[GS] Unit class rebalance

[Mik1984]

You can get other classes of units up to level 3, it is much easier, more consistent and they are more useful along the way. A scout costs almost as much as a warrior and has considerably less strength than a warrior, xp from goody huts and wonders is almost a non-issue.
Maybe, ok, this unit might be effective at drawing away stupid AI to start chasing it, but who really needs that?

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

i am also using scouts to confuse barbs and i dont like that a scouting unit is able to do that. it should be a lot cheaper and a lot weaker with ZOC ignoring to and from, otherwise this unit can get really out of hand. a +20 CS ranger or specops is really dangerous and no one can catch it

 

[Lord Shadow]

From my point of view, the bonus of anti-cav vs. cavalry should be bumped +15 or +20. I think that's about the general consensus.

Then I'd remove Oil requirement from Infantry (make it Iron maybe), which I otherwise barely see fielded by the AI. Similarly, remove the Aluminum requirement from Attack Helicopters.

My guess is Modern AT is so common in the late game because it has no strategic resource costs, and when the AI chooses to spend Oil, it favours Modern Armor over Mechanized Infantry. One could try tackling that either removing the Oil requirement from the latter or doubling it for the former. And see if that changes anything.

Sea and air unit priorities are also out of whack, as it seems the AI disproportionately favours land warfare. Not even a single Aerodrome in sight. Who knows what leads the AI to disregard all that to that extent. It could at least build Nuclear Submarines eventually, since they're resource-free, but it doesn't. I'd at least half-understand if it saved all its Oil for its tank fetish.

 

[Sostratus]

From my point of view, the bonus of anti-cav vs. cavalry should be bumped +15 or +20. I think that's about the general consensus.

It's much less about the bonus vs mounted and more that their base strength is pitifully low at 3 points in the game: pikes, AT, Modern AT. That +10 is a 50% combat bonus, which is extremely high already. As an example, Modern AT crews only have 80 strength, so they hit Modern Armor for 90, which have 90 strength themselves. But Mechanized infantry have 85 strength and hit the Modern AT for 95. So do you build units which will fight a tank as well as another tank and get slaughtered by everything else, or do you just build tanks, which do better against literally everything else including the melee class? While being faster to boot. It's just nonsensical. It's easy to think that making AC units have a normal base strength will somehow unbalance them since they are resourceless, but they themselves have a direct counter (melee) which removes the civ5 situation where pikes could just beat everything all the time.

Sea and air unit priorities are also out of whack, as it seems the AI disproportionately favours land warfare. Not even a single Aerodrome in sight.

I wonder if it's for want of aluminum. Aluminum is not only absurdly rare on the map, it's also the only resource units consume which provides just 2 per mine instead of 3. I wish the AI would at least make AA guns.

 

[Lord Shadow]

It's much less about the bonus vs mounted and more that their base strength is pitifully low at 3 points in the game: pikes, AT, Modern AT. That +10 is a 50% combat bonus, which is extremely high already. As an example, Modern AT crews only have 80 strength, so they hit Modern Armor for 90, which have 90 strength themselves. But Mechanized infantry have 85 strength and hit the Modern AT for 95. So do you build units which will fight a tank as well as another tank and get slaughtered by everything else, or do you just build tanks, which do better against literally everything else including the melee class? While being faster to boot. It's just nonsensical. It's easy to think that making AC units have a normal base strength will somehow unbalance them since they are resourceless, but they themselves have a direct counter (melee) which removes the civ5 situation where pikes could just beat everything all the time.

But if Modern AT had a greater bonus, they'd become a real counter to Modern Armor, and you wouldn't be able to just spam tanks to the exclusion of everything else. Mechanized Infantry would actually become necessary. There's a similar scenario going on during earlier eras. Recently I've only fought Scythia earlier than modern times, and I thought it was just their schtick to use a lot of cavalry. But perhaps the phenomenon extends beyond. Haven't played enough.

I wonder if it's for want of aluminum. Aluminum is not only absurdly rare on the map, it's also the only resource units consume which provides just 2 per mine instead of 3. I wish the AI would at least make AA guns.

Could be. Also some logic encouraging the AI to save every last Aluminum unit for the endgame Lagrange laser stations.

