Unit strength overhaul

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I'm not sure I understand how the gunpowder infanty work, let me get this strait: Arb's are the first with the crappy matchlock musket. Then we have musketmen who have a slightly more effective flintlock, this is like 1700's era. Then, we have the rifleman, this is civil war era, long range, accurite, hits hard, but still single shot and manual reload right? maybe 3 shots a minute. Then, here is where you lose me... we get the semi automatic weapons advance (im thinking bolt actions and semi autos like the springfield) and we get no new infantry? Then we get automatic weapons (im thinking M16/AK47) to get the ww1/ww2 era infantry? I dont understand. IMO, it should be semi automatic weapons to enable the 34 str infantry.

I think modern Grenader should be removed, it makes no sense to me. Before, there was this to counter that such as pikemen vs mounted, but once we had rifles the only way to beat it was with your own rifles... at very least the unit should be changed to storm trooper or something.

I think zulu9812's R.O.M.E modmod fixes these and a couple of other issues with infantry upgrades. It also has some other stuff which is good. Jooyo's extra gameplay modmod also expands on this. Rise of Mankind - Addons (by Jooyo) the better game play addons. Rise Of Mankind Expansion

 

[Terrance888]

Well, there should be two gunpowder 'Classes'.

Regular riflemen, fights most battles. INCLUDES marines.

Elite assualt riflemen, fights to get an advantage, good against enemy gunpowder units that fortified.

 

[Bezhukov]

Silence in this thread is, I guess, a good thing?

The changes (including cost) are outstanding - some of the best work you've done.

 

[romelus]

The siege weapons, especially the Bombard, are too strong in the field. They should be good city siegers, and they are, but Its kinda rediculous that a mailed knight is 16 and a Bombard that fires stone cannon balls, cannot be rotated with ease, and fires what... once every 2 minutes is str 17? All siege units should recive minus 50% str on defence vs all non siege attackers, or at very least all mounted/fast units need + 50% attack vs siege. For example, mailed knights need + 50% vs bombard... TBH I even see them beating napoleonic/american revolution era cannons if they werent guarded. Id see horse archers beating them for that matter if they flanked them.

i complained about the trebuchet before, and it's good to see it's been toned down some. i still agree with the above comment though. sieges are still too strong, not just bombards, but the earlier ones too. as they are, the only way to defend cities is to try to kill the sieges before they could attack. any contemporary city defender fails miserably against siege. str 3 archer against str 9 cats and str 8 longbow against str 16 trebs are not fair to begin with, but sieges also get massive collateral damage, which means after the first couple bombardments most of the city defenders are already severely damaged. lastly, the collateral damage limits for early siege are way too generous. stone shots shouldn't be able to do 80% collateral damage to units. there's a reason vanilla sieges had low strength. collateral damage becomes unbalancing as soon as sieges approach normal unit str, and it becomes an exploit with siege str even higher than normal unit str.

str 9 cat + collateral >>> str 5 axe/sword
str 16 treb + collateral >>> str 11 mace

 

[tdb]

I'd like to point out an issue with defending cities. There seems to be a lack of a good all-around defense unit in the late modern era. Mechanized Infantry is a tracked unit and thus can't get City Garrison promotions, which makes it seriously underpowered against contemporary attack units, especially tanks. Antitank infantry could be used to counter them, but they have a weak spot against gunpower units. Needing multiple types of defenders could add strategic depth to the game, but it seems a bit odd that there's only one point on the timeline where this is strictly required.

More information, including numbers here.

 

[Ironmann]

Needing multiple types of defenders could add strategic depth to the game, but it seems a bit odd that there's only one point on the timeline where this is strictly required.

I can agree with the loss of CG is a bit unfair since I also is a strong user of that promotion but just had to point out that in the early years you have to recruit pikemen against cavalry, archers against axemen and cavalry against siege weapons etc.

 

[tdb]

I can agree with the loss of CG is a bit unfair since I also is a strong user of that promotion but just had to point out that in the early years you have to recruit pikemen against cavalry, archers against axemen and cavalry against siege weapons etc.

Well, true. I tend to get past that age without fighting much, so I haven't thought too much past getting an archer or two in each city. Now, looking at the XML files (at work again, so no game), the early mounted units only have an attack bonus against catapult/trebuchet, no defense bonus. So they're not that great in passive defense, you'll have to demolish the enemy's SoD by attacking yourself, and then you'll probably have to work your way through everything else to get to the siege units. Spearmen vs. mounted is a valid point, they outperform archers by a fair margin.

