1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Units, Upgrade tree, Combat, Healing and Equipment

Discussion in 'Gedemon's Civilization, a total overhaul project' started by Gedemon, May 7, 2017.

  1. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,493
    Location:
    France
    Thinking a bit more about it, maybe the Logistic Cost should be attached to each equipment type, not personnel depending of units type.
     
  2. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,493
    Location:
    France
  3. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Some comments on the selected units/weapons - I will only list the ones I have reservations about...
    Melee Elite:
    Light Swordsmen
    : - as the next step up from the club-armed Warrior, not quite correct: the next step up was the Bronze Age Warrior, a distinctly elite type since bronze was too expensive for just anybody to have it. Most common weapon was a short bronze sword or longer wood-hafted bronze axe. Even the lightest of the iron age/steel swordsmen carried some kind of shield, even if it was only a round 'target' shield like the Pictish aristocrats or Georgian Khevsur
    Longswordsmen: - this appears to mean the infantry of the late Medieval Era with plate or partly plate armor, but only some of these carried any kind of sword as a primary weapon. More common were various kinds of maces, battle-axes, morning stars, etc. I suggest a better term would be 'Man-at-Arms' and save the Longswordsman title for the really elite, like the Double Pay Men of the Landsknechts or the mercenary Scots' Gallowglasses.
    Naval Infantry: - more Specialized Infantry than Elite Infantry, during the black powder rifle period and even before, from the end of the 17th century on, the elite infantry were Grenadiers - who gave up their grenades very quickly and simply became the infantry that led attacks, armed just like the rest of the infantry with smooth bore flintlocks and later, muzzle- and then breech-loading rifles. The term 'Grenadier' became so identified with elite infantry that the German Army named all their infantry Grenadiers after 1943.
    Melee:
    Light Spearmen
    : - the very earliest depictions of Sumerian and Egyptian spearmen show them with shields - light, made of leather or wicker, but shields, so there is, basically, no such thing as a 'shieldless spearman'
    Rifleman: - the 'Upgrade' from the Tercio was really the flintlock musket-armed Fusilier: between the last Tercio and the first regular rifle-armed troops there is a gap of about 200 years which, admittedly, Civ games always seem to ignore.
    Motorized Infantry: - technically, 'motorized infantry' is infantry thrown into a truck for movement. If they have some kind of Fighting Vehicle, tracked or wheeled, with them then they are Mechanized Infantry - and because the vehicles can carry both armor and a variety of heavy automatic and high explosive weapons, Mechanized Infantry is much more heavily armed than almost any regular infantry
    Recon:
    Skirmisher - Most classical skirmishers were not Bowmen. To get good effect from archery you have to have lots of bowmen all putting mass fire on a target, which is not compatible with the loose formation of Skirmishers. The dispersed skirmishers were usually armed with javelins of various kinds, occasionally slings.
    "War Horse" is a bad term for any skirmishing or light cavalry. Those troops could (and did) use just about any horse, because by definition they were lightly armed and equipped. The War Horse proper was a horse big enough and strong enough to carry a powerful man with armor, and they were relatively rare and expensive to raise and feed: the most expensive single item in a Knight's panoply of required equipment was his Destrier, or War Horse.
    Ranged:
    Field Cannon, Field Gun - not sure how you are going to distinguish these: once the Europeans (mostly French) put trunnions and a trailed carriage on/under cannon, all the changes were minor until the development of breech-loading and rifled cannon in the 19th century: for over 350 years performance and manufacture of smoothbore cannon did not change much. IF you mean the Field Gun to be the light artillery with recoil mechanism of the early 20th century, then they are Field Artillery or Light Guns, and then the 'Artillery' in the Siege line would be the heavier Howitzers of the 20th century - which actually makes sense, since most of the Light Guns were 75 - 76mm pieces firing 16 - 18 pound shells, while the howitzers ranged from 105mm to 203mm firing 35 to 200 pound shells.
    Siege:
    Between the Bombard and the Rifled Cannon there is, again, about a 350 year Gap, during which the same smooth-bore cast bronze or iron cannon were used in both field battles and sieges. However, during most of that period Heavy Mortars or Siege Howitzers (heavy pieces firing 25 - 80 pound explosive/incendiary 'bombs') were used almost exclusively in siege work.
    Cavalry:
    Armored Horsemen
    - with armored horses and wearing armor, were actually a pretty rare breed in the Classical Era: some of the Massagetae are the first mentioned on armored horses (at Gaugamela) but they did not have lances, and while Persian Cataphractii and Clibanarii were armored head to hoof, the majority of 'Battle Cavalry' were armed with swords, javelins and thrusting spears and armored only with cuirass. helmet and shield.
    Light Cavalry:
    Rider - with a spear, is your first entry, but the earliest 'riders' seem to have been either mounted bowmen (Assyrian, Cimmerian) or throwing javelins. Getting close enough to thrust with a spear when the infantry have stout shields and spears of their own is Not a good idea, and there's little evidence that it was tried until much later. The earliest men on horses, in fact, would be better represented by the Mounted Skirmisher - lightly equipped men on small horses keeping at a distance and peppering the enemy with thrown javelins or arrows from composite bows.
    Horseman - with armor and spear - No - at least, no to metal armor. They started carrying shields in the late third century BCE (right after Alexander the Great's time, in fact) but even in the metal-armor-crazy Medieval Era Jinettes and other 'light' cavalry generally wore only metal-studded leather armor at most, and helmets. Light Cavalry always relied on the speed of their lighter, faster horses to Get Out Of The Way so they wouldn't Need armor heavy enough to stop a lance or a sword.
    Armored Cavalry (Armored Cars), Light Tank: these are really the same thing in actions and deployment: they are modern (20th century) units for reconnaissance, skirmishing, screening, but rarely attacking - all the duties of tradition light cavalry, but whether a given unit had light (tracked) tanks or armored cars was almost immaterial: light tanks or heavy armored cars could both be armed with guns up to 75-76mm in the 1950s, and modern 'armored cars' - the heavy multi-wheel Strykers and such - can carry heavy automatic weapons or missiles, mortars or cannon.