 

[Sostratus]

But if Modern AT had a greater bonus, they'd become a real counter to Modern Armor, and you wouldn't be able to just spam tanks to the exclusion of everything else. Mechanized Infantry would actually become necessary.

I do advocate heavily for giving the AC units more strength, but base strength vs bonus strength. So this would be like, AT/Modern AT @ 75/85. That way They actually will hit tanks for +5 instead of +0, but they can stand up to everything else in the game (ranged attacks, melee units) a little better too. The way things are now, if you made the vs mounted bonus +17, say (that is +100%) then the immense vulnerability to other units would still exist, and you'd need only have some machine guns or infantry run in and squash their AT before driving over everyone with tanks.
It comes out the same versus mounted but these units are just too weak overall, to the extent that their cheaper production/resourcelessness is irrelevant because they die.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I do advocate heavily for giving the AC units more strength, but base strength vs bonus strength. So this would be like, AT/Modern AT @ 75/85. That way They actually will hit tanks for +5 instead of +0, but they can stand up to everything else in the game (ranged attacks, melee units) a little better too. The way things are now, if you made the vs mounted bonus +17, say (that is +100%) then the immense vulnerability to other units would still exist, and you'd need only have some machine guns or infantry run in and squash their AT before driving over everyone with tanks.

I'm pretty sure that's how it works in real life as well. AT should be a real threat to tanks, not just a toe-to-toe contender, and in turn it's fine such a specialist unit's weak versus general infantry.

There's just no incentive to build infantry in the late game, if for the same strategic resource investment and some extra production you can get something generally better, to which AT is but a speedbump.

With a higher anti-cav bonus, you get a nice triangle of anti-cav kills tanks, tanks kill infantry, infantry kills anti-cav. Isn't that the intent after all?

 

[Victoria]

but who really needs that?

A scout is not just for luring away, it is a hugely useful and flexible unit as explained in many posts before now and is in fact used by many expert players for SP games. It sound like you just play with blunt unstruments and have no finesse in your play, simple and brutal but not necessarily more effective... There is nothing wrong with doing more than an archer or horse rush... again and again and again.
Yeah.... I need that, its a duller game without it... and a damn site more repetitive and dull IMO.
Look at hugely respected efficient players like Civtrader6... scount opening.
I divide production by strength and its worse so that is it? that is the level of intelligence you put into deciding a unit?
Stop using a notepad, try a bit of variety, its great

 

[acluewithout]

I would rather they concentrated on ... AI.

I can see that. But that said, better AI balance also helps the AI and the overall challenge of the game.

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.

A scout is not just for luring away, it is a hugely useful and flexible unit as explained in many posts before now and is in fact used by many expert players for SP games. It sound like you just play with blunt unstruments and have no finesse in your play, simple and brutal but not necessarily more effective... There is nothing wrong with doing more than an archer or horse rush... again and again and again.
Yeah.... I need that, its a duiller game without it... and a damn site more repetitive and dull IMO.
Look at hugely respected efficient players like Civtrader6... scount opening.
I divide production by strength and its worse so that is it? that is the level of intelligence you put into deciding a unit?
Stop using a notepad, try a bit of variety, its great

Scouts are awesome. Moreso once you get to Skirmishers.

I completely agree that, early game, they are less about initial exploration and more about tactical control of the map.

I used to always built a scout as a first build to maximise exploration, and still do sometimes, but now I often wait just a little bit depending on the map. My scout might be needed for the PP boost, but I have time for that, so the scout isn't needed urgently. But getting a scout fairly sharpish, even if not first, is still very helpful for managing barbs and getting things lined up for combat. And once they have a range attack, a few of these guys can be very, very useful in the mix.

The XP card for scouts is very handy. Scouts are the only units you can directly buff xp rates in this way, and it obviously gives a better return the more Scouts you have. Other cards are often better, but it's good to slot when you can.

It's much less about the bonus vs mounted and more that their base strength is pitifully low at 3 points in the game: pikes, AT, Modern AT. That +10 is a 50% combat bonus, which is extremely high already. As an example, Modern AT crews only have 80 strength, so they hit Modern Armor for 90, which have 90 strength themselves. But Mechanized infantry have 85 strength and hit the Modern AT for 95. So do you build units which will fight a tank as well as another tank and get slaughtered by everything else, or do you just build tanks, which do better against literally everything else including the melee class? While being faster to boot. It's just nonsensical. It's easy to think that making AC units have a normal base strength will somehow unbalance them since they are resourceless, but they themselves have a direct counter (melee) which removes the civ5 situation where pikes could just beat everything all the time.