 

[zappara]

I've made slight changes to units since last week. Now Catapult and trebuchet units require Siege Workshop building in city before you can build those units. Bombard and Cannon will require Cannon Forge building. For rest of the artillery units I haven't decided yet what changes I'll make. This also has gotten me to think that should all units require some sort of building before you can build them? For example infantry type units would require garrison...

Another small change was recon units: Explorer is moved to Writing tech (it's bit more useful now) and Adventurer is moved to Compass (and str dropped from 17->7 as it was best defender at the time you could built it which wasn't intentional).

About the City Garrison promotion - I think I added an alternative promotion line in v2.6 to modern era which kind of overlaps with city garrison line, this alternative line gives bonuses for attacking as well as defending a city. Edit: Promotion line was Urban Tactics.

Something needs to be done to Pikeman and Heavy Pikeman, I'm not happy with the techs that allow those units so need to find suitable earlier techs for both.

 

[tdb]

About the City Garrison promotion - I think I added an alternative promotion line in v2.6 to modern era which kind of overlaps with city garrison line, this alternative line gives bonuses for attacking as well as defending a city. Edit: Promotion line was Urban Tactics.

I am aware of that. However, Urban Tactics is considerably weaker than City Garrison. First, it requires Combat 1 and either City Raider 1 or City Garrison 1. Since Mech.Inf can't get CG, that means you must waste one promotion on CR1, which has nothing to do with defending. Second, UT gives 10% less bonus per promotion to city defense than CG. The vs. unit category bonuses are nice, but don't stack since each promotion gives it against different units.

So, to summarize, with three promotions (reasonably easy to attain in all cities with a charismatic leader, possible for all with Communication Networks):
CG1-3: +75% city def, +10% vs. melee
C1, CR1, UT1: +10% str, +10% city def, +15% city atk, +10% vs. gun, wheeled, tracked, clone
-> total +30% city def against anything you're likely to encounter except siege
C1-3: +30% str
-> this is better than the UT1 alternative, since it gives +30% against everything

And for the sake of comparison, some combinations with five promotions (requires considerable effort to get out of the box, even as a charismatic leader):
C1-5: +50% str, inconsequential heal bonuses
C1, CR1, UT1-3: +45% city def, +10% str, +90% city atk, +10% vs. gun, wheeled, tracked, +15% vs. siege, copter, etc.
-> a bit better than pure combat, at +65% against most modern era attackers

Plus a few that are not available to Mech.Inf:
CG1-3, C1-2: +75% city def, +20% str, +10% vs melee
-> total +95% city def against everything
CG1-3, C1, UT1: +85% city def, +10% str, +20% city atk, +10% vs. gun, wheeled, tracked, clone
-> slightly better than pure C+CG at +105% against most modern era attackers
C1, CG1, UT1-3: +65% city def, +10% str, +75% city atk, +10% vs. gun, wheeled, tracked, +15% vs. siege, copter, etc.
-> worse than pure C+CG, only +85% against most modern era attackers

Aggressive leaders get Combat 1 for free to Gunpowder units, but those can get City Garrison too. So let's see about one more combo with six promotions:
CG1-3, C1, UT1-2: +100% city def, +10% str, +45% city atk, +10% vs. gun, wheeled, tracked, clone, +15% vs. siege, copter
-> total +120% city def against most modern era attackers, a bit more against some

Now, how do these number work out with actual units? A Modern Infantry has a base strength of 50 and can get that awesome +120% bonus for a total 110 defensive strength. A Mechanized Infantry has a base strength of 70, but will have to do with only +65% bonus for a total of 115 defensive strength. The latter costs 40% more hammers, for a measly 4.5% increase in strength, and has an extra +2 gpt support cost too.

The conclusion: If you can get the City Garrison line, Urban Tactics is a nice extension to it. If you can get the full Urban Tactics line, it's kinda nice. If you can only get to UT1, don't bother, UT1-2 is so-so. Urban Tactics is awesome for attacking, especially if you can get the full line. Mech.Inf is not a good defensive unit with the available promotions.

Something needs to be done.

Edit: I take it back about it being easy for any leader being to get three promotions for new units from all cities. I was only able to find +5 from civics pre-CommNet, +2 from Pentagon and +2 from Garrison. That makes +9, one short of the 10 required for level 4. Communication Networks enables Supremacy for an additional +3, and I think it's still in the modern era. (Where does the future era begin? I couldn't spot it in science advisor.)

 

[Cruor]

Personally I dont see the point of needing a building to build siege weapons or a building for each unit type, I think thats getting into the territory of being over complex and kind of annoying.