    And in all the categories, we've left out:
    Dragoons - the mounted reconnaissance units of the late Renaissance - early Industrial Era
    Jagers, Yegerskii, voltigeurs, 'Rifles' - all the Light Infantry of the 18th and early 19th century, which evolved into Elite Infantry in most European armies by the beginning of the 20th century: a\good candidates for Elite Melee for the Industrial Era.
     
    Knasp, steemroller and Gedemon like this.
  4. steemroller

    steemroller Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    51
    Location:
    WA, USA
    A minor point: should the galley not have raiding capabilities? There was little differentiation between trade, troop ferrying, ship-to-ship fighting and coastal raiding. Perhaps you are considering this an earned promotion?
     
  5. Knasp

    Knasp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    I agree with Boris generally, and especially regarding shields for earliest melee units, light spearmen and swordmen.

    One thing I'd suggest is that the Chariot unit be changed into a ranged unit primarily: Chariot + Composite bow (+ spear, shield for self-defence)

    You could add a second chariot unit, which is more armoured, at least the charioteers. They were seemingly the first to wear metal (scale) armour, since they were mostly nobles/upper class and could afford it.

    I also agree that the Mounted Skirmisher unit should be moved so that it appears before any melee cavalry unit.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2018
  6. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    The earliest depictions of Chariots show two types of crew:
    Archers - in Egypt and Assyria, and therefore, since they learned from them, presumably in the 'barbarian' Hyksos and Cimmerians
    Archers PLUS melee weapons like spears or 'halbards' - Hittite, Chinese, Indian

    So, I would agree that the earliest Chariot unit should be a Ranged Unit, with possibly a Promotion or Civic-modifying mechanism to get a Mounted Melee unit (Civic like Warrior Code, Aristocratic Warrior?)

    BUT all Mounted Melee units using horse riders instead of Chariots get a major Combat Boost against Chariots - there is no recorded instance in which cavalry met chariots that the chariots didn't get massacred.
     