I wonder if it's for want of aluminum. Aluminum is not only absurdly rare on the map, it's also the only resource units consume which provides just 2 per mine instead of 3. I wish the AI would at least make AA guns.

Couldn't agree more on AC. Up to the Modern Era, AC's biggest problem is just having too low Combat Strength. They could maybe use a tweak re: getting a defensive bonus in some situations, or maybe tweaking promotions, but the key issue really is just combat strength.

LC and HC seem well balanced at the moment. They could maybe be tweaked more - I could see not being able to fortify or not benefiting from conscription cards or having negatives v cities could be good changes - but, yeah, they're okay just at the moment, so maybe not urgent.

Modern units are a mess. Aluminium for Helicopters is silly, and I think having Aluminium as a maintenance costs rather than a build cost doesn't work. Infantry and Tanks has been discussed. AC upgrading to AT doesn't quite work in terms of feel, because you end up with lots of dudes with rockets running around which feels silly - AC maybe need to upgrade into something that looks more like infantry just so it isn't so jarring (in Civ 5, don't AC upgrade to Helicopters?). Machine Guns shooting two tiles also feels silly.

FXS didn't touch Modern units in the last patch. I'm hoping that's because they may tweak them in the next one. Cross fingers.

 

[Sostratus]

With a higher anti-cav bonus, you get a nice triangle of anti-cav kills tanks, tanks kill infantry, infantry kills anti-cav. Isn't that the intent after all?

We both want the same thing, you are simply considering going about it in a slightly different way.
I agree that AC underperform vs Cavalry- mainly heavy cavalry- at various points in the game. From the perspective of AC vs cav, where the +5 gets added is irrelevant. X+(10+5) vs (X+5)+10.
But if you look outside of AC v Cav, AC don't just lose to melee units- they get completely killed. And they take more damage from ranged attacks. And they deal less damage to cities. And they are worse at everything except fighting cav, which they aren't so good at. I find that a little harsh - hence going at the base strength.
Tanks v infantry is a different subject; I won't rehash the many threads I've written about that, but whoever designed civ6 had some ground rules and relationships they laid out between unit classes and progressions over time. Those tend to work very well; it is where they are violated that things really break down. Infantry/AT crew/Tanks is one example of that, as are pikemen.

Modern units are a mess. Aluminium for Helicopters is silly, and I think having Aluminium as a maintenance costs rather than a build cost doesn't work.

I always get a kick out of seeing the various fanatics on this forum use the aluminium spelling.
But if firaxis does read our threads, someone needs to be aware that coal, oil, and uranium have a base extraction rate of 3, while aluminum has a rate of 2. Its the only fuel resource to have a rate of 2. Please increase it to 3!
One aluminum mine can’t even fill a base Aerodrome district with planes. It’s crazy!

 

[kotpeter]

AC don't just lose to melee units- they get completely killed. And they take more damage from ranged attacks. And they deal less damage to cities. And they are worse at everything except fighting cav, which they aren't so good at. I find that a little harsh - hence going at the base strength.
Tanks v infantry is a different subject; I won't rehash the many threads I've written about that, but whoever designed civ6 had some ground rules and relationships they laid out between unit classes and progressions over time. Those tend to work very well; it is where they are violated that things really break down. Infantry/AT crew/Tanks is one example of that, as are pikemen.

Sostratus, what do you think of the following change to AC:
1) Reduce native anti-cav penalty vs melee by 5 (10 -> 5)
2) Reduce "Thrust" promotion combat bonus by 5 (10 -> 5)

This ups spearmen to be able to fight on par with warriors and pikemen to fight off swordsmen. My assumption is that AC are intended to be a primary unit for defending your growing empire against more aggressive neighbors.

Speaking of why you need pikemen to fight swordsmen, well, if you plan to beeline upwards the tech tree, you probably have decent early science via strong campuses or whatnot, so that you're able to hit bronze working and military tactics just in time your opponent gets iron working and starts upgrading his warriors into swordsmen. On the other hand, if you don't have enough early science to make it that fast, you shouldn't be doing that in the first place.

