[GS] Valuing Units & Buildings

[steemroller]

Then there are the challenges of Corps and Armies, which I think are underpowered, especially when you give on land/sea control, flanking and number of attacks. Using integers to capture the force multiplier (+10 Corp, +7 Army) skews the benefits to earlier units. What do you all think about changing Corps and Armies to having a multiplier of 2.5x for Corp and 5x for Armies?

 

[Sostratus]

Using integers to capture the force multiplier (+10 Corp, +7 Army) skews the benefits to earlier units

In civ6, combat outcomes are based on the linear difference between the strengths involved. That is, A - B = C. It doesn't matter if the units are 30 and 20, or 80 and 70; a difference of 10 is a difference of 10. This system is a departure from previous games where it was the ratio of the strengths involved, instead of the difference.

There's another equation to transform the difference between unit strengths into a combat multiplier.
Specifically,
combat_mult = exp(StrDifference/25)
(The base damage dealt if a unit attacks a unit of equal strength is 30.)
There's several key points that show up a lot in this system:
+5 is ~20% more damage dealt and ~20% less damage taken.
+7 is ~30% more damage dealt and ~30% less damage taken.
+10 is 50%.
+17 is 100%.
+30 is 3.33x, or a 1 hit KO.

Now, the first thing someone will notice is that it takes 3 unit to make a army but they only get +100%! What gives? Well, that +17 applies on offense and defense. So in overall combat effectiveness it's like having 4 (twice the damage dealt, half the damage taken) units for the price of 3.

TLDR: because of how the combat formula works a fixed number like +10 actually is a constant multiplier.
If you look at some of the other posts in this thread you'll see exclusive references to fixed number when talking about unit strength. This is why. Of course, this linear system does not apply to things like production cost, which can make some discussion a little opaque if you aren't familiar.

 

[steemroller]

@Sostratus , I appreciate the thoughtful response (and the thread in general). Thank you.

 

[acluewithout]

...so ...I guess we might want to revisit this thread post Spring patch...?

Amy thoughts so far?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

...so ...I guess we might want to revisit this thread post Spring patch...?

Amy thoughts so far?

So far as I can see, most of the 'Reveals' have been concerning Production tweaks, possible individual Civ tweaks, Diplomacy, UI, Maps, but that doesn't mean they haven't also changed a bunch of Factors and numbers relating to Units. Since they have apparently changed Building Production Costs for the last third of the game, I would not be surprised to see Unit Production Costs also changed, but I haven't seen any mention yet.

Best wait and see . . .

 

[Sostratus]

...so ...I guess we might want to revisit this thread post Spring patch...?

If that shot in the video of the pike&shot having a +14 vs mounted is extended to all anticav, that seems like a potential hitch. Or perhaps they know AC are weak but refuse to address to root cause most players face (which is pikes being just 41 strength.)
But it wouldn't really detract from setting things around a +10 system.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

IF by 'Rifleman' you mean the black-powder Rifleman, while it's a "Civ-Standard" it's not especially relevant historically. The rifled musket and breechloading black-powder rifle were adopted in quantity by about 1850 (The Dreyse Needle Gun was officially adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841, but it wasn't issued to regular infantry units until 1848: British and American rifled musket muzzle-loaders weren't issued until the early 1850s) and it was made obsolete by smokeless powder by 1890 (French Lebel bolt action rifle, the same one they used in WWI, was adopted in 1889). That means as a weapon and Unit, it lasted about 40 years.
By contrast, the smooth-bore flintlock musket, the 'Fusil' with socket bayonet was virtually the universal European infantry weapon from 1700 to 1820, and by adding percussion caps, they were still in use at the beginning of the US Cvil War in 1861 and the Russian Army during the Crimean War 1855-57. That's about 150 years, and Very Important Years, too - it was the weapon of the Redcoat and Garde Imperiale, and of the French and Indian/7 Year's War, the American Revolution, the Napoleonic (World) War, Conquest of India, Liberation of South America - it is criminal that the game has ignored this unit for so long.
Suggestion:
Fusilier (Melee Class)
Starts with +10 against Mounted (bayonets, square formations)
Melee Strength: 65
Move 2
Available at Tech: Military Science
(Cavalry and its replacements should move to Tech: Rifling, since they seem to represent the mid-late 19th century mounted troops with rifled carbines: historically, almost 150 years after the Fusil was adopted.

