Unit strength overhaul
- Thread starter zappara
- Start date
I agree with this. I still think the Axeman needs a bouns vs Light Swordsman. The Pikeman also needs a small buff.
The Slayer
Warlord
I agree here, mostly on the archer part. I mean, besides those civs who have 4 str archers (and that is) there's a huge gap from 3 str to 8 str of the longbowmans.
Never bothered to build chariots too. Hell, not even horsemans, go straight for the light cavalry
How about the unique units (like american minuteman, english longbow)? They could be more unique, like minuteman would be cheaper to build and english longbow would start with drill promotion?
There are other unique units too, which have no unique stats.
Just thinking..
There are other unique units too, which have no unique stats.
Just thinking..
szemek77
Prince
You really think that a man with an axe should be stronger than a man with a sword?
The swordsman should be countered by.... other swordsman 
Pikes? Maybe.... In real world, the best sollution against melee units was cavalry. It has natural advantage.little_cyclone
Loyal Civ4 & C2C mod player
Wouldn't the Axemen with its bonus to melee units already have a bonus vs spears, which are melee? At least more so then an archer..
totally agree im used to other deep strategy games such romance of the three kingdoms, rome, medeval 2total war and lots other every time
Bow kill horse
horse kill infantry
spearmen kill horse and axe
infantry are balanced
heavy infantry are stronger but way slower
i guess civilization game really messed up in unit strong vs weaknesses, units rely only in sher strenght and not in tactical advantage
Bow kill horse
horse kill infantry
spearmen kill horse and axe
infantry are balanced
heavy infantry are stronger but way slower
i guess civilization game really messed up in unit strong vs weaknesses, units rely only in sher strenght and not in tactical advantage
There's also Maceman...
szemek77
Prince
Military advances are inevitable...There's also Heavy Swordsman....
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Well, 1 I can't give Melee units drill.
2, I thought I said 1st strike chance srry.
3, I don't now what heck you are questioning me about. I didn't mention any heck in that post.
In real life: Light Infantry Beats Heavy infantry in Small Battles- they are light on their foot. I can dodge that mace and then stab his face!
Light Infantry is Nuetral to Heavy Infantry in Medium Battles- they have less space and the Heavy Infantry can get close. I can try to jump, but I might hit my buddy!
Light Infantry loose in tight space. They can't manuver, which means they can't get out of the way from that huge ball of steel. I can't move at all!
Pikesmen have a long reach, and in the past, it can be almost impossible to get in. When the Phalax (more pike than spear) faced the Roman Legions, the flexable 'Medium Infantry' went under the pikes with their shields and cut them up.
A few hundred years earlier, Persian 'Light Infantry' and 'Heavy Infantry' where cut up infront of the Greeks Year after Year, only winning through out flanking, Archers, numbers, or many combinations of the above.
During Late Imperial and Early Medieval ages, the Horse Ruled. Providing a tall platform and a weapon itself, they usually can run down any undiciplined man, and only lost their advantage in tight area, where they reliy on their foot soldiers and themselves off their horses, or through few Pike/Archer combinations.
As the age of the Pike grew, we find many battles where Knights are starting to be defeated by Pikes/Archers/Men-at-Armes or Foot Knights. Whenever this formation weakens, however, the Knights can storm in.
As the first Armour Piercing Crossbows, and later Guns Appeared, they are extremely vurnurable to the Knights. TAking a minute to reload, they can be cut down while struggling with their weapon. That is why I proposed my Covering Fire Idea. As guns grew larger and smaller they became easier to load, and when the Bayonet was becoming widespread, that is when the Knight with Pike/Archer/Men-at-arms field army subcurbed to Musketters+Mercenaries and Levies with Heavy and Light Cavarly and Skirmishers.