I think siege weapons themselves still need to be addressed, it really makes no sense to me that a catapult flinging rocks with horrible accuracy a few hundred feet can beat axemen if it is defending against them... I think all siege weapons need -50% penalty when defending themselves.

I think all the mounted units are too strong. If you go strait for Calvarly tactics to get the 22 str mounted unit (forget the name) you can just completely roll over anyone who doesnt have mass musket men (the 17 str ones) yet. On my huge europe game on immortal level, I was close to even in tech level with the french (Im playing as germany) but I got calvary tactics, upgraded all my mailed nights, and took about 12 french cities in no time... the units didnt even need to rest because they took no damage from heavy pikemen, longbow men and arb's.

Cavalry are also extremely powerful, why is a man with a rifle 24 str, but a man on a horse with a rifle is 32? Nothing can counter them either, a rifleman even with +25% vs mounted is only a 30, you need artillary, cavalry of your own, or early tanks/jeeps to beat them. In my current game I only survied the Russians cossack because I rushed to techs to get jeeps... had I not had oil it would of been game over.

I agree with keep up with tech or die, but gaining just 1 important tech over another civ gives extreme adavantages.

 

[Munger]

I think siege weapons themselves still need to be addressed, it really makes no sense to me that a catapult flinging rocks with horrible accuracy a few hundred feet can beat axemen if it is defending against them... I think all siege weapons need -50% penalty when defending themselves.

Yes I'm with Cruor on this - I've always thought that siege units should be fairly lousy in defence. Consider the Total War games for example, where pitting a trebuchet or cannon unit against an infantry unit is suicide, and rightly so. The siege weapon might score the odd hit whilst the infantry advances but it doesn't take long at all for the infantry to be on top of the siege unit and then it's well and truly game over for the siege.

 

[DRJ]

I think siege units, mounted units and tracked units shouldn't be able to enter marsh and peat bog tiles without a road (cart path wouldn't be enough). This forces the player and AI making detours or to transport troops by ship more often.

 

[Cruor]

just gonna keep adding as I run into stuff/remeber stuff...

I think this mod is GREAT, dont get me wrong, but unit strengths are the biggest issue and need the most work.

Sam infantry are too powerful, 54 str but no -50% vs gunpoweder/wheeled/tracked as they should really have... not sure how guys with stinger missles would beat guys with m16's (modern infantry are 50 str)

Theres no difference between Dreadnaught and Battle Cruiser I think its called... both 48 str, but the battle cruser is faster, why build a dreadnaught when you have both in the same era? As I understand it, IRL, a battle cruiser has high firepower but lacks a battleships armor, it was like a cheap battleship. I suppose this could be represented with high bombard str, lower cost, -50% vs Battleship/Dreadnaught.

Battleship is too weak at 60. Really, the way to beat a battleship is with planes or guided cruoise missles... and even the the Best US/Japanese battleships would take A LOT of hits to sink. We only stopped fielding them because of the insane cost and because carrier aircraft got so good.. They should be very powerful ship-ship, subs (only on the attack) and planes should be thier only weakness.

 

[Galacticat42]

just gonna keep adding as I run into stuff/remeber stuff...
Theres no difference between Dreadnaught and Battle Cruiser I think its called... both 48 str, but the battle cruser is faster, why build a dreadnaught when you have both in the same era? As I understand it, IRL, a battle cruiser has high firepower but lacks a battleships armor, it was like a cheap battleship. I suppose this could be represented with high bombard str, lower cost, -50% vs Battleship/Dreadnaught.

Battleship is too weak at 60. Really, the way to beat a battleship is with planes or guided cruoise missles... and even the the Best US/Japanese battleships would take A LOT of hits to sink. We only stopped fielding them because of the insane cost and because carrier aircraft got so good.. They should be very powerful ship-ship, subs (only on the attack) and planes should be thier only weakness.

As Zap said earlier, he's going to redo some of the Next War techs and units which Dreadnaught came from, also the cruiser is an ocean unit and the dreadnaught is a land unit.

 

[Zorn]

I am wondering about the poitn of the light swordsman? With a strength of 5, it is as strong as an axeman, with only a slight advantage against cities.
However, if there is even a single axe in that city, that advantage is nought, because the axe would always defend first.
So you get a basically inferior unit that comes later, and has higher requirements (iron as opposed to obsidian or copper or iron).

What I would really like to see is a early method to bring defenses down. Sevo-mod had a battering ram, which reduced defences by 4% per turn (give or take), with no collateral damage. I´d like to see this unit very early, maybe even at mansonry.
As it is, once high walls appear, cities are nearly impossible to take for a very long time, which is neither historical accurate, nor, much more important, fun).