Why 'Fusilier' name is chosen over 'Line Infantry' which are more common official name of this unit?
and.. you did mention 'Firepower/Gunpowder/Infantry' class before. this idea is being used in my mod (WIP version) rightnow. (this version isn't released YET because more unit graphics have to be make (and even animate) manually)

 

[Evie]

For one thing, because it's more in keeping with traditional Civ foot units names, which are usually named after their weapons, not their formation or strategy.
For two, because having both infantry and line infantry may create confusion, especially as it sounds like just looking at the name that line infantry should be the upgrade over the infantry, not the other way around.
For three, because fusilier and line infantry are not in fact identical concepts despite overlapping a lot - the line infantry predates the flintlock (or fusil) by a fair bit, and was first pioneered with bog-standard musketmen.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

For one thing, because it's more in keeping with traditional Civ foot units names, which are usually named after their weapons, not their formation or strategy.
For two, because having both infantry and line infantry may create confusion, especially as it sounds like just looking at the name that line infantry should be the upgrade over the infantry, not the other way around.
For three, because fusilier and line infantry are not in fact identical concepts despite overlapping a lot - the line infantry predates the flintlock (or fusil) by a fair bit, and was first pioneered with bog-standard musketmen.

Specifically, 'line tactics' for infantry start a century before the flintlock musket became standard, with the 'battalion' of Maurice of Nassau in 1592 CE - which was a Pike & Shot unit, 1/3 pikes to 2/3 arquebus or matchlock musket.

Second, the term 'line infantry' is simply not accurate. In the manuals and commentary from the mid to late 18th century, it refers only to the 'center companies' of infantry: the Grenadier companies and battalions, the light infantry (Jagers, Voltigeurs, etc) and Guards infantry of any kind were never referred to by contemporary military men as 'line' infantry.

Finally, because Line Tactics were never Universal even for 'line' infantry: the French Regiment du Roi famously charged in column at the Battle of Speyerbach in 1703, British 'line infantry' companies adopted loose files (skirmish order) tactics in the American Revolution, and Grenadiers frequently formed in column in all armies on the flanks of an army so they could reform into line or square as required.

The Fusil, on the other hand, was the French term for, specifically, the flintlock musket, which was adopted virtually simultaneously with the fixed socket bayonet at the beginning of the 18th century (1695 to 1708). Thus, the term Fusilier applies to all troops armed with the virtually universal flintlock smoothbore musket with bayonet used by every European and European-imitating army from about 1700 to 1841.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ And the name 'Fusilier' passed on to Civ-standard 'Riflemen' armed with the likes of Dreyse, Minie Muskets, Trapdoor Rifles and standard breechloaders of the 1860-1880s ? And it is still considered valid name right?

And what's a preferred graphical representations (uniforms) of this unit?
1. Late 17th Century 'Malburian'
2. Mid 18th Century - Early Napoleonic Wars
3. 1810-1860 - Napoleonic Industrials
4. 1860-1880 'Civil War - Bismarc Wars - Pre - WW1)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ And the name 'Fusilier' passed on to Civ-standard 'Riflemen' armed with the likes of Dreyse, Minie Muskets, Trapdoor Rifles and standard breechloaders of the 1860-1880s ? And it is still considered valid name right?

