1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[GS] Unit class rebalance

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Mik1984, Nov 3, 2019.

?

Don't you think that unit classes should be rebalanced in this game?

  1. Yes

    75.8%
  2. No

    30.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Mik1984

    Mik1984 Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Don't you think that unit classes should be rebalanced in this game?
    Don't you think that recon units are nearly useless before spec ops?
    Don't you think that anti-cavalry is basically a just lesser version of melee units in case you do not have the resources to produce the latter?
     
  2. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,283
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    I think the worst thing is that all the units, when you don't consider promotions, they are almost all identical to each other apart from base strength and base movement.

    I hear people keep talking about how gaps in unit lines are good because they make you produce different types of units. What would be much better than such an artificial solution is to actually make the units behave differently from each other, by fleshing out their base abilities. Then the promotions could strengthen these base abilities instead of giving new ones.
     
    Atlas627, Kjimmet, Victoria and 3 others like this.
  3. Pietato

    Pietato Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,414
    Location:
    New Zealand
    They need to add siege into the mix. Anti-cav should be much stronger, but vulnerable to siege.
     
  4. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,676
    I actually think unit balance is okay for the most part. There are already quite a few threads on this topic, with some great posts by @Sostratus and @Boris Gudenuf .

    For what it’s worth:
    • Light and Heavy Cav are pretty well balanced now with the changes to walls and rams and resources and tech paths. These units are still very handy, but you really can’t just spam them. The only snag is that Helicopters should maybe lose the Aluminium requirement.
    • I used to think Siege were rubbish. I think all the rebalancing has made these units pretty good. The only real problem is that because they don’t have a Medieval upgrade, and the AI spams XBows, they tend to get shredded if you use them early game. Siege seem designed to be vulnerable to ranged attacks, which is fine. Giving them say a Trebuchet upgrade would therefore keep this design, but make them a bit more durable early game when they’re still firing 2 tiles.
    • Melee are fine. Recon units are fine. Naval and Planes are largely fine, the problem is more the AI don’t use them.
    • Anti-Cavalry are still a hot mess, and that’s a real pity. They’ve got better, but as @Sostratus has covered a few times, they’re underpowered at various points in the game.
    • I think the Modern Unit upgrade paths don’t quite work. Ranged into 2-tile Machine Guns feels silly, as does AC into Anti-Tank (it’s crazy how many ATs are running around in the Modern Era). Infantry and Tanks basically do the same thing with the same resources but Tanks do it better.
    All in all, things are pretty good versus where they were 12 months ago. Fill in a few unit gaps, tweak Anti-Cav in a patch, and rework Modern / Late-game units a little in an expansion, and everything would be awesome.
     
    Sostratus likes this.
  5. TomeTraveler

    TomeTraveler Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    70
    Are they perfectly balanced? No. But it doesn't cry out to me for adjustment. Wouldn't be upset with a few tweaks but don't think a rebalancing across the board is necessary.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  6. MarigoldRan

    MarigoldRan WARLORD

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,315
    Give +20 defense to siege units against ranged attack and it's fine.
     
  7. NukeAJS

    NukeAJS King

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    776
    There needs to be a niche for melee units compared to calvary. Ok, there's attacking cities, but I mostly ping those down via ranged/siege anyways.

    I think Civ5 had it about right -- cavalry move faster but can't fortify and are weak against cities. Melee is slower but can fortify (and take advantage of the tile's defense) and was ok at attacking cities.
     
    Sostratus likes this.
  8. Sostratus

    Sostratus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    I'm always surprised they allowed this to slip past Carl, the QA King. +50% strength and +2 move for 12% more production and the same amount of oil. Hmmm...
    This is actually something I wish we had. They sort of kinda have the siege support unit thing, but one of the very first things patched into civ5 was horseman -33% vs cities. Because having a unit that's stronger and faster that can do all the jobs just as well... recipe for problems. I'm working on a unit rebalance myself and the fact that cav get terrain defense and no city penalty just makes life extremely difficult for true balancing, because speed is just so useful for civ6 units and the current balance sort of has it as an intangible they just possess without much penalty.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  9. The googles do nothing

    The googles do nothing Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    318
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    I voted no because at this point I would rather have Firaxis add more mod-ability then make a few balance tweaks themselves. For example would the game be better if movement was reduced when a unit was damaged, it cost resources to move, or defend, or attack rather then when building a unit, Promotions increasing maintainance cost etc,,

    I would be nice if the base game moved to groups of 10 for all strategic resources rather then some being 10 (iron) and some being 1 (coal, oil, uranium).
     
  10. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,501
    I fully support this. It would also help with the persistant anti-cav issues.

    But as things are, they are not too bad, but I think a few tweaks could be done:
    • We need Trebuchet added, and it needs to happen sooner rather than later. Thank God for the Steel And Thunder mod.
    • Crossbows generally feel overpowered. They do massive damage, and they are too durable when attacked by melee units. Either they need to be glass canons or they need to be tuned down on offense.
    • Anti-cav still a problem, as mentioned above.
     