As each era presents a changing timeline, so should the game present a challenge to the player to coninuesly research to try to get an advantage for the next war. Your Mailed Knights might do well this campaign, but you flanking nation has developed Strong Pikesmen formations supported by archers. You find that for the next war you would need swordsmen or archers of your own. Maybe you just finished off your enemy's heavy spear formations, but horsemen are just on the rise. You will need to develope your own horsemen corps to deal with this threat.
I believe that we should have two types of Melee... Light and Heavy. Real life represents this divide well... the Minutemen V.S. the Continental: both are needed, but the Continental stands out front and the Minutemen defends or flanks the enemy.
We have the Legion and it's Auxillaries. The heavy Harbardiers of China and their swordsmen. Lightly armed conscript Spears of Egypt with the well trained Axemen of the main armies.
I forgot what I was going to talk about.
Well, 1 I can't give Melee units drill.
2, I thought I said 1st strike chance srry.
3, I don't now what heck you are questioning me about. I didn't mention any heck in that post.
In real life: Light Infantry Beats Heavy infantry in Small Battles- they are light on their foot. I can dodge that mace and then stab his face!
Light Infantry is Nuetral to Heavy Infantry in Medium Battles- they have less space and the Heavy Infantry can get close. I can try to jump, but I might hit my buddy!
Light Infantry loose in tight space. They can't manuver, which means they can't get out of the way from that huge ball of steel. I can't move at all!
Pikesmen have a long reach, and in the past, it can be almost impossible to get in. When the Phalax (more pike than spear) faced the Roman Legions, the flexable 'Medium Infantry' went under the pikes with their shields and cut them up.
A few hundred years earlier, Persian 'Light Infantry' and 'Heavy Infantry' where cut up infront of the Greeks Year after Year, only winning through out flanking, Archers, numbers, or many combinations of the above.
During Late Imperial and Early Medieval ages, the Horse Ruled. Providing a tall platform and a weapon itself, they usually can run down any undiciplined man, and only lost their advantage in tight area, where they reliy on their foot soldiers and themselves off their horses, or through few Pike/Archer combinations.
As the age of the Pike grew, we find many battles where Knights are starting to be defeated by Pikes/Archers/Men-at-Armes or Foot Knights. Whenever this formation weakens, however, the Knights can storm in.
As the first Armour Piercing Crossbows, and later Guns Appeared, they are extremely vurnurable to the Knights. TAking a minute to reload, they can be cut down while struggling with their weapon. That is why I proposed my Covering Fire Idea. As guns grew larger and smaller they became easier to load, and when the Bayonet was becoming widespread, that is when the Knight with Pike/Archer/Men-at-arms field army subcurbed to Musketters+Mercenaries and Levies with Heavy and Light Cavarly and Skirmishers.
As each era presents a changing timeline, so should the game present a challenge to the player to coninuesly research to try to get an advantage for the next war. Your Mailed Knights might do well this campaign, but you flanking nation has developed Strong Pikesmen formations supported by archers. You find that for the next war you would need swordsmen or archers of your own. Maybe you just finished off your enemy's heavy spear formations, but horsemen are just on the rise. You will need to develope your own horsemen corps to deal with this threat.
I believe that we should have two types of Melee... Light and Heavy. Real life represents this divide well... the Minutemen V.S. the Continental: both are needed, but the Continental stands out front and the Minutemen defends or flanks the enemy.
We have the Legion and it's Auxillaries. The heavy Harbardiers of China and their swordsmen. Lightly armed conscript Spears of Egypt with the well trained Axemen of the main armies.
I forgot what I was going to talk about.
1&2 mostly I'm worried about a Cho ko nu or gunpowder getting combat 6+drill 4, that would be 5-12 First strikes
you obviously haven't seen a Cho ko nu in action, my friend built one and it shot 10 bolts in 15 seconds with a range of ~90 yards that means 100 troops could fire 1000 arrows in 15 seconds the cho ko nu probably represents more like 10,000 men, 100,000 bolts in 15 seconds may not be very effective at armor piercing but it would kill the mount and severely bruise the knight,
I´ve made the same observations:
-Pikemen are (too weak and) usually the unit that gets the medic promotions. When they start dying, your stack is a goner anyway.