And what's a preferred graphical representations (uniforms) of this unit?
1. Late 17th Century 'Malburian'
2. Mid 18th Century - Early Napoleonic Wars
3. 1810-1860 - Napoleonic Industrials
4. 1860-1880 'Civil War - Bismarc Wars - Pre - WW1)

Once you had a single weapon that was 'universal' for all the 'foot' (infantry), like the Fusil or flintlock musket, there is a linear progression for the infantry forces:
1700 - 1840: all armed with smoothbore flintlock muskets
1841 - 1889: all armed with rifled muskets or, increasingly, breechloaders
1889 - 1940: all armed with bolt-action magazine rifles using smokeless powder propellant
1940 - 1965: increasing numbers armed with semi-automatic rifles and then fully automatic sub-machine guns and assault rifles
1965 - 2020: all armed with assault rifles of various types

Variations during these periods were for 'specialized' troops: light infantry from the 1770s on sometimes used black powder muzzle-loading rifles (British 95th Rifles or 60th Regiment, some German Jägers). In the 19th century, light infantry tended to get the most advanced breechloading rifles first, as in the Prussian Army where the Jägers got the Dreyse needlegun in the early 1840s but the regular infantry didn't get it until about 10 years later.

As to graphic representation, my suggestions would be:

Fusilier: the mid-18th century armies of the even Year's War, the height of the 'Age of Reason' warfare. Almost everyone wears a black tricorn hat, colored coat with pinned back lapels, collar and cuffs in contrasting color, and lots of white or black leather straps and cartridge boxes.
Rifleman: The mid-19th century black powder riflemen were now in darker colors: lots of medium or dark blue coats, dark blue, white, or even red trousers, head gear mostly kepis with some variations like the Prussian spiked helmets or British tropical 'pith' helmet.
Magazine Rifleman: with smokeless powder propellants came very long ranges ad machine guns, so uniforms became 'modern' - dull brown, khaki, Feldgrau - to wear bright colors was suicidal. After 1914 helmets became the standard headgear.
After about 1980, almost everyone is in some kind of camouflage patterned uniform, but there is, if anything, even less uniformity: very single army and type of special forces seems to have their own peculiar camouflage pattern.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ 'Rifleman' to be in any civ 6 exp or mod?? first you disagree with it and propose Fusilier instead.
Rightnow my modding skill isn't quite enough to implement graphical representations of 'technical upgrades (that has to be purchased rather than earned by level up)

And your views about 'Marines/Amphibious' as a distinct unit class that has Amphibious ability by default? (Similiar to Red coats but without Foreign Continent bonus)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ 'Rifleman' to be in any civ 6 exp or mod?? first you disagree with it and propose Fusilier instead.
Rightnow my modding skill isn't quite enough to implement graphical representations of 'technical upgrades (that has to be purchased rather than earned by level up)

And your views about 'Marines/Amphibious' as a distinct unit class that has Amphibious ability by default? (Similiar to Red coats but without Foreign Continent bonus)

I wouldn't propose any new units for Civ VI until they also rework the Tech and Civics progressions and the general pace of the game. Right now, I find it practically impossible to use Musketmen before I have the Tech to upgrade them to Infantry, and then Infantry get into one or two battles at most (and then only if I'm on a Domination kick) before they upgrade to Mechanized Infantry. Until that changes, there's no point in adding more ephemeral units in between them.

A separate Marine/Amphibious unit depends on whether you want to show Functionality or Unique Units. There have been amphibious operations since the Trojan War, and at Vera Cruz in the Mexican War the United States landed an entire army complete with cavalry and artillery without having any specialized 'marine' units participate. The 'amphibious' capability then, has been present for most of the game's span of time. Representing it as a Promotion for Melee Units is (but adding it for Ranged and/or Heavy /Light Cavalry), I think, a step in the right direction, with the addition that 'modern' (post-Industrial Era) amphibious operations also require a great expenditure of Production in specialized landing craft and equipment - the lack of enough landing craft was a major consideration for Allied amphibious operations from 1942 to 1944. If there was a single 'amphibious Unit' or mechanic required by the game, some way to represent this Industrial requirement for technological development and production of specialized landing craft for infantry, artillery, and tanks would be, IMHO, the place to apply the design resources.

