Unit strength overhaul

[vincentz]

And that is probably why forest gives +50%, because you can fight guerrilla style combat with ambushes and hit-and-rum tactics. If you are a defending axeman you don't show up in force like in the beginning of The Gladiator movie, you hide and make an ambush like the Germanic Tribes did in the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD where they anhiliated three roman legions.

The way I remember the gladiator movie, the germanic tribes got their ass kicked

With the Teutoburg, I bet the they had triple woodsman promotions

The promotions for forrest protection/attack is already there. And I agree there should be some protection, not remove it completely, but it is way out of proportions (IMO).

And regarding the hit and run, that would apply, in my view, to the attackers, not the defenders.

 

[Arakhor]

The main reason for that of course is that Gladiator is ostensibly taking place at the end of the 2nd Century AD and the Teutoburg massacre was 170-odd years earlier under Augustus or Tiberius

 

[Baskedyt]

The way I remember the gladiator movie, the germanic tribes got their ass kicked

Exactly! The stepped out of the forest on one nice line opposite a Roman Army with Catapults, archery, horses and trained infantry with big shields. Bad tactics.

And regarding the hit and run, that would apply, in my view, to the attackers, not the defenders.

I would say in small scale yes. In the big pictures, like combat in CIV, no. In Hit and Run (HnR) tactics you need some places to run to. When you are attacking a spot you object is to occupy it, so there is no reason to run back the way you came from. When you are defending the spot you attack the approaching force before he reaches his goal and the you run back towards the spot, and perhaps stops on the way to make more HnR attacks depending on how far you are from it.
But I would still call that defending in the big picture because he moved onto you. And the tactic is applicable in any terrain, but works best in terrain that are easy to hide in (forest, jungle, urban) otherwise you will get shot in back

 

[Strat_84]

I've discovered the strength modifications recently, and then I have to say: stop, this is the wrong way.

The old system could still be improved, but it was quite balanced with units appearing with a little more power or a few bonuses that helped in a specific situation compared to older units.

Now with the changes, the bonuses are still here (sometimes completly ridiculous when you see a tank with +100% or 200% vs older units that actually have 1/5 of its strength), but the strength difference is so high that any new tech completly obsoletes older units. I was concerned when reaching the time when you get horse archers and crossbowmen, but having a look at the tech tree I saw the same problem coming with musketmen, cuirassiers etc ... And especially the pikemen (6 str and 9 str), that not only are unsure to win a fight against the best cavalry units of their times (that can still retreat to win another battle) but also are forced to fight to death because of the "engage cavalry first" feature.

And another thing: I think the point from where everything came is wrong, there can't be a for conversion. First because this completly forgets the bonuses, that are actually the main feature of a unit, second because the more a unit is advanced, the more is has to be expensive (except a few exceptions). This is necessary to be even with the production bonuses coming with a more advanced technology.

 

[vincentz]

I have to agree with the strenghts as they are in ROM.

If you set up a dogfight between a spitfire from WWII and a F112 Stealth fighter there should be more than 99,9% chance that the stealth fighter would win. The spitfire wouldnt even see the F112 before it was falling from the sky.
Same with the before mentioned pikemen. Even a group of well trained pikemen with heavy armors charging a riflearmed cavalry wouldnt stand much of a chance (Unless in a forrest or some other terrain that would enforce them) The cavalry would simply shoot them all before they actually engaged in a melee.

Even same era weaponry would have huge advantages/disadvantages in real life. Best example is WWII where there was a serious weapon development race.
F.ex. the japanese fighter A6M Zero. At the beginning of the war it was probably the best fighter with good range and mobility but at the end of the war the American F6F Hellcat, with better armour and weapons, where superior to the once powerfull zero. Shooting down zero's with a 13:1 kill ratio.

Same goes for tanks, infantry, etc etc.

Never bring a sword to a gunfight!

Which reminds me of an ancient fairy tale I read when I was a kid : The chinese emperor sentensed an inventor who had just discovered a flying machine, to death. His military advisor was stunned : "Why kill him and burn the plane? We could use that against our enemies!" The emperor replied : "Yes, it would give us a great advantage now, but it wouldnt take long before our enemy would spot it and craft a similar device thus rendering our great wall useless and our land open for grap"

 

[zappara]

If you like to test various unit strength values, just download the xml sheets from the first post. They are included in v2.7test2 zip file too. There's combat chance calculator in the sheets pages as well.

