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

Unit strengths/cost: realistic

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Road to War' started by Dale, Jul 10, 2008.

  1. Chamboozer

    Chamboozer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    That's what I was worried about. Its a lot less complicated to reduce one units strength vs something than to increase everything else's vs. it. You should test the -% value on something, having it work would make everything a lot simpler.

    As for the light tanks...

    1st light tank is replaced by 3rd.
    2nd is a standalone unit which is not replaced by anything, nor does it replace anything.

    Once it get everyhing down i'll try to clean up the individual units by removing unneeded %'s and finetuning the strengths. Looking back on it I can see why you think there's too much, and believe me, it'll look much better when done.
     
  2. Chamboozer

    Chamboozer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Perhaps release two versions?
     
  3. danrh

    danrh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Port Hedland, Western Australia
    No objections but an inquiry. Just where do you feel the base RtW stands now. You've done quite a lot of revisions over just the last six months since I first stumbled on this gem. For own modding each time the the base is changed I have to spend a couple of weeks playing it just to understand the changes ( I have family so the time available is limited :) ) before I can then adjust my own work to maintain balance. Atm for instance my own work is languishing at AOP2 stage while I enjoy playing with the base AOP3. So back to the inquiry, how many further reveiws do you feel are still to come and in the long term what might the reveiw cycle be?

    Dan
     
  4. danrh

    danrh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Port Hedland, Western Australia
    So your suggesting a structure that has

    1) basic tanks - UUs typically being light tank types such as the PzKpfw II, Mark IVB and the T-26

    2) Light tanks - UUs all actually being medium types such as the PzKpfw IV, Crusader, Sherman and T-34

    3) Light Tank 3 - upgrade option for initial "light tank" types. This has to be a new unit class right?

    4) Light Tank 2 - A stand alone new class that that will include among other types the Panther

    5) Heavy Tank - current types, Tiger I, KV 1, M26 etc

    is this correct. Where in the tech tree are you planning to place the new classes/upgrades?
     
  5. Chamboozer

    Chamboozer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Baiscally, it's this.


    Starting and 1st Research techs (Such as Light Tank) = Light Tank 1 (usually serves Anti infantry purpose) Adds Medium Tank 1 (purpose varies with nation)

    Early Techs (Such as Improved C3I & Logistics) = Keeps Light Tank 1, Replaces Medium Tank 1 with Medium Tank 2 for some nations, Adds Light Tank 2 (AKA Unique Tank).

    Intermediate Techs (such as Sloped Armor & Heavy Tanks) = Replaces Medium Tank 1 (where applicable), Adds Heavy Tank. (serves as antiarmor role or as a generally improved Medium Tank (varies with Nation)

    Advanced Techs (such as Advanced C3I & Logistics) = Replaces Light Tank 1 with Light Tank 3.

    Which exact tech causes the upgrade is up to Dale.


    The new tanks arent new classes so to speak, unless you consider a new class as a unit upgrade chain. Basically...

    Light Tank 1 > Light Tank 3
    Light Tank 2 is Standalone
    Medium Tank 1 > Medium Tank 2 (n.a. for some Nations)
    Heavy Tank is Standalone

    As always, older tanks should not be upgradeable into newer ones, new tanks should only halt production of old ones. Same goes for Airplanes.
     
  6. danrh

    danrh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Port Hedland, Western Australia
    Um thaks for that clarification. I'll consider the rest of the above when my head stops spinning. I would like to say that while I think upgrades are typically too cheap (I'm not sure how they are costed actually is it just difference in the new build cost for the two units being considered?) I do not think they should be abandoned. Units (and that is what we have in civ, not individual tanks) do gain experience and typically the best units will get the best equipment as it becomes available. So to condemn a unit that has fought hard early to soldier on with its obsolete equipment is contrary to military practice.

    Ideally I love to see upgrades that allowed you to transfer experience

    eg Germany has PzKpfw IV as a medium tank type. After research PzKpfw V is enabled.