Also, with my suggestion applied, promoted pikemen are stronger than promoted swordsmen, because the 1st promotion of melee class does not help them against AC class units, whereas AC have Thrust promotion, which gives them +5. Fortification bonus helps too.

 

[Aurelesk]

Even if I know that ranged unit are one of the most powerful units in the game (those Archer rushes and now those diabolical ressourceless Crossbows), I would like all the ranged unit the ability to take cities (based on their melee strength). That probably need to lead to a balance (-3 Ranged Strength?) but that probably improve the AI that reduce cities to 0 HP but have no melee units to take it.

All units line should only need rely on 2 strategic ressources maximum. Light cavalry relies on Horses and Aluminium, and Heavy cavalry relies on Iron and Oil. Should the Melee line drops the Oil and stays with Iron and Niter? (Infantry: Niter, Mechanized:Iron).

One of the reason the anticavalry line is bad (and the heavy cavalry is good) is because of this design trait:

• Anticavalry have a "cheaper but weaker" trait. Basicly, a -10% Cost but -3 CS (roughly)
• Heavy cavalry have a "stronger but costly" trait. Basicly, a +3 CS but +10% Cost (roughly)

But this was poorly implemented. For example, the Knights had both -10% and +3 CS for a long time, meanwhile the Pikeman had both +10% cost and -3CS. Yes, we had a 180/48 Knight and a 200/41 Pikeman. It is now kind of reversed back with a 220/48 Knight and a 180/41 Pikeman (even if the Pikeman should be 145/42). Never wondered why the AT Crew was as strong and cheaper than the Infantry? That is why.

But this trait "cheaper but weaker" or "stronger but costly" is a poor design. Maybe it is absurd to say this, but if I am allowed to gain unlimited free Warrior but only in the Modern Era, this will have no use except to train the enemy units. That is why the Impi is not a top tier unit.

If I have to redesign all lands units, it should be something like this (this is just a draft):

Spoiler :

• Anticavalry and Heavy Cavalry always came in the same tier technologies.
• Light cavalry always came one technology tier higher than anti-cavalry and heavy cavalry lines.
• Melee always came one technology tier lower than anti-cavalry and heavy cavalry lines.
• Kind of drop of the "cheaper but weaker" or "stronger but costly" design.
• Units with strategic ressource enjoy bonuses. 1 bonus is either a +2 CS (+8%) or +1 Movement.
• Melee units only need half strategic ressources, enjoys 1 bonus, and Cavalry enjoy 2 bonuses.
• The units with strategic ressource as maintenance (Uranium, Aluminium, Oil, Coal) only consume them if they attack, get attacked, or moved in the whole turn.
• All units line should have one unit in tier1 information era.

If we follow those rules, we end up with something like this:
Warrior (melee): 40P - 20 CS - 2M
Spearman (anticavalry): 65P - 25 CS - 2M.
Heavy Chariot (heavy cavalry): 65P - 25 CS - 2.5M (↓3 CS)
Horseman (light cavalry): 90P - 30 CS - 4M - 20 Horses (↑10P, ↓6 CS)
Swordsman (melee): 120P - 37 CS - 2M - 10 Iron (↑30P, ↑1 CS, ↓10 Iron). Iron Working is now tiers2 classical technology (+1 tier)
Pikeman (anticavalry): 160P - 40 CS - 2M (↓20P, ↓1 CS)
Knight (heavy cavalry): 160P - 40 CS - 4M - 20 Iron (↓60P, ↓8 CS). Stirrups are now tiers1 medieval technology (-1 tier).
Courser (light cavalry): 200P - 43 CS - 5M - 20 Horses (↓1 CS).
Musketman (melee): 240P - 52 CS - 2M - 10 Niter (↓3 CS, ↓10 Niter)
Pike and Shot (anticavalry): 280P - 55 CS - 2M (↑30P)
Cuirassier (heavy cavalry): 280P - 55 CS - 4M - 20 Iron (↓50P - ↓9 CS). Cuirassier are now unlocked at Metal Casting (-1 tier).
Cavalry (light cavalry): 330P - 58 CS - 5M - 20 Horses (↓4 CS).
Infantry (melee): 430P - 72 CS - 2M - 10 Niter (↑2 CS, now Niter, half strategic).
AT Crew (anticavalry): 480P - 75 CS - 2M (↑80P - ↑5 CS).
Tank (heavy cavalry): 480P - 75 CS - 4M - 1 Oil (↓5 CS)
Helicopter (light cavalry): 540P - 78 CS - 5M - 1 Aluminium (↓60P, ↓4 CS, ↑1M). Now unlocked at Plastics (-1 tier).
Mechanized Infantry (melee): 680P - 90 CS - 3M - 10 Iron (↑30P, ↑5 CS, now Iron, half strategic)
Modern AT (anticavalry): 680P - 88 CS - 3M (↑100P - ↑8CS)
Modern Armor (heavy cavaly): 680P - 90 CS - 4M - 1 Oil
Helicopter2.0 (new unit) (light cavalry): 680P - 88 CS - 5M - 1 Aluminum, probably unlocked at Stealth Technology.