 

[Strat_84]

Well, my problem with pikemen is only about medieval area and sooner.

A pike wall is something that defeats any calvalry unit with blades. But in RoM as it is, there is almost 50 / 50 percents chances that either cavalry or pikemen will win. On top of that, the calvary unit may still retreat, leading to something more like 20% pikemen vs 80% cavalry. And last, even if the pikeman has survived, the next fight will almost sign up his death as a 2 pikeman can't do anything against a full health cavalry (while the bowman or swordman standing behind may do the job, thanks for the "engage cavalry first" feature ...).
This analysis was for 6 pikemen, but for 9 pikemen it's even worse ! Mailled knights, with their 50% bonus vs infantry, score 24 when charging the pikemen. The pikemen score 18, and I'm still not counting the retreat chances for cavalry ...

I would just point out that pikemen are supposed to be the counter units of knights, not vegetables that get trampled by any horse in a field ...

I've had a look at the 2.7test2 version, there has been improvements in the right way actually, but there are still problems.
For exemple the first known swordmen. They costs as much as axemen, with the same strengh, and a tiny bonus, and come later. What is the point in building such a unit ? A axeman with raider I promotion is much more powerful ! The previous 6 value made more sense !
I saw also Elephant units having a much decreased value, what is the point in doing this ? It has a bonus vs cavalry yes, but in ancient times and even after it was something really hard to defeat, either with cavalry or infantry, so it should at least have same or better than standard cavalry units. This can be then balanced by the cost of those elephant units, and also the ressource that is quite scarce on the map.

 

[vincentz]

A pike wall is something that defeats any calvalry unit with blades.

Ok, I agree that I wasnt very clear in my answer. It was a bit drifting and reading it again I certainly can understand that my point was at least very unclear, so I'll try again :
Lets agree that the knights and heavy cavalry was the most powerfull weapon in the medievel times. They were well trained, had heavy armors that footmen couldnt walk in, long lances, heavy swords, maces and morningstars that was either too heavy or too long for footmen to wield, and the great advantage of being levitated thus striking down on infantry. Plus they were mobile thereby being able to flank and/or withdraw. They were the "tanks" of that era. A pike wall is effective unless the cavalry tactic is to flank that wall which renders it more or less useless. Also sometimes the knights would dismount and become super heavy infantry. I dont think there is any stats, but my guess would be that the kill ratio of knights vs pikemen is NOT 50/50.
So does it take 2 armies of pikemen to defeat one army of knights. At least.

From a gamepoint of view the knight cost around 90-100 and the pikeman 50.

However, with the right promotions (simulating tactics/armor/weapons) I do believe that a veteran pikeman can take out an untrained knight.

On the second part I completely agree. The light swordsmen are completely useless. at that point the enemy will most likely have axemen which would kill any swordsmen easely. The battleaxes were quite heavy and slow while the swords could be used either for thrusting or slicing thus taking advantage of a failed swing from an axe. And unfortunately the developers of civ are all (i think) from western countries, therefore scaling down such things as elephants and jungles. I lived the last 2.5 years close to a jungle and I must admit Im having a hard time settling with the jungle (1 food) in civ being a lot worse than forrest (2 food, 1 production). I agree on the unhealth as to malaria and denghe and typhus and all the other tropical diseases, but regarding to food its the other way around. In Denmark I lived close to a forrest and the food to be harvested there would limit to berries and nuts while in Thailand you go 10 meters into the jungle and find mangos/papayas/bananas/cashews/chilies/rambutan/mangosteen/pineapple just to mention a few. (I could mention at least 10 more but I dont know the english translation)

edit : uhh almost forgot.... "the tree which provides all the necessities of life" kalpa vriksha in Sanskrit. "the tree of a thousand uses" pokok seribu guna in Malay. "Tree of Life" In the Philippines.

The Coconut....

 

[Strat_84]

Lets agree that the knights and heavy cavalry was the most powerfull weapon in the medievel times. They were well trained, had heavy armors that footmen couldnt walk in, long lances, heavy swords, maces and morningstars that was either too heavy or too long for footmen to wield, and the great advantage of being levitated thus striking down on infantry. Plus they were mobile thereby being able to flank and/or withdraw. They were the "tanks" of that era. A pike wall is effective unless the cavalry tactic is to flank that wall which renders it more or less useless. Also sometimes the knights would dismount and become super heavy infantry. I dont think there is any stats, but my guess would be that the kill ratio of knights vs pikemen is NOT 50/50.
So does it take 2 armies of pikemen to defeat one army of knights. At least.