    Knasp likes this.
  7. Knasp

    Knasp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Sure, but to balance things a bit, Spearmen shouldn't get a +25% bonus vs Chariots or Horse archers, only against melee cavalry. Right now in the mod, wooden spears are plentiful and it's relatively easy to build several Spearmen units, which makes Chariots pretty weak. At the very least, the +25% bonus should be disabled whenever the Spearmen unit is flanked (since they would be unable to properly face the cavalry head on). Hoplites and later Pike-and-shot units are another matter of course.

    Another way would be to add the function that a Chariot/Horse archer unit will automatically retreat 1 tile when melee infantry tries to charge. Retreating to avoid the spears would increase the survivability and usefulness of Chariots/Horse archers, and it would force the attacking player to have at least a second unit ready to actually catch the Chariot unit. Each Chariot/Horse archer unit could be limited to 1 such retreat per turn. The Polish Hussar unit currently forces its target(s) unit to retreat, so it should be possible to modify that effect and apply it defensively.

    If Gedemon decides to give ranged units ammo to keep track of, in this case: javelins/arrows. Then we could force the ranged unit to fight in melee once ammo runs low. Using the automatic upgrade system, when ammo runs low, the unit could simply be "downgraded" into a Chariot (Melee) or Chariot (Low ammo) unit. Once ammo is supplied (Maybe > 20%) then they could go back to being a ranged unit.

    Another idea regarding naval units: There should be a chance of capturing any enemy ship attacked in melee (boarding). Just like taking prisoners or capturing equipment on land. It could be a variable chance, for every attack (or just the final blow). A weighted roll that is influenced by the morale of the defeated unit and perhaps the speed of the ships involved.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2018
    Gedemon likes this.
  8. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    This is, I think, one of the reasons for the difference in early Chariots: wherever the predominant foot soldiers were spearmen, (Egypt, Mesopotamia) the chariots were archery units; where the infantry were bowmen or 'skirmishers' (Anatolia, China) the Chariots were melee units.

    Horse Archers should always have a retreat option as a Charge Response. The 'Parthian' shot wth a bow as the horse runs away is associated with a later Persian Dynasty, but depictions of Scythians using it have been found, and there is no reason to believe that any horse archer could not do it (it is, in fact, one of the Required Standard Shots in modern horse archery competitions). Firing out the open back of a fleeing chariot doesn't strike me as being any more difficult, either.

    Excellent Idea, but one that will have to be variable throughout the game, depending on circumstances and Technology.

    For instance, once the ram was invented in the Mediterranean, for several hundred years (approximately 600 - 350 BCE) a 'melee' meant ramming, and there wasn't much left to capture. Once the Polyremes replaced the Trieres/Trireme, ramming fell out of favor and was increasingly replaced by catapult/missile fire followed by boarding.

    Another time that Capturing is a very low-chance option would be the late Medieval/Renaissance Era Chinese/Far Eastern ships, when gunpowder pyrotechnic and incendiary 'bombs', thrown by hand or by trebuchet, were the primary close range/pre-boarding weapons: in every case the primary effect was to start a fire, and once fire gets hold of a wooden ship there is, again, not much left to capture except debris.

    The answer would probably be to 'weight' the chance of Capturing in Melee severely to the negative if the ships are using either the Ram or gunpowder-based incendiaries as 'hand weapons'. Of course, equally negative modifiers would apply in a 'ranged' ship-to-ship action when using Greek Fire or, in the 19th century, Explosive Shells against wooden ships - you wind up capturing charred, wet splinters. On the other hand, in the era of solid shot cannon at sea (roughly, 1450 to 1820 CE) very few ships were sunk by missile fire, and the most common result of ranged fire was for the beaten ship to 'strike its colors' and surrender unless Cultural/Religious prejudice made that an unattractive option (being sold into slavery or slaughtered out of hand tends to Motivate against surrender)
     
    Gedemon, steemroller and Knasp like this.
  9. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,493
    Location:
    France
    @Boris Gudenuf : thanks a lot, great post, I'm going to update the spreadsheet, but I have a few questions/suggestions about the changes.

    The Jager, better fitted in Elite Melee or Recon/Skirmisher ?