 

[DRJ]

I am wondering about the poitn of the light swordsman? With a strength of 5, it is as strong as an axeman, with only a slight advantage against cities.
However, if there is even a single axe in that city, that advantage is nought, because the axe would always defend first.
So you get a basically inferior unit that comes later, and has higher requirements (iron as opposed to obsidian or copper or iron).

What I would really like to see is a early method to bring defenses down. Sevo-mod had a battering ram, which reduced defences by 4% per turn (give or take), with no collateral damage. I´d like to see this unit very early, maybe even at mansonry.
As it is, once high walls appear, cities are nearly impossible to take for a very long time, which is neither historical accurate, nor, much more important, fun).

That's why I enabled "archer bombard" and now use a stack of 5 archers that provide the collateral damage to the main defenders in the early stages of the game.

 

[zappara]

I think siege units, mounted units and tracked units shouldn't be able to enter marsh and peat bog tiles without a road (cart path wouldn't be enough). This forces the player and AI making detours or to transport troops by ship more often.

Too bad the xml modifier (Mechanized) wasn't finished for BtS ie. it doesn't work as the same feature was working in Civ 3. Therefore units can't be made to require roads on plots...

Sam infantry are too powerful, 54 str but no -50% vs gunpoweder/wheeled/tracked as they should really have... not sure how guys with stinger missles would beat guys with m16's (modern infantry are 50 str)

Theres no difference between Dreadnaught and Battle Cruiser I think its called... both 48 str, but the battle cruser is faster, why build a dreadnaught when you have both in the same era? As I understand it, IRL, a battle cruiser has high firepower but lacks a battleships armor, it was like a cheap battleship. I suppose this could be represented with high bombard str, lower cost, -50% vs Battleship/Dreadnaught.

Battleship is too weak at 60. Really, the way to beat a battleship is with planes or guided cruoise missles... and even the the Best US/Japanese battleships would take A LOT of hits to sink. We only stopped fielding them because of the insane cost and because carrier aircraft got so good.. They should be very powerful ship-ship, subs (only on the attack) and planes should be thier only weakness.

Wasn't it defensive modifier for SAM Infantry? When I was in the army I was taught to shoot with bazookas and we were told that ambushing is essential with them when trying to destroy tanks, the one who fires first is usually the survivor. Also the weight of the carried weapons is issue for infantrymen.

I know about Dreadnought's and Battlecruiser's similarities and was going to make some changes to them. Industrial/Modern/Future era ships could use some small changes to make the different ship classes bit more different from each other. It's true that battleships were kind of rendered obsolete when jet planes were developed - today it's more about air superiority and destroyer ships are used as carrier escorts.

As Zap said earlier, he's going to redo some of the Next War techs and units which Dreadnaught came from, also the cruiser is an ocean unit and the dreadnaught is a land unit.

There's Dreadnought ship classes and thent here's the Dreadnought Armor.. I think you mixed those two

 

[Cruor]

Zap, what is your opinion on the mounted units mailed knights and up? They just seem too strong to me. I know IRL knights were really strong but the balance was a country couldnt afford to field many of them, civ doesnt really have a way to represent this properly... maybe make it you can only have 1 mailed knight per city you have? The curissers(sp?) and cavalry are also brutally strong as I mentioned before... if my enemy doesnt have rifleman I dont even need to use siege, a stack of city raider curisser/cavalry with a medic one thown in just tear through the AI in no time at all if you rush to the right techs.

As your comment on bazookas, Your right. It is essential for infantry to hide and then try to hit the rear or side armor, but I think the bazookas is just right, my problem is with the SAM infantry (I think thats thier name) They are armed with anti aircraft weapons yet do not have a weakness to gunpowder units or ground vehicles, unless I missed something?

I also have a minor issue, but it bugs me. I love a lot of the unit graphics, whoever did most of tanks like panther, centurian M4 etc did some great work, but the plasma armor looks like a tank from 1930 colored red (high profile plus red paint = poor choice on a battlefield..)... Anyway we can get a more appropriate graphic for this, or anyone have a better unit graphic I can download?

 

[zappara]

Mechanized Infantry has now +25% city defense bonus - probably not the best way to solve the issue with it, but it was the easiest and fastest way...

I'll look other unit stats next week...

 

[generalstaff]

Minor realism issue I have been experiencing is that modern gunpowder infantry do not have bonuses against mounted units. It seems unrealistic that Cavalry can be a match for Infantry and Guerrillas.