissance unit. Napoleonic era cuirassiers are represented by the Dragoon unit.

 

[Ogi123]

Must resist urge to dispel longbow and early firearms myth...
Anyway heavy horse is strong because of combination 2, high base and access to stables. Lancers for example are still better than arqebus they real is 12, while first gunpowder unit is 11 (combat promotions). That despite how much earlier lancer is available. Only saving grace of arqebus is lower price point.
About recent changes, my proposition was to increase and utility of other units to stop heavy cavalry spam. But I reflected that it would be simpler to reduce it's , instead of buffing everything else. So perhaps go for horseman (6) -> lancer (9/90) -> cuirassier (11/110) -> dragoon (13/130), cavalry can then be either 15/150 or 13/+25% open terrain /150.
This way current heavy sword can be made useful, because as for now 8 for 70 so late is useless. I guess arquebus then can be reduced to 9 and musketman lose +10% bonus against it.
My other observation is that perhaps we gone to far with nerfing siege units. I approve of limiting CD and retreat to 50%, but either reduce costs or increase back.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Must resist urge to dispel longbow and early firearms myth...

Please don't, I for one always enjoy learning more about (military) history.

 

[Ogi123]

To make complicated issue simple: longbow wasn't any kind of special weapon, it's ability to pierce plate armour is pure myth. Well it could do it at flat trajectory, but that's below 20m, good luck at withstanding charge at this distance...
Early mass used firearms were more accurate and much, much deadlier than crossbows or bows, they were also much more expensive. Not to mention that early in they use gunpowder was also rare and expensive.
There is a reason that after advent of gunpowder all armies moved to it abandoning often long standing archery traditions. Our ancestors weren't dumb, gunpowder weaponry, even early models, was simply better in every conceivably ways.

 

[Pepo]

They weren't that much accurate, and the fire rate was actually lower than the longbows. However the skill required to use firearms was much lower than the longbows, so they could actually be used on permanent armies. Compare that to longbows that basically require people to be specialized on using then all their life. At the end of the day, it was much more economical to give everyone firearms than to train them to use longbows

 

[Ogi123]

No it wasn't using longbow is extremely tiring, there is no chance of keeping sustained fire rate, secondly yes they were accurate.
How do you think longbows fired? Answer is parabolic trajectory, as such it was same mass fire as arqebus. On shooting competitions when both have time, firearms were more accurate because of much higher velocity and flat trajectory.
And I already wrote that early firearms were expensive, it's just that they were better.
Centralized permanent armies had nothing to do with gunpowder and everything with absolutism and bureaucracy.
Really you would think that size of "renaissance" armies would put myth of cheap mass used firearms out of its misery. Only French revolution and later Napoleonic era were when such thing happened, and it was more evolution of infantry tactics, nationalism and logistics that made it possible.

 

[Pepo]

They were bigger than feudal armies. Just compare the size of the armies employed during the one hundred year war to the ones of the 16th century.But the key aspect is not size, but who is paying it. Sure the absolute number is a joke compared to the seven year war and ofc the Napoleonic war, but those troops were mainly finance by the state, not by some guys with a castle as before. As for the word cheap, it is always comparative. They were much cheaper than longbows? No, as you say they were expensier, but the training was, economically speaking ,much cheaper with gunpowder weapons. We could say that longbowmen were time-intensive, in that they require a longer time to be train compare to labor-intensive musket man who were train more easily. The overall picture, the longbows weren't a good force for a professional army, either by the state or mercenary. The change from feudal armies to state maintain armies is huge, and it was a very important reason for phasing out longbows as range weapons. Ofc the main weapon of the Renaissance is the pike, that in some armies it was paid by the troops themselves

 

[Ogi123]

But in those wars bulk of armies were often professional mercenaries, both before and after gunpowder.
Feudal system of 14th century France was totally different than one in 12th century. Armies were more often compromised from professional man at arms than levied knights.
My main problem is that people think that longbows were some kind of super weapon, an early plate armour piercing machine gun. It wasn't, in contemporary sources there isn't any differentiation between English and continental bows. It was weapon that gained fame due to excellent English tactics, not some technological wonder.

 

[Leon Michiel]

I don't think your calculation is entirely fair, because it assumes the only unit value is its combat strength. Cavalry needs to be more expensive than infantry because they have 2 moves alone, which significantly increases their strategic utility. I also think it is very historical that Arquebusiers are stronger than Lancers. While the longbow was already fatal to heavy cavalry, the wide availability of easily trained arquebusiers is what put an end to the era of heavily armoured cavalry.

I agree that there are other aspects to consider, but then we should also consider the lack of defensive bonuses and the penalty to city fighting.

How useful is another movement point really to combat strength?