    Because yes, Elite Melee has a missing link after the Grenadier
    Warrior -> Bronze Warrior -> Swordsman -> Man-at-Arms -> Musketman -> Grenadier (flintlock musket) -> Jager (rifle) ? -> Marine -> Modern (Mechanized) Marine

    But we have the same issuer with Recon/Skirmisher (modified):
    Slinger -> Peltast (javelin) -> Skirmisher (bows) ? -> Crossbowman -> Explorer (musket) -> Ranger (flintlock musket) -> Jager (rifle) ? -> Commando -> Special Forces

    Seems that I will have trouble to mix mounted units with Recon/Skirmisher line (because of the way the upgrade mechanism is designed with the equipment), so I'll move them to the light cavalry (and give the whole line the ability to move after attack), something like that, not using war horses, but requiring more advanced spears than the base spearman (to prevent rider to be available before mounted skirmisher), so what about this :
    Chariot (javelin) -> Mounted Skirmisher (bows) -> Rider (iron spears) -> Horseman (iron spears + light armor) -> Lancer -> Dragoon -> Cavalry -> Armored Cavalry (early armored car) -> Armored Cavalry (WWII light tank) -> Armored Cavalry (modern armored car)

    The "conscript" line would look like that:
    Light Spearman (wooden spears) -> Spearman (iron/bronze spears) -> Heavy Spearman (iron/bronze spears + heavy shields) -> Pikeman -> Tercio -> Fusilier -> Rifleman -> (Mechanized) Infantry -> Modern (Mechanized) Infantry

    I'm not sure that we need to represent the supply line for the (commonly used) light shields in any line BTW, but I propose to base the "light spearman"/"spearman" difference on the type of spear instead of light/medium shield. It could be based on using light armor (or not) if that make more sense ?

    Unless there are some available in the unique units, that would require at least new 3D models for the fusilier, jager, grenadier and dragoons.

    And I don't remember, is there is a model for chariot with javelin ?

    I will also look at what we have for the ranged/siege line again.
     
  10. historix69

    historix69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,207
  11. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,493
    Location:
    France
    Another small question, we have a Ballista model available, would it fit in a "defensive ranged" line?

    Ballista -> Culverin -> Gatling gun -> Machine Gun
     
  12. Knasp

    Knasp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Ability to move after attacking sounds like a good solution.

    There are 3 chariot/cart models I've seen (not sure if there are several ethnic variants?):
    1. War Cart = 2 donkeys + 2 riders, they seem to carry javelins and throw them in a drive-by when attacking (animation). Though they're classed as heavy cavalry (melee)
    2. Heavy Chariot = 2 horses + 2 riders, they seem to have javelins on the cart, and the animation seems to be throwing a javelin while doing a drive-by. Though they're classed as heavy cavalry (melee)
    3. Maryannu chariot = 2 horses + 1 rider with a bow. Has a ranged attack in-game. Maybe this animation can be used for having an archer on heavy chariots?

    In reality, the light chariot should have at least 2 riders (Egypt). While the heavy chariot should really have 3-4 riders (based on Hittites, Mitanni, Neo-Assyrian & Achaemenid Empires).
    Of course there were also differences in number of horses, wheel spokes, wheel placement, horse and rider armour, and so on.
    Also noticed that the Barbarian Horse Archer model is completely unarmoured, even half naked, unlike the Scythian Saka Horse Archer.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2018
    Gedemon likes this.
  13. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Although the 'Jaeger' started in Germany in the Renaissance (1498 CE, first rifled firearms, Augsburg, Germany), they were a tiny proportion of any military force - first regular unit was a single company raised in 1631, so their use as 'skirmishers' was always pretty rare on the ground. In contrast, the term came to be used for Elite Infantry extensively in both the Russian and German/Prussian Armies from the time of the Napoleonic Wars and throughout the 19th century - precisely the time that you start needing an 'elite' designation for infantry.