-I get the crossbowmen before the longbowmen too (mostly because machinery is waaay more useful than feudalism). Historically longbowmen are equivalent to crossbowmen, only they are a lot more expensive(more training) and have a higher rate of fire.
-Arquebusier: prefer to build macemen/swordsmen, then upgrade those to riflemen later as I get a lot more free promotions and xp that way. The strength difference doesn't even come close to making up for losing that.
-Mounted units: fighting the AI usually means that after attacking, you're wounded, on top of a hill and about to be attacked by more AI units. Mounts simply don't perform well under those circumstances. If I use them, it's always with at least 3 flanking promotions, so they can attack superior enemies and withdraw. Usually I spend my tech elsewhere and don't use them at all until late in the middle ages and then only to get some with free xp to be upgraded to choppers later on.
I'm also thoroughly annoyed at the +100% vs XXX ships abilities. The only unit that should have such a bonus is the ironclad, because it is a basically wooden (steam)ship that was able to pwn the sails of the time. Speaking of which, it has the same movement allowance as a caraval, which makes no sense. 1/3 would be more appropriate.
I dislike seeing buildings get obsolete with a tech. It makes more sense that they upgrade when their replacement version is build. I tend to not develop leadership just to keep my barracks around because I don't want to build gunpowder units until I have musketeers at least anyway. The new building should always have at least the same bonuses as the one it replaces.
There are too many religions active in the game. I'm constantly switching and spreading to stack up the bonuses rather than picking one or a few and sticking with them. The modern religions should obsolete the old ones. Christianity/Islam basically overran the older religions that where in place. Their priests could double as inquisitors vs Kemetism, Nagualism, Hellenism and Zoroastranism (and perhaps even Judaism and Hinduism). Religious buildings would get converted to ones of the new faith. (oops, just realized I went off-topic..
Haven't really played into the high tech stuff yet. I really like the warlord(S) units, the non-(S) ones don't seem to add as much.
A unit that sees almost no use at all is the war galley. You can get the much stronger triremes just as fast, wich renders war galleys moot.
Another unfortunate point is that all naval combat is triremes vs triremes (and the occasional siege trireme) for more than 2 eras. This is getting dull after a time. My suggestion is to move the strength 6 ships further up the tech tree, somewhere halfway between war galleys and caravels.
Another unit that currently has no purpose is the grenadier. It is supposes to counter riflemen, but it doesn`t. Even with it`s bonus it has a strength of 22,5 - which is less than the base strength of the rifle, which is likely to have defensive boni.
To make matters even worse, the bonus is offensive only (resulting in said defensive boni for the rifle), the gren comes later in the game (at least how I tech) and all promotions are stronger for the rifle, since it has the higher base strength.
I think the grenadier needs either a higher base strength or a significantly (like 75% or even 100%) increased bonus vs rifles to work.
Another unfortunate point is that all naval combat is triremes vs triremes (and the occasional siege trireme) for more than 2 eras. This is getting dull after a time. My suggestion is to move the strength 6 ships further up the tech tree, somewhere halfway between war galleys and caravels.
Another unit that currently has no purpose is the grenadier. It is supposes to counter riflemen, but it doesn`t. Even with it`s bonus it has a strength of 22,5 - which is less than the base strength of the rifle, which is likely to have defensive boni.
To make matters even worse, the bonus is offensive only (resulting in said defensive boni for the rifle), the gren comes later in the game (at least how I tech) and all promotions are stronger for the rifle, since it has the higher base strength.
I think the grenadier needs either a higher base strength or a significantly (like 75% or even 100%) increased bonus vs rifles to work.
Similar threads
[Extension]
Naval Capital Units for VP