From a gamepoint of view the knight cost around 90-100 and the pikeman 50.

However, with the right promotions (simulating tactics/armor/weapons) I do believe that a veteran pikeman can take out an untrained knight.

The problem is that, with the current system, a pikeman will never survive long enough to be veteran, while there are more chances to encounter a veteran knight than a green one, as they most of the time win their fight or withdraw.

I completly agree that Knights were the best warriors of their times but, let's be realistic, they weren't supermen.
The best chivalry of the world is still resting under several feets of ground in some places like Azincourt or Crecy.
A single crossbow or longbow arrow was enough to kill those years trained soldiers. And even if the knight himself was well armed and protected, it wasn't possible to entirely protect the horse and it was quite easy to kill it with a pike. Then, a grandma could slaughter a man down trapped in an heavy armour.

Moreover, in those times flanking didn't happen very often, first because most the battles occured in open fields, second because it takes several hundreds of meters (and not only a few seconds !) for a horse to charge, it is also nearly impossible to approch silently with all that steel on them, and the footmen can still have the right formation to receive them, and the horses have utterly no chance to go through.

We'll also assume the knights in game are some that only fight mounted, and the dismounted ones are represented by swordmen.
Last, only about the balance of a game, it is bad to have a unit that can't be countered: it kills strategy.

 

[digitCruncher]

As it stands, my ENTIRE attacking force is just Mailed Knights, and trebuchets / catapults.

The Mailed Knights, even with the city attack penalty, are incredably powerful... nothing can stop them!!

I am all for EITHER giving mailed Knights a -50% penalty vs. Pikemen, or giving pikemen a +50% bonus vs. mailed knights, which helps alot. Also, please, remove that RIDICULOUSLY ANNOYING 'Pikes always defend against Mounted Units' ability... it is horrendiously annoying, and makes pikes entirely useless!

I haven't played in the late-game yet (Just unlocked those ships that come with Grand War, and taking out the incredibly backward Mayans navy, which consists of a ton of seige quinqueremes, galleys, and a couple of caravels. I have also unlocked cuirassers, to give you an idea of what I have played), and the only complaints I have are:

Mailed Knights are far too strong
War Elephants are also far too strong (They can take out a Mailed Knight, despite appearing something like 3 era's earlier!!)
Pikemen are laughably weak
Longbows are slightly too weak, crossbows are slightly too strong
Most melee units are slightly too weak.
Horse Archers are too strong

But of them all, only Mailed Knights are game-breaking (and to a lesser extent: Horse Archers, but they require several technologies, which you can't really 'bee-line' to...) Yes, in ancient times, mounted units were strong ... but as Strat said: They weren't supermen, and died quite surprisingly easily to pikes and spears!

I haven't tried any other mounted units except for elephants, horse archers, chariots (which are just right), and Mailed Knights. Most of the mounted units (I think there are three of them) between Horse Archers and Mailed Knights have a shelf-life of 1 tech, before they are obsoleted by Mailed Knights, which beat all of the other knights face down (Except, possibly, the Christianity UU Knights...)

 

[Chiyochan]

I'd love to see a similar combat system to Total war series, where theres less focus on individual units and more on armies,
i always felt it to be pretty terrible that in Civ4 the combination of units you have almost has no impact, I always liked the total realism idea of having promotions be variable for when units where stacked, but a lot of total realism turned me off, especially the dominant religion . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

which helps alot. Also, please, remove that RIDICULOUSLY ANNOYING 'Pikes always defend against Mounted Units' ability... it is horrendiously annoying, and makes pikes entirely useless!

i mean, this is a pretty good example of what i'm talking about, when do you hear pikemen running down fleeing horses? it would be nice to have an option of running away if your army is approached by an enemy unit, but i don't know how all this total war stuff would be implemented well. especially zones of control.

an untrained knight

HAHAHAHA
oh U

 

[vincentz]

@ Strat 84

You have some good points there. I'll suggest a new unit : Grandma (+500% against unmounted mailed knights )

@ digitCruncher

As it stands, my ENTIRE attacking force is just Mailed Knights, and trebuchets / catapults.