    Suggested Elite Melee Line:
    Warrior -> Heroic Warrior -> Swordsman -> Man-at-Arms -> Musketman -> Grenadier -> Jager -> Assault Infantry -> Mechanized Infantry

    Heroic Warrior, because the men with all the Bronze tended to be the Aristocratic warriors out in front - see Homer's 'Illiad' which pretty accurately captures the spirit of the Bronze Age 'Hero'
    'Assault Infantry is a direct translation of the German Sturmtruppen or Stosstruppen, the End-Of-WWI infantry that figured out how to break the trench stalemate. The Allies used terms like Assault Party or Assault Company - but the word 'Assault' is the key, they are the tactical descendants of the Grenadiers of the black powder years.
    Mechanized Infantry, which starts appearing in WWII, were the ones that accompanied the tanks, and so got involved in the Main Attacks. They also tended to be much more heavily armed: the German Panzer Grenadier company had twice the number of machine-guns as a regular infantry unit, and its own light infantry artillery that in the regular units was at Regimental level. The American Armored Infantry had a bazooka and a vehicle-mounted .50 caliber machine-gun for each Squad, where the regular infantry had a bazooka team in each platoon at best, and nothing heavier than a rifle-caliber machine-gun.

    Suggested Recon/Skirmisher Line:

    Slinger -> Psiloi (javelin) -> Peltast (javelins/spear/sword) -> Huntsman (Bow/Longbow) -> Forester (musket) -> Ranger (flintlock musket) -> Scout (rifle) -> Commando -> Special Forces

    Psiloi, as long as we're using Classical Greek Terminology, were the very light infantry with javelins and a small 'target' shield. They could also have self-bows or slings, but the primary point was that they had no melee weapons at all, and relied on speed and dispersion to avoid the enemy.
    Peltast was the heavier version, with a large wooden/hide shield, and a sword or spear to supplement his javelins. He was much more likely to get into a close fight if he had to, but didn't wear body armor, so was generally faster and lighter than the 'core' infantry. Roman Velites were actually a form of Peltast.
    Huntsman - the only kind of 'scout' in the European Middle Ages were men who made their living sneaking through the woods hunting game or finding it for the aristocrats, occasionally scooped up and sent out to hunt human Game. Usually armed with a bow or even a longbow, but primarily interested in Finding and Reporting rather than Finding and Fighting.
    Forester - the Renaissance 'Scout', could even include (very slow firing) rifles as in the German unit I mentioned above.
    Scout - the foot infantry units of the 20th century (Modern-Atomic Eras) all had men designated as Scouts, sometimes right down to the company level (US Army, WWII). They were armed just like regular infantry, but frequently had more training in 'sneak and peek' tactics and frequently included snipers to do a little harassing of the enemy as well as reconnaissance.

    Suggested Light Cavalry Line:
    Chariot (javelins) -> Mounted Scout (javelins, bows) -> Rider (metal-tipped javelins/spears) -> Horseman (metal spears, javelins, shields, light armor) -> Dragoon -> Lancer -> Cavalry -> Armored Cavalry (armored cars) -> Armored Cavalry (light tanks) -> Armored Cavalry (modern multi-wheeled armored cars)

    Mounted Scout more accurately indicates the use of the first 'horse-riders': loose formation, keep their distance, a mix of relatively close-range missile weapons
    Horseman - difference between him and his predecessor is that he carries a shield and possibly some body armor, and is much less worried about getting into contact with the enemy.
    Dragoon - the first 'Lancers' were almost as heavily-armored as Knights, so really don't belong in the Light Cavalry line. On the other hand, Dragoons, mounted infantry on really cheap, small horses, were used extensively throughout the Renaissance and into the 18th century as scouts, raiders, and skirmishing cavalry.
    Lancer - here is the 'light cavalry' of the early Industrial Era, without armor and using the lance to 'supplement' the charge of heavy cavalry and to drive off enemy light cavalry.