Basicly: the Heavy cavalry comes earlier and is cheaper/weaker overall, meanwhile the anticavalry is made stronger but cost more. Now the anticavalry can successfully defend against the cavalry line. The power is the early game is somewhat reduced to prevent easy early conquest, even if you can still do it through the melee line that is slower.

For ranged, I don't really have an idea. I will probable make the Scout a ranged unit with 13 Ranged Strength and 8 Melee Strength, but with a cost of 35 Production. Probable make the Slinger more effective and bulkier (17RS/9MS) but costing as much as a Warrior. But all others unit in the ranged line will probably get less effective: Archer with 20 RS / 12 MS for 65 Production (instead of 25/15/60), Crossbowman will probably go for 35 RS / 27 MS / 160 Production instead of 40/30/180, and the Field Cannon will probably go for a 55 RS / 47 MS instead of 60/50. Maybe we should have a new Machine Gun in the information for 83 RS / 75 MS / 3 Movement / 680 Production to make use those ranged units we train since ancient era?

 

[Sostratus]

Sostratus, what do you think of the following change to AC:

I have found in testing that simply adjusting the base strength of spears/pikes to be 30/45 a little more useful because:
When AC units tie mounted in strength they tend to be bad counters.
See: spears vs horsemen (horses win by +1, only cost 15 prod more)
Pikes only beat knight by 3 right now, and lose to swords. At 45 pikes beat knights by +7 (i changed knights so it would only be +5, but same concept) and are much closer to swords in 1v1.

Keeping the melee/anticav interaction at +10 also ensures that melee/anticav have a good counter dynamic when you have unit pairings like Pike&Shot / Musket, ATCrew/Infantry, Modern AT/Mech Inf. You don't want a player to be able to "pike flood" someone too effectively, hence keeping the counter, but you don't want players to get totally hosed either by someone spamming xbows (currently this completely shuts down pikes @41.)

One of the reasons I care so much about the 1v1 combats instead of just saying "oh, they're cheaper overall, so it's fine" as the balancing was done for late game AC is that 1upt means there's a core issue with "strength density" on the map. If I can kill some of your units I gain a distinct tactical advantage because armies don't have 30 units on each side fighting over one field. And when you look at something like Tank v AT Crew, the cost differential is only 20% - meaning you have to build 5 tanks before two players with equal production result in a numerical advantage of AT crews. And mounted units have +2 move over the foot units, which again is a massive tactical advantage completely worth the few extra hammers.

If the Legion was balanced the same way Tanks are against other modern era units, it would become a 46,4 unit and it would actually become cheaper. See how unfair that would be?

 

[kotpeter]

I have found in testing that simply adjusting the base strength of spears/pikes to be 30/45 a little more useful because:
When AC units tie mounted in strength they tend to be bad counters.
See: spears vs horsemen (horses win by +1, only cost 15 prod more)
Pikes only beat knight by 3 right now, and lose to swords. At 45 pikes beat knights by +7 (i changed knights so it would only be +5, but same concept) and are much closer to swords in 1v1.