As for the historicity of it, the arquebus and cavalry lance are vastly different weapons with different utility and different context. Consider that:
- Renaissance armies were for the most part pike armies supported by arquebusiers.
- The classical image of the fully armoured (gothic) knight/cavalryman developed in the same period as the arquebus.

It was not until the turn of the 17th century that formations of fire arms began to become a thing (see Battle of Nieuwpoort) and gradually led to the phasing out of the pike. Improvements in fire arms began overpowering developments in 'knightly' armour around this time.

Cuirassiers are a different question, maybe they need to be a bit stronger against Arquebusiers. But that needs to be situational, otherwise Cuirassier armies are still the best way to go, even if they are more expensive. I originally had an open terrain attack modifier for them, I will consider bringing it back now that Arquebusiers are stronger again.

Open terrain modifiers make allot of sense to me.

Also better in terms of game design; people just don't like the idea of penalties. Better to give every other unit a bonus to city fighting, than cavalry a penalty.

Also, please don't be too literal in the interpretation of unit names. Terms like Lancer, Cuirassier or Hussar (or even "Cavalry") were in use over very long time periods with varying meanings. In the game, those names are used loosely to refer to different generations of technology and military doctrine. So a Lancer is very much a medieval cavalry unit (i.e. knights in Europe), a Cuirassier is a Renaissance unit. Napoleonic era cuirassiers are represented by the Dragoon unit.

Point taken. My main critique is that the current rendition of post-gunpowder cavalry has too little utility in the game balance and is also a-historical. An armoured unit of cavalry would absolutely destroy any formation of arquebusiers, no contest, unless sufficiently fortified or supported by pike formations. Currently this is not the case. Cavalry can't even go toe-to-toe with fire arm units simply because they have significantly higher production cost.

Again, cavalry was heavily used as late as the First World War, after which tanks took over their battlefield role.

 

[Leon Michiel]

Must resist urge to dispel longbow and early firearms myth...
Anyway heavy horse is strong because of combination 2, high base and access to stables. Lancers for example are still better than arqebus they real is 12, while first gunpowder unit is 11 (combat promotions). That despite how much earlier lancer is available. Only saving grace of arqebus is lower price point.
About recent changes, my proposition was to increase and utility of other units to stop heavy cavalry spam. But I reflected that it would be simpler to reduce it's , instead of buffing everything else. So perhaps go for horseman (6) -> lancer (9/90) -> cuirassier (11/110) -> dragoon (13/130), cavalry can then be either 15/150 or 13/+25% open terrain /150.
This way current heavy sword can be made useful, because as for now 8 for 70 so late is useless. I guess arquebus then can be reduced to 9 and musketman lose +10% bonus against it.
My other observation is that perhaps we gone to far with nerfing siege units. I approve of limiting CD and retreat to 50%, but either reduce costs or increase back.

I am with you on the balancing, but please do take cost into account.

Currently, arquebusier have 10 strength for 70 cost. Lancers have 10 strength at 100 cost and cuirassiers 12 strength at 120 costs.

Where is the high base combat strength of heavy cavalry? I can almost get 20 strength in arquabusiers for the cost of one cuirassier with 12 strength.

The high combat strength just isn't there, and other aspects simply become irrelevent because of this.

 

[Ogi123]

Lancer is medieval cavalry unit available at feudalism, with 12 effective and 2. If arqebusier who is renaissance era unit at firearms, with it 11 effective , is more expensive or weaker it will never get build.
I mean look at cuirassier, it has no counter. Pikeman at best have 45% victory chance, musketman is weaker and slower. Current situation is still very favourable to heavy horse spam, if early gunpowder units are weakened or heavy cavalry improved with open terrain bonus, I will build almost nothing else.
Remember that all units cost same amount of maintenance, so its better to have lesser amount of stronger ones.

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

How useful is another movement point really to combat strength?

Although I think they are a little bit underpowered too, mounted units are the best for strike and runs inside your territories. They can combat and run to the nearest city for healing in the same turn. They are essential part of the game if you want to lure and destroy stronger AI opponents, and outmaneuver them in the tactical layer to compensate their buffs.

Since they usually win all their fights they exponentially get even more powerful with more experience unlike more fragile gunpowder units. At least this was the case until Leoreth changed the experience transfer on unit upgrades.

 

[Leon Michiel]

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).

 

[Rodnok]

Do not forget the cavalry can get the open terrain bonus. Flanking 1 is just stable+barracks and flanking II is pretty close too. That's +40 % open terrain strength.

 

[Pepo]

And really defending cities in CIV IV always go one side or the other depending if the attacker spam enough siege or not. I don't see cavalry needing to be good at attacking cities, as they would totally replace muskets and end up being like the cuirassier rush in vanilla. Just make then good open field units so they can weaken stacks