    Mechanized Infantry does not belong in the conscript line, because nobody has ever been able to afford to put all their infantry into mechanized vehicles unless they kept their army very, very small. The last two entries, reflecting the infantry of the 20th century, would be: Infantry (rifles, machine-guns) -> Infantry (automatic weapons, rocket-launchers, mortars)

    Actually, could be appropriately based on Type of Shield/Armor. The earliest spearmen and Bronze Age spearman particularly all seem to have shields made of wicker (Mesopotamia) or Hide/Leather stretched over a wooden frame (Europe, Greece, Egypt). By comparison, the spearman/Hoplites/Triarii of the Classical Era carried heavy shields made primarily of wood with metal facing or reinforcements, and wore at least metal helmets and canvas/leather body armor, sometimes body armor of metal covering them head to knee.
    Note that this also changes the 'Source' for the unit's equipment from animal (hides, bone) to mineral/timber (metal, wood) increasing the differentiation between them.
     
    Knasp and Gedemon like this.
  14. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,493
    Location:
    France
    Thanks again, much appreciated.

    I'll work on that, I'll post again for the (heavy) cavalry, the siege and ranged lines.
     
  15. Knasp

    Knasp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Wicker shields should definately be available for the first melee infantry units, so I guess it could be made (converted) by either the City centre, Farm improvements(?) or the Carpenter building? Wicker refers to a weaving technique "from any one of a variety of cane-like materials, including rattan, willow, reed and bamboo", which means that it can use the Plant resource. Wicker shields could offer some protection against ranged attacks (slingshots / ancient arrows), but not against melee attacks: "The wicker shields were able to effectively stop arrows but not strong enough to protect the soldier from spears." says Wikipedia. Another reason to add Wicker shields is that it would let Wood be prioritised for shipbuilding, which it was in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

    If the mod keeps track of the number of shields carried by units, then the shields could be broken in combat or by taking ranged fire, to increase the need for resupplying. Even armour and weapons should break down of course.

    Regarding the skirmisher units:
    Persia's Immortal UU used Wicker shields, Scale armour coat, Bows/Slings and short Spears, said Herodotus. In-game it has the ability to fight both in melee and do ranged attacks. The same ability could be given to Peltast, Mounted Scout, Rider, Horseman and so on. Very light, ranged units like Slingers and Psiloi could also be given the ability to move after attacking.

    @Gedemon
    Is it possible to have parallell units in the same place on the unit line? Or can only 1 unit occupy each promotion class spot in each Era?

    If it's possible then couldn't we make a weapon or armour resource to be optional in recruitment? Alternatively add extra variants of those units: with / without that equipment? Or even better, to let the unit be recruited with combinations of equipment?
    For e.g:
    • EITHER Wicker shield OR Wood/Hide shield
    • EITHER Wooden spears OR Metal spears
    • EITHER Javelins OR Bows
    Then we should be able to use the Maryannu Chariot model and animation for Chariot units with bows, and Heavy chariots for those with primarily javelins. And the Barbarian Horse Archer model could be used for Mounted Scout units with light / no armour, while the Saka Horse Archer model could be used for those units that acquire armour.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2018
  16. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,493
    Location:
    France
    About equipment damage and repairs, here are some of the attributes used in the Equipment table and the planned effects in game:

    • Toughness: used to determine if an equipment casualty results in destruction or damage (or completley prevent the equipment casualty and sent it to reserve, depending of personnel ratio left and requirements)
    • PersonnelArmor : 0 = high death rate, 100 = low death rate
    • AntiPersonnel : 0 = low kill rate, 100 = high kill rate
    • AntiPersonnelArmor : 0 = low damage to equipment with PersonnelArmor values, 100 = high damage to equipment with PersonnelArmor values
    • IgnorePersonnelArmor : lower the opponent PersonnelArmor value before calculating death rate
    • VehicleArmor : 0 = high personnel loss from death/capture, 100 = low personnel loss from death/capture
    • AntiVehicle : 0 = low destruction, 100 = high destruction
    • AntiVehicleArmor : 0 = low damage to equipment with VehicleArmor values, 100 = high damage to equipment with VehicleArmor values
    • IgnoreVehicleArmor : 100 = high number of captured/killed personnel, 0 = low number of captured/killed personnel
    • Reliability : percentage, 100 means no loss from breakdown, lower values means possible loss from unreliability (ie part of the equipment that would have been considered damaged and sent in reserve for repairs are instead captured or destroyed)
    • FuelConsumption
    • FuelType

    ATM those values (personnel & vehicle) are used to calculate the death rate and capture rate from combat casualties, affecting the equipment casualties (including repairing equipment on the field) is still a WIP, but is planned.