Keeping the melee/anticav interaction at +10 also ensures that melee/anticav have a good counter dynamic when you have unit pairings like Pike&Shot / Musket, ATCrew/Infantry, Modern AT/Mech Inf. You don't want a player to be able to "pike flood" someone too effectively, hence keeping the counter, but you don't want players to get totally hosed either by someone spamming xbows (currently this completely shuts down pikes @41.)

One of the reasons I care so much about the 1v1 combats instead of just saying "oh, they're cheaper overall, so it's fine" as the balancing was done for late game AC is that 1upt means there's a core issue with "strength density" on the map. If I can kill some of your units I gain a distinct tactical advantage because armies don't have 30 units on each side fighting over one field. And when you look at something like Tank v AT Crew, the cost differential is only 20% - meaning you have to build 5 tanks before two players with equal production result in a numerical advantage of AT crews. And mounted units have +2 move over the foot units, which again is a massive tactical advantage completely worth the few extra hammers.

If the Legion was balanced the same way Tanks are against other modern era units, it would become a 46,4 unit and it would actually become cheaper. See how unfair that would be?

I believe the tanks are so strong because the devs balanced them around their position in the tech tree. They are all the way downwards the path where there're no science techs and no gold techs. Obviously, there are strategies in this game that still allow getting tanks quickly enough to become a threat to other unprepared players. That's the problem, I believe; the ability to rush tanks should be mitigated, not tanks themselves. Making them dependent on replaceable parts would be a decent nerf, but probably overnerf.

 

[Sostratus]

I believe the tanks are so strong because the devs balanced them around their position in the tech tree.

Not to be curt towards FXS but the balancing (which in terms of / is unchanged since vanilla) was not that deep. If it was they wouldn't have made pikes cost more than knights on release, for example.
At a global level, tanks are not even anomalously strong.
The progression of unit strengths per era is 25+10 per era after ancient. This would mean we would expect something like this:
Ancient era-25
Classical-35
Medieval-45
Renaissance-55
Industrial 65
Modern 75
Atomic/Info 85. The last two eras are functionally one on the unit upgrade tree.
Further, for an era strength of X, ranged units have the stats X-5/X-15. Units that can be built on turn 1 have -5 (warrior, slinger.) The archer is a special case, presumably because it needs to fight in the classical.
Anyways, let's look at the melee line and fill in some UUs to the gaps:
Warrior - 20 (reduced 5 because it's a turn 1 unit)
Sword -36
Khevsur etc - 45
Musket - 55
Redcoat/Gardes Imperiales -65
Infantry - 70
Mech Inf - 85.
Infantry and AT crews for whatever reason are at 70 instead of 75. They are unusually weak and this contributes to the tank thing.
If we look at heavy cav through the ages, they follow the trend with a +3 and +5 boost. Chariots, Knights, Tanks, Modern Armor are 28/48/80/90. So tanks are quite consistent with other heavy cav throught he ages; it's the other units that have the bottom fall out under them. Whoever designed this +10 scheme did a good job.

Because of unit gaps being so big at release, they probably adjusted some stuff to give us the odd balls. Yet many RF UUs fit the plan- malon raiders are a 55 ren unit. The domrey happens to fir perfectly between catapults and bombards if you used a +10 per era scheme Pike and Shot are very curious because they exactly fit the mold, even though pikes themselves don't. Of course, eventually the unit gap issue carried over into the units they made to plug it: Cuirassiers are 64, which so happens to fall numerically halfway between knights (48) and tanks (80). Which is nice, and works well enough because the industrial era only has 2 other land units. But again: why did they make redcoats 65, a +10 upgrade over muskets, consistent with almost everything in the game, if they had always planned infantry to be 70? But then inexplicably made mech inf 85? Why are field cannons at 60/50 if industrial units weren't supposed to be 65? They have never done a cost or strength rebalance in a comprehensive way. They changed the unique melee units on military tactics, then they added some stuff in GS and later tweaked air units. Costs previously (and for most units to today) were almost strictly governed by where they unlocked in the tech tree on a left/right basis. Buildings were the same way, which is why they touched up some of it with GS' power system.

TL;DR it was almost certainly not part of the design to make the tank unit, and only the tank unit (modern armor doesn't have this same advantage) +10 vs its peers, or in other words, +50%. In Civ5, this would be like if they had infantry at 70, and tanks at 105- stronger than civ5 modern armor!