    Build new Pzkpfw V in city. Withdraw experienced PzKpfw IV unit to city. When selecting upgrade button the experience of the unit to be upgraded is transferred to the new unit and a 25-50% production bonus is gained in that city for a new unit. This represents an experienced unit getting new equipment and its old equipment being reabsorbed into the system for issue to second line units, rebuilding (eg Sp arty, tank destroyers, APCs) or just being used as raw materials via scrapping.

    However as I said thats the ideal and since would be able to do such a thing myself I'll just be happy with finding out how to increase the cost of the current upgrade system.

    Dan

    Btw boozer could you look at my post a couple of pages back about my own system. Given that you do seem to be advocating quite a few new tank options I don't think your suggestions are that much different to mine. Of course I still need to sit down with pen an paper and make sure I understand what you are saying ;)
     
  7. Omathaar

    Omathaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    Quick nod to the mod of a mod idea, I totally agree, keep the basic one appealing to broad audiences, and let more detailed versions be mods of basic rtw
     
  8. Dale

    Dale Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,986
    AOP3 will be the final version (since 3.17 will be the final version of BtS).

    I anticipate one more BETA of AOP3 then final. Say a couple of weeks to a month maximum. :)
     
  9. Zulu Impi

    Zulu Impi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Messages:
    299
    It might be a good idea to keep a more basic version but there still are a few basic balancers like upgrading non unique infantry and downgrading artilleries opp fire that should be included also upgrading anti tank v tank ability.
     
  10. blacksnail

    blacksnail Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    I'm not sure why but the units labeled Tank and Light Tank seem to be swapped - "Tank" (presumably Medium) is 15 Str while "Light Tank" is 20 Str. This seems to be pretty consistent across all the tank types. Rather than go through the code and swap everything around, it might just be easier to change a few labels in the Civilopedia. This may very well already be fixed, or might exist for a specific reason of which I'm unaware, in which case, never mind. :)

    Anyway, I played around with some tank stats. Currently I have only applied them to the generic units in my copy of the original Beta 3 download. I'm operating under the assumption that the 1936 world map scale needs to modify movement downward a bit. I also left the default Strength the same (15/20/25) for the generic WW2 tank classes as those are balance issues not worth arguing about without extensive data to back it up. Mostly my focus was on base modifiers according to my understanding of how WW2 tanks worked. I tried to keep it as simple as possible. I'll go into my conception of each vehicle's strengths and weaknesses before I talk about numbers. I'll put my justifications for why I used a number I did in red text.

    Light tanks

    Historically smaller, faster, and cheaper to produce. Highly lethal against infantry and maneuverable through jungle terrain. Though the assumption was that they were much faster than their heavier cousins, this really depended on economic factors more often than not - you could drop in crappier, cheaper engines which would make them about as fast as "standard" tanks.

    Str: (.7 to .8 Medium Tank), Movement: 2, Cost: (.6 to .8 Medium Tank)

    • Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
    • Can withdraw from combat (20% chance) (The strength of the light tank was more maneuverability in battle than comparatively greater range. Keeping with this I gave them a default withdrawal chance which IIRC only applies to when they are on the attack, not defending. This durability in assaults should really be their strength, representing their ability to pick the battles they want to fight.)
    • +25% vs Gunpowder units (This is the high lethality vs infantry.)
    • Starts with Blitz, Mobility (I added Mobility as a default promotion while keeping the base Movement at 2 to "fake" increased movement. This means in play you'll see light tanks zipping along through denser terrain with It is still possible for a Leader to provide Morale which increases movement to 3, but this would be particularly rare. This only really applies to the 1936 map; otherwise I'd suggest 3 with Mobility.)

    Medium tanks

    The workhorses that hit a "sweet spot" of firepower, mobility, protection, and endurance. Adaptable to a variety of roles.

    No changes made. What exists already works well as the baseline, no need to mess with perfection. Stats listed anyway for ease of comparison between the two.

    Str: (balanced Medium Tank strength), Movement: 2, Cost: (balanced Medium Tank cost)

    • Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
    • Starts with Blitz

    Heavy tanks

    Though originally deployed with the intention to be "breakthrough" tanks capable of smashing a hole in enemy lines, they were more useful on the defensive than on the attack. They were very effective at attacking obstacles and enemy armored formations. They had very heavy armor and weapons compared to lighter tanks, but were often underpowered and comparatively slower, often having significant engine/drive problems. Their greatest successes came from fighting other, lighter tanks and destroying fortifications.