    About having units at the same place in a class line and optional equipment, one thing to remember in the design is that all units of the line share the same equipment class.

    For example, the current "Melee" line in the mod is defined by the following equipment classes:
    Materiel class
    Melee Weapons
    Melee Shields (optional)
    Melee Armors (optional)
    Melee Helmet (optional)

    Then each UnitType is also defined by it's own equipment classes, for example here is the current Swordsman definition:
    Materiel class
    Swords
    Shield (optional)
    Body Armor (optional)
    Helmet (optional)

    And the current Longswordsman ("UNIT_MACEMAN" from Moar Units) definition:
    Materiel class
    Swords
    Knight Armor
    Shield (optional)
    Helmet (optional)

    First you can note that a Swordsman (in the current version of the mod) can exist without any armor, but that there is no Longswordsman without "Knight Armor", even if at the "Melee" line level armors are optional.

    For the code to work, the Equipment classes of the "Melee" line contains all equipment types that are also defined in the Equipment classes of each UnitType of the line.

    For example the "Melee Armor" class contains the following equipment types:
    Linothorax
    Gambeson
    Leather Armor
    Bronze Armor
    Iron Armor
    Chainmail Armor
    Plate Armor

    The "Body Armor" class contains the following types:
    Linothorax
    Gambeson
    Leather Armor
    Bronze Armor
    Iron Armor
    Chainmail Armor

    And the "Knight Armor" class contains the following types:
    Chainmail Armor
    Plate Armor

    At the beginning of every player's turn, every "Melee" units linked to a city is requiring from that city the best available Equipment Type from the "Melee" line Equipment classes (even from the optional classes), based on the <Desirability> tag in the Equipment table (higher is better)

    Then, at the end of every game turn, the Unit Type is determined for each unit by listing the Equipment Types in Frontline and then searching for the unit of this line that is the closest match for the list.

    Going back at the example, the Swordsman unit type is defined by the "Body Armor" class when looking for a match, but requires armors from the whole "Melee Armor" class when getting reinforcements, listed by desirability.

    When a Swordsman unit manage to get a full (relative to personnel) "Knight Armor" equipment set in its "Melee Armor" component, then it matches the Longswordsman type at 100% and will upgrade to a Longswordsman the next turn.

    (When our Swordsman has only the "Chainmail Armor" type for "Melee Armor" then it matches both Swordsman and Longswordsman type at 100%, by default the code keeps the current type when it has the same match value as another, but to allow upgrade in this kind of specific situation, it also assumes that a higher construction cost means a better unit and override the default behavior)

    Now further in the Melee line, we have units that shouldn't use armors (or shield...), but will require them when asking for reinforcement (else the whole upgrade/downgrade mechanism won't work), so to prevent anachronisms in equipment used, there is an <ObsoleteTech> entry in the Equipment table that has to be set in such cases.

    ATM obsolete equipment is only removed from cities (and stop being available for units then), but I still need to add the code to remove it from existing units (which means that currently an Infantry that were once a Longswordsman can still have some "Knight Armor" equipment...)

    So, short answer: yes, having units at the same place in a class line and optional equipment is possible, but remember that all units of the line share a global list of equipment, and optional means that an unit can exist without that equipment, but will always require it if available.

    To rephrase, if you add a "shield class" or an "alternate weapon class" for a specific unit somewhere in a line, all units of that line will try to gain those shields or weapons even if they don't require them.
     
    Knasp likes this.
  17. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Suggestion: You might want to include a Weapon Class of Heavy Sword to represent the heavier weapons like 2-handed and 'bastard' (and and a half) swords, maces, morning stars, long axes, etc that were used primarily by folks like the Men-at-Arms and Gallowglass-type melee warriors.