  11. Sostratus

    Sostratus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    I've played only a couple games with the change but these 2 problems has been mostly ameliorated by a change to make pikes 45:c5strength: (like they should be!!!) and knights 50:c5strength:. Crossbows still hurt them, but it's not a brutal slaughter, and having pikes actually able to do things means melee users aren't totally hosed. I also made both spears and chariots 30:c5strength:, so things flow better because spears can reasonably survive to pikes if they avoid swords. The only downside is barb camps a little harder to clear initially, but I'm working on that.
     
  12. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,169
    The units are generally fine which is a great improvement on the start. I would rather they concentrated on bugs and AI.
    The scout class is fine. You just need to use em right. They are light troops after all.
     
    Boris Gudenuf likes this.
  13. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,283
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    the latter are only 1 because these units consume fuel per turn and the 1 resource you need at startup prevent you from making the unit when you have no fuel for it
     
  14. kotpeter

    kotpeter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Speaking of anti-cav, I see the only thing worth rebalancing with them:

    1) Reduce native anti-cav penalty vs melee by 5 (10 -> 5)
    2) Reduce "Thrust" promotion combat bonus by 5 (10 -> 5)

    This makes spearmen relevant vs warriors, pikemen vs swordsman, etc. A much needed adjustment to establish anti-cav as a primary unit for defense.

    Also, speaking of infantry, there shouldn't be oil requirement for them, because it makes beelining replaceable parts pointless (you can't build them or upgrade them because you don't see oil on the map). Niter would've been a much more reasonable requirement.
     
  15. Bitterman

    Bitterman Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    190
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Granada, Spain
    Don't you have any guides for this? I would be interested to know how you use them in war, I find them useless. A light horse can do almost everything a skirmisher does but better.
     
  16. Kaan Boztepe

    Kaan Boztepe Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    163
    Gender:
    Male
    we need some melee anti air for late game and also filling out a few missing iterations between the ages for various classes would be good. more refining the roles each class would be better i think , since we still all go tanks to bombers and ignore the rest. the upkeep and material requirement should be a lot more for air/sea units as well as tanks in regard to normal melee units
     
  17. ehecatzin

    ehecatzin Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,091
    I agree on the xbow problem and that siege needs better resistance to ranged. For scouts, I think it's fine they are squishy, but they should be hard to pin down, giving them a free retreat when they are attacked by melee would be very nice.
     
  18. Jaybe

    Jaybe civus fanaticus Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,535
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Just make the scout line (well, the Scout UNIT, at least) ... invisible.
    Also however, scouts should have no ZOC.
     
  19. Sostratus

    Sostratus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    The AI doesn’t seem to cope well with invisibility, it’s very noticeable if you get a level 4 warak’aq or Highlander (the last promotion makes them invisible unless someone is next to them.)

    A good point about ZoC... I shall test this in my next batch of changes. It’s a hard to balance between a fast unit with a ranged attack that is also not so strong as to be overpowering.
     
  20. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,169
    I create a scout at the start. I do not slot the scout so card unless I am Incan, German or want to play with skirmishers (which sometimes I do)

    This scout first role is not to scout but to protect my base from enemy scouts as early barb attacks are game changing more than a +2 culture CS. Any chance I get to attack a barb scout or kill a spearman I will take as these soon rack up to 15 points. Even if I get to 10 points a goody hut will make that 15 but primarily garbing to promotion 1. I do not baby my scout and often use it to ZOC a city or sacrifice but quite a lot of games it survives this first phase.

    Getting the second promotion is the real hard one (need 30 XP) but as each wonder is 10 XP it can be done and any war you get into can also help because normal XP counts and taking a city is a minimum of 10 XP. If I am Germany or Inca perhaps 20XP. Once again, I do not typically expect survival but if I get to level 2 I am now interested in my unit.
    If it is still a scout it typically follows standard scout duties because it is weak melee of support, flank, ZOC, chase, bait and city capture but perhaps at this stage I will mother it a bit because when it becomes a skirmisher the world changes.

    At skirmisher it become ranged and a ranged move after attacking unit is hard to kill, especially if it can go over hills or through trees fast. Your skirmisher is a prime target for the AI because it has a weak combat strength so move it to a hill 1 tile away from a warrior/sword whatever and let the unit come adjacent to them and then shoot and backup a tile, repeat if possible. This approach is best done at the side or rear of an enemy civ, you would be amazed how the enemy civ will send troops to stop it, if they do not, pillage or just shoot cities without walls for XP. The idea is to get it to level3 but misdirection of enemy troops and pillaging are both powerful for it.

    If you have not had a level 3 skirmisher, you really need to play with one once. There is a windows of maybe 20-30 turns when it can own because it is a melee strength 40, range strength 50 move after attacking unit and with a general becomes a serious nuisance. This 3rd promotion +20 in all situations also makes it valuable moving up promotions.

    One very subtle difference to a practiced player is the skirmisher is targeted as if it is a strength 20 unit even though it is strength 40. Using this is useful.

    Typically it will die sometime but it will be a game I really enjoyed because it was another cool unit to play with. I use em most games but try not to mother them because I feel that is a mistake but when they come good it just adds a new dimension to an attack.
     

Share This Page