    Str: (Same as Medium Tank - see below), Movement: 2, Cost: (1.2 to 1.4 Medium Tank)

    • +25% City Attack (Represents the bonus to attacking fortifications received by heavy tanks.)
    • +25% vs Armored units (Represents the bonus to attacking armored formations. Anyway, the core 25% bonus is what gives it its edge against other armored units.)
    • Starts with Blitz
    • (Note that this tank does receive defensive bonuses. This is why the strength is the same as medium tanks, because otherwise it'd be far too high of a strength value when defending. This is factored into the attack value as well - if a medium tank is a 20 Strength, the inherent bonus vs armor and the bonus vs city attack effectively starts it at a 25 Strength when attacking those targets. This means you really need to take care to use combined arms when dealing with the ugly monster that is the heavy tank.)

    Cool Stuff You Can Do With These Numbers

    Light Tanks: By the 2nd experience rank you can get Flanking I and II which gives a total of 50% withdrawal. Tactics from a general unit could increase this to 80% but would be particularly rare. Talk about blitzkrieg,

    Light Tanks: By the 2nd experience rank you can potentially be another +25% vs Gunpowder from Pinch (plus the +10% total Strength from Pinch's Combat I prereq), which would put a base 15 Strength light tank at 24 vs infantry.

    Japanese Light Tank: add 2x move in jungle as an inherent ability.

    Heavy Tanks: If it is possible, maybe have heavy tanks with the Ambush promotion always prefer to attack the strongest armored unit in a stack. Maybe it already does this? I don't know.
     
  11. sangeli

    sangeli Major General

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Yes, but this is where you miss the key feature (which I didn't mention). Instead of upgrading obsolete tanks to more current tanks (which doesn't make too much sense to me) you upgrade them to self-propelled artillery. For example, by 1943 the Panzer III had become obsolete, but that doesn't mean they were worthless. Instead, those Panzer III's were modified to become STUG III's.

    Also, I'm not sure how my suggestion is any more linear than yours? To me it seems more realistic because later heavy tanks would completely destroy early light tanks in any situation.

    Additionally, the Heavy Tanks should not replace Medium tanks. They should be auxillery. In order to accomplish this Heavy tanks should not necessarily be so much better than Medium tanks (except for in tank vs. tank matchups due to vs. class bonuses) because they should be much more expensive.
     
  12. sangeli

    sangeli Major General

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Altough this might seem very cocky and arrogant, I think I have a simple solution to the tank problem. IMO the seem to work; I did many mind experiments in my boring summer job. Ok here it is

    Early tank: 15 str, 2 movement (40% cost of medium tank)
    They were cheap, bad, and not very fast, holdovers from the stingyness of the Great Depression)

    Light tank 20 str, 3 movement +15% vs early tank (60% cost of medium tank)
    Some of these tanks were decent, some were not. Overall were faster, stronger, and more expensive than the early tanks.

    Medium tank (requires sloped armour tech) 25 str, 3 movement +30% vs early +15% vs light tank
    These tanks were significantly better than the light tanks in every way but speed but were much more expensive to build.

    Heavy tank 28 str, 2 movement, +45% vs early +30% vs light +15% vs medium (140% cost of medium tank)
    Some heavy tanks were a significant improvements over their respective countries medium tank, like the USSR with the IS tank, and some were not, like the Tiger for Germany.

    NOTES:
    Because different nations had different types of tanks at different times, some nations should acquire different tanks with techs. For example, because the T-34 was such an early Medium tank, the USSR should unlock it with the light tank tech and the KV with the medium tank, even though they are medium and heavy tanks respectively. And Germany should get the Panther and the Tiger I with sloped armour and the tiger II for the heavy tank tech. There are plenty of examples of that sort of thing. Also, get rid of the modern tank because the first main battle tank did not appear until well into the cold war. Same thing with the modern infantry. Instead, just make research times slightly longer and keep everything within the 1930-1950 timeframe.