 

[Tomice]

(i changed knights so it would only be +5, but same concept)

Is there a "unit balance by Sostratus" mod available somewhere?
You convinced me of your balance approach in another thread, but I'm unable to create proper, well-made mods.

 

[ShakaKhan]

unit classes actually had a purpose in older versions of civ which they don't anymore (though it never really had as much impact as I thought it should have...) It used to be that the purpose of having different unit classes was to create a rock-paper-scissors system where one unit class would counter the other and have a counter to itself. You never attack a spearman (or phalanx or pike depending on which game) with a horseman because that was the counter unit to yours. Civ 4 had a nice little trio of units that all came at about the same time- the rifleman, grenadier and cavalry. grenadiers had a big bonus against rifles, rifles had a bonus vs, cav, and cav had a big strength advantage over grenadiers. There's still a hint of this aspect in the game such as anticav have a small bonus vs, mounts, but they're so watered down and can be more than compensated away with other game mechanics. So I have two thoughts about this: 1.) this needs to come back for unit classes to have the meaning that they should have. Right now we only use classes to evaluate upgrade paths and resource management. So I don't know what the combat strength differential needs to be, but when a light cav is attacked by anti-cav, the anti-cav unit should take about 5-8 HP damage while the light cav takes 55-65 damage on average, with different promotions, terrain modifiers and other game mechanic still influencing the results, but the fact that your rock is against their scissors is by far the greatest determining factor. But 2.) while I think this is good because it adds meaning to something that's really useless now, would add an extra layer of depth to general strategy, and would make some elements of the game have more depth (for example, using espionage to determine the complement of enemy units and then reposition the counter units of yours), while that would all be better, alas the incompetent AI - it would add an extra layer of confusion and further increased ability for the player to manipulate the already laughable AI tactics and strategy.

Then we have the new addition in civ6 of ranged units attacking with impunity. I don't think I ever liked this. Since depending on the terrain you could position multiple ranged units concentrating on one unit, they can kill a unit at full health and take no damage. Further, they can chop away at city health without taking damage as the melee/mounted/etc units do. While they do have one of the biggest discrepancies in how much damage they take vs. do when they are caught in a melee attack, that is adjusted by how damaged the unit attacking it has taken, and if you plan for the counterattack properly it will always be highly damaged when it catches you. There needs to be something to compensate for this. Maybe since they attack with impunity, they can BE ATTACKED with impunity as well. Or maybe ranged units are captured instead of killed. Frankly I prefer the older civ game where archers were just really good city defenders and that was their primary role.

 

[Mik1984]

A scout is not just for luring away, it is a hugely useful and flexible unit as explained in many posts before now and is in fact used by many expert players for SP games. It sound like you just play with blunt unstruments and have no finesse in your play, simple and brutal but not necessarily more effective... There is nothing wrong with doing more than an archer or horse rush... again and again and again.
Yeah.... I need that, its a duiller game without it... and a damn site more repetitive and dull IMO.
Look at hugely respected efficient players like Civtrader6... scount opening.
I divide production by strength and its worse so that is it? that is the level of intelligence you put into deciding a unit?
Stop using a notepad, try a bit of variety, its great

Scouts are actually MORE expensive than ranged and melee units, because there is no policy that buffs their production. A warrior is cheaper than a scout once you get Agoge and so is the crossbowman cheaper than skirmisher, once you get the feudal contract.
They are actually directly more expensive per unit than units that are cheaper and stronger.
I used to use them when I was playing on lower difficulty levels, but now when I play on Deity, I just ditched them. I would like to know how you could really make them worth the sacrifice.

 

[Victoria]

 

[Sostratus]

Is there a "unit balance by Sostratus" mod available somewhere?
You convinced me of your balance approach in another thread, but I'm unable to create proper, well-made mods.

I have one I’m currently playing with and tweaking as I go, but I haven’t yet sorted naval units. It’s designed to stay as true to the base game’s principles as possible with only minor tweaks where necessary.
To that end, v1 will just be strength and some small cost changes in really questionable cases. (No changes to promotions, class modifiers, etc.)

If it’s something fellow fanatics want to try, I’ll put a link in my signature soon. Once I figure out the proper way to post a mod file. (I only started learning how to mod civ6 last week.)