On the other hand, 'Marines' of almost any kind are almost always 'Elite' infantry. You could, therefore, have an American Unique Unit of USMC (United States Marne Corps) or a Soviet Unique Unit of Naval Infantry (Morsky Pekhoty) or their equivalents in just about every Civ with a modern navy (Japanese Naval Infantry Landing Forces, for instance) - and the Russian Marine Units and US Marines both existed during the Industrial Era, so would not have to be relegated to the End of Game only (The Russian Marines were fielded as a 'land' infantry Division during Napoleon's invasion of 1812 and the USMC participated famously in the war against the Tripoli 'pirates' at about the same time).

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ So this means there's no need for marines as a separate unit class to represent either USMC or Industrial - modern era Armed Sailors like this one? even with 'mod potentials'.

If you insist on that. for a mod that has 'Firepower/Gunpowder class/Infantry class' (Melee and Anticav combined). should Promotion 'Commando' , 'Amphibious', and 'Elite Guard' allocated to them (I haven't done it yet but re allocating two Heavycav promos to Tank class and make a new ones with similiar functions is proven mod-possible, i've proven such ? if so what's the name for three promos that serves similiar functions? Do you think 'Champion' should be the name for 'Elite Guard' promo for Melee Class??

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Firepower Promotions might be:
Name: Form Square
Description: +10 Combat Strength defending versus Cavalry Units
Requirement(s): None

Name: Platoon Fire
Description: +7 Combat Strength
Requirement(s): None

Name: Follow Me
Description: Flanking Bonuses Doubled when attacking
Requirement(s): Platoon Fire

Name: Die Hard
Description: Defends at Full Combat Strength until destroyed.
Requirement(s): Form Square

Name: Open Order
Description: +10 Combat Factor when attacked by Ranged, Air or Naval units
Requirement(s): Die Hard, Follow Me

Name: Ranger Training
Description: Can scale Cliffs, No penalty to movement through Forest or Marsh tiles
Requirement(s): Follow Me, Die Hard

Name: Infantry Attacks
Description: +1 additional attack if Movement allows, can move after attacking
Requirement(s): Open Order, Ranger Training

I'll leave the potential changes to Ranged and Siege in the Mid-Late Game for another Post . . .

What about Amphibious (or alternative name for it?) promotions? Should it now belongs to 'Firepower/Gunpowder/Infantry' class (Melee and Anticav combined class, the term I chose is 'Infantry') or should this class get different names for Amphibious instead? (Same promotion names can't be shared to different class as per coding as it will incur crashing error when a new game is being created)

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Ballistics is another "Tech" that is grossly out of place. Niccolo Tartaglia's first book on exterior ballistics (Gunnery) was published in 1537 CE - no matter how you define it, at least 200 - 250 years before the Industrial Era got into gear. And the smoothbore black-powder muzzle-loading Field Cannon with trunnions and trailed carriage first appeared at the end of the Fifteenth Century, firmly in the Renaissance Era, and was an established part of every European Army over a hundred years before the Industrial Era.

Since Cavalry represents the carbine and sword-armed unarmored cavalry of the 19th century, Rifling would be a better bet for a Tech for the unit.

Cuirassiers were armored cavalry with swords and pistols, and they start appearing in the 16th century CE - the late Renaissance Era. The graphic depiction, though, is from the late 18th century, the Napoleonic Wars, at the beginning of the Industrial Era, which is probably the reasoning for using Ballistics as their Tech. Since Ballistics is grossly misplaced an Era too late (along with the Field Cannon), it's not too far off in placement, just utterly mis-named.

I would keep the units approximately where they are except for Cavalry, which should move to Rifling.
.

And what shall be prereq for rifling instead?
And if Fieldcannon should be in the Renaissance / Earlymodern, then should 'Gun-Howitzer' (Think of 'Napoleon' fieldguns used in American Civil War, something Paixhans invented one or two decades earlier) be Industrial era ranged choice? (The other candidate is rifled cannon)