    The prevalent idea to make light and medium tanks +25% vs infantry is a very bad one. Tanks already have a higher str than infantry and giving them another advantage is just too unfair: infantry NEEDS to have a place in any game, in not just in defense. You have to remember that all units are on relative terms so one tank unit represents one armoured division which is only a few hundred tanks whereas an infantry division is about 15,000 men (everyone, inlclude non combat persons).
     
  13. Chamboozer

    Chamboozer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    But remember that infantry's primary purpose is to hold terrain (defend) that was secured by armored spearheads. Light Tanks (in my version) wouldn't stand up to the later infantry without their +25% bonus, and let's not forget that even against relatively early infantry, light tanks won't stand a chance if the infantry are fortified in a city. Best case scenario for the infantry...

    Light Tank. Say, 20 :strength:, with its +25% bonus. Total = 25.
    Early Infantry defending a normal city. 15 :strength:, +60% culture defense, +25% Fortify, +10% City Defense bonus, Total = 29.95. That's without any City Defense promotions. It also doesnt take into account whether the city is on a hill, or has a +80% instead of 60% for being a highly cultured city.

    Also, I think you said in your earlier post that Heavy Tanks replaced Medium Tanks in my version. Not true.

    I can understand your position here, but making each successive tank hugely better than the last will make low-tech civ's extremely weak.
     
  14. Chamboozer

    Chamboozer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Older tanks aren't upgradeable now, and I think everyone agrees that that's the way that they should stay.
     
  15. danrh

    danrh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Port Hedland, Western Australia
    Actually not everyone, as indicated at post #66 :)

    Dan
     
  16. sangeli

    sangeli Major General

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    But I say uprade them to tank destroyers, as was done in real life. However, I'm sure Dale won't agree to this so I'll just have to do it in my own mod. Personally, I think you could probably help me more with my mod than with Dale's because he isn't looking to add a bunch of units.

    You mentioned something about less advanced civs having a significant disadvantage because of worse tanks. However, I want that happen.
     
  17. Chamboozer

    Chamboozer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Sure, it's realistic for lower techs to stand no chance against higher techs (just look at Operation Desert Storm), but in Civ terms this means that the Nation that takes the most land early on and with it, the :science:, will almost be guaranteed victory of the game.

    Upgrading older tanks to TD's would be useful and realistic if civ's had unique Tank Destroyers. The one problem would be that the AI would be upgrading them before the tanks became obsolete, or even worse, not building them at all.
     
  18. sangeli

    sangeli Major General

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Why shouldn't the nation that has the most land units early on and the best technology win? The scenario is set up so that the three sets of allies (Soviet Union is separate) have about equal power, thus no civ should be drastically ahead.
    Well, in my Blitzkrieg mod each tank destroyer would be civ unique. However, not every country has the ability to upgrade old tanks to SP artillery (especially the US and Britain). It wouldn't too hard to teach the AI to upgrade the tanks. Each civ would ideally have two tanks serviced tanks at once. Once a third tank is available, for each one of the third tank made, one tank of the first kind is made. For example, the Panzer III. Once the Panther started to be made, the Panthers replaced the Panzer III's and the old Panzer III's were turned into StuG III's. I'm going to do something of that sort.
     
  19. vidimce

    vidimce Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    101
    Is anyone going to do a modification of Dale's mod with Chamboozers suggestions ? It would be such a shame for those great suggestions to go to waste.

    P.S. Dale, the simplicity of the mod is what I personally don't like about Road to War. Just so you know there is people that like a more complex game that involves strategy and tactics and IMO there is a lot of us. Probably more then those fans that like simplicity as you say and proof of it is that everyone visiting this forum has written suggestions that add more complexicity and realism to the mod, not the other way around.
     
  20. sangeli

    sangeli Major General

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Yes, I am. My Blitzkrieg Mod will include much of what Chamboozer suggested, but not all. I hope within the next few days I'll get a subforum in RTW where you can post the suggestions.
     

Share This Page