    Suggestion: in the 12th - early 13th centuries CE, as the knights were transitioning to Full Plate armor in the late 13th century, there are a lot of depictions of knights wearing armor composed of both linked mail and plate. Basically, they are wearing the full panoply of mail armor on the body, with supplemental plates on chest, sometimes shoulders and upper arms, plus a helmet getting increasingly heavier and more enclosing than the 'open face' types typical earlier. To differentiate the earlier linked mail shirts and hauberks that go all the way back to the Celts, a category of Plated Mail for the 1st class of Knight Armor might be appropriate.

    Everybody upgrades, even if the High Command doesn't realize it at the time. I suggest that in any battle, the victors have the option to do an 'Upgrade' with a random percentage of enemy weapons that are superior to their own. This could change the unit type, with a temporary reduction in efficiency if the weapons are very different from their own.
    Examples:
    Hannibal's Spanish and Gallic infantry increasingly became armed and armored with Roman equipment during the second Punic War after slaughtering successive Roman Armies at Trasimene, Trebia and Cannae.
    French pikemen left their pikes on the ground after Steenkirchen (1695) and picked up enemy muskets,
    Lots of Zulus had British rifles after Isandhlwana (1879) from the massacred British troops, and
    a number of American Natives had cavalry carbines after Little Big Horn (1876)
    Everybody picked up the other sides' weapons in World War Two: in my researches on the Eastern Front, I've lost track of the numbers of German and Soviet weapons and equipment that 'changed sides', ranging from sub-machineguns and rifles to trucks and tanks - most of it never reported to higher HQ: I've found the references in stray photographs and personal memoirs, almost never in official reports and documents! Which means there are a lot more examples historically that simply never made it into the historical record...
     
    Gedemon and Knasp like this.
  18. Knasp

    Knasp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    But it should be possible to have a separate desirability value for each promotion class/line? I.e. "Melee desirability", "Skirmisher desirability" etc.
    What happens if you set the same Desirability value for several weapons? Then the unit's of that line won't request an upgrade right?
    Are Desirability values global and static or could they be modified during the game? Basically, could game events be used to modify the desirability? For e.g. building a new building, researching a tech, or combat activities.
    And finally, is it possible to let each Civ have separate Desirability values? So that situations can modify Desirability for equipment of different Civs? I realise that keeping track and saving those modified values for each player is an issue.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2018
  19. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,493
    Location:
    France
    Thanks, both noted, the current equipment list in the mod will need to be expanded/revised as the mod progress.

    Yes, that's already coded, a feature I'm really proud of, equipment change hands after every melee combat, and units can upgrade from that in the mod.

    There is a limitation on equipment use because of the way the whole upgrade mechanism is coded, meaning an unit will never use equipment that is not used by any other unit of that class (ie melee won't use bows in combat) but they already transfer equipment they don't use to adjacent units that can use it (or back to cities they have a supply link with), and I may add a feature at some point so that an unit with enough personnel but not enough equipment for its own class could split (in the melee/bows example a swordsman unit could spawn an archer unit, at a "health" value relative to available equipment/personnel in the reserve/rear section of the parent unit)

    I could expand it so that the unit would also split if the "desirability" of the equipment it can't use is greater that its current equipment.

    (with a check on viability in all cases, no point to spawn an unit with 1HP left only)

    A penalty for using equipment you don't have the tech for is also possible to implement.

    Making an unit to change class (because it could become a "better" unit in another class based on its current equipment list) is trickier, and if available should really be an option (if I create a melee unit, I may not want to have it changed to a ranged unit as it could jeopardize a strategy/tactic), but I prefer to limit new "action type" (like "change this melee unit to a ranged unit") to the absolute minimum, because each one requires UI coding, network coding and AI coding (by order of difficulty). Not impossible, but not short-term either.

    And about long-term development, having a "main unit" and "smaller units" attached to it (like an artillery regiment in an infantry division) with contextual spawning of the smaller units based on the main unit equipment list is something I'd like to have at some point, all the above would fit nicely with this kind of feature, but it may require the DLL source to implement more than the 2UPT currently hardcoded limit of civ6.

    Could you give me an example of use ?
     
  20. historix69

    historix69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,207
    Finding equipmment or fighting units you don't have the tech for should give a small tech boost for the respective tech (and maybe counter-techs like tank - anti-tank) if you survive.
     

Share This Page