The Mailed Knights, even with the city attack penalty, are incredably powerful... nothing can stop them!!

Well, that sounds.... boring. With this many different units there should be a "carrot" to diversity. Longbowmen should be able to "rain" the knights from a citywall. Thats initially why knights unmounted (around 1350 according to wiki, where I also got the term super heavy infantry). At first I thought maybe make mailed knights even more expensive, but that strategy rarely works with human players.

 

[Strat_84]

War Elephants are also far too strong (They can take out a Mailed Knight, despite appearing something like 3 era's earlier!!)

That changed in 2.7test2 with elephant rider 5 and War elephant 8 .

But on that point I disagree with you, Elephants were quite hard to train as a weapon, but such a charge could crush an entire army, and even Alexander's phalanxes had a lot of difficulties to stop them in India. Against cavalry, it's even worse, when the horses don't get scarred and run away, a "fight" against elephants would only be a butchery.

So I am for powerful elephant units (8 , 11 or even a bit more) but with some regulation:
- Ivory more scarce on the map (I think this happened already, I saw more Ivory ressources in my games with previous versions)
- These units should require a lot of to produce them and maybe some for unkeep.
This way, we should have real life like armies, with powerful elephants, hard to kill, but only a few of them, so that more numerous armies with pikemen could still get rid of them.

 

[Arakhor]

I'd quite like to see the "pig in burning oil" unit. It gets +100% vs. elephants and +50% vs. horse units.

 

[Terrance888]

Pikesmen should have an ability to 'Ignore' a sucessful Mounted hit. That would represent their reach with the pike, which can yet it keep the enemy out of range or stop a momental advantage...

OR let ranged units behind the pikesmen fight as well. The Pikesmen are usually just block units so that anti-armoured units behind, or mounted units, can arrive and sweep up the attacking knighs...

Therefore we should have 'Groups' of units that fight together. Pikesmen/Cavalry uses a PineFlank strategy. Pike/Range uses Pin-Wound. Pike-Pike is just a joke. How long will a real pure-pikesmen army survive in a battle against a mixed force of Infantry/Cavalry? Either of their enemies can flank the pikesmen.

But, without groups, this 'Ignore Combat Round' ability against mounted would still do well.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Pikesmen should have an ability to 'Ignore' a sucessful Mounted hit. That would represent their reach with the pike, which can yet it keep the enemy out of range or stop a momental advantage...

OR let ranged units behind the pikesmen fight as well. The Pikesmen are usually just block units so that anti-armoured units behind, or mounted units, can arrive and sweep up the attacking knighs...

Therefore we should have 'Groups' of units that fight together. Pikesmen/Cavalry uses a PineFlank strategy. Pike/Range uses Pin-Wound. Pike-Pike is just a joke. How long will a real pure-pikesmen army survive in a battle against a mixed force of Infantry/Cavalry? Either of their enemies can flank the pikesmen.

But, without groups, this 'Ignore Combat Round' ability against mounted would still do well.

The stack attack option in DCM (Dales Combat Mod) are supposed to do this sort of thing. It does have a rare bug which makes it look like the game has stopped but you can select options. Just click on the mini map and everything continues. I have had the bug happen about once per game and it happen in the AI's turn only once in many many games.

 

[Terrance888]

Then do they have stack defense? I never noiced that when i was playing. But maybe I am dong it wrong.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Stack attack is also stack defense, you need to turn the option on in the BUG options. It is off by default.

 

[Chiyochan]

Stack attack is also stack defense, you need to turn the option on in the BUG options. It is off by default.

i assumed the implementation must have been poor if it was disabled by default ( like archers bombard, ) I didn't realize it might have been disabled because of possible buggyness.

 

[zappara]

i assumed the implementation must have been poor if it was disabled by default ( like archers bombard, ) I didn't realize it might have been disabled because of possible buggyness.

It has been off by default because there has been few issues with it in the past (rare CTD bugs). I do not know if those bugs have been tracked down and fixed yet so I've kept this mod component off by default.


Interesting posts about medieval combat - I got a lot of thinking to do when making changes to those units. I'll tweak Mailed Knight and beef up swordsman units a bit. By the way, does anyone think pikeman/heavy pikeman could use different techs that enable those units?