1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Vokarya's Workshop: Units

Discussion in 'Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn' started by Vokarya, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    Here's some initial notes on figuring out proper strengths for air units.

    Gatling Gun does not need an intercept chance. I'm not so sure Machine Gun needs an intercept with the existence of Anti-Air Gun and Anti-Air Halftrack. Also, Anti-Air Gun and Anti-Air Halftrack do NOT need gold/turn maintenance costs. I can accept additional costs for offensive units, like tanks, mecha, planes, warships, and nukes, especially nukes. But AA Gun/AA Halftrack are not in that category, especially since they are ONLY defensive units. These two units may need their intercept chances increased, so that they serve as the primary early ground check to air units. The SAM Infantry is meant as a primary anti-helicopter unit and secondarily as an anti-air. Mobile SAM takes over from both these units.

    Intercept chances of lower than 100% put a big damper on the relative strengths of air units. A Biplane with Strength 20 and 50% intercept, intercepting an Airship with Strength 10 and minimum intercept damage, only gives a 46% kill chance to the Biplane. So I'm really not going to increase the strength of the Airship.

    Bomber strengths do not need to be high in the Industrial/Modern Era. Bomber strength matters in two different ways:
    • Fighter vs. bomber, in which case the question is "does the fighter kill the bomber?" I think the expectation should be YES. A fighter of the same era should have an excellent chance of destroying an enemy bomber, requiring the bomber-player to bring fighters of his own. Fighter-on-fighter cancels itself out, leaving only relative tech strengths and promotions.
    • Ground unit vs. bomber, in which case the question is "how much damage does the ground unit deal to the bomber?" The only units that are capable of dealing lethal damage to a fresh air unit are the Mobile SAM and ACV SAM. (If we want to change that, we can. But this is the way it currently stands.) EDIT: Actually, it matters in terms of bombers doing air strikes. The difference is that air strike damage is not random. So again we can dial in a number.
    In both cases, low intercept % mean that not much damage would be dealt to the bomber unless there is a much larger difference in the strength ratios. The strengths of ground units, which seem to be on a pretty good curve at this point, serve as an anchor to the overall strength of air units. Bombers shouldn't exceed ground-interceptors by too much, and then fighters can be adjusted to provide the right kill ratio against bombers.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  2. nionios

    nionios Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    392
    I noted that Stealth Bomber can perform "Fighter engagement mission".It shouldn't, it's not a fighter.This sort of mission should also be removed from Nighthawk in case it's converted to bomber class.
     
  3. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    I'm going to pull it. Early Bomber too, because EB doesn't need it either. I'll have to come up with better stats for the Nighthawk once I have the rest of the bombers on a good strength curve.
     
  4. nionios

    nionios Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    392
    Personally, I don't like that bombers can perform air strikes and cause collateral damage against helicopters. I understand that this happens because helos have DOMAIN_LAND.
     
  5. thegreekweegee

    thegreekweegee Big Guy 4U

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Messages:
    237
    That'd be easy to fix; just make helicopter units not take collateral damage from bomber units. Though I wonder if vokarya would really be up to it, however.
     
  6. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    I don't think helicopter units need any more special abilities. They already have higher speed than just about any other land unit and ignore terrain costs, the ability to cross coastal squares (and ocean squares later on), a bonus against tracked units, a flank attack against artillery, and a withdraw chance. In a more tactical game where you have to do things like time bomber attacks to catch helicopters on the ground, I'd be more likely to agree. On a purely theoretical level, it's a simple application of <UnitCombatCollateralImmunes>, but I just think it's one more complexity point and that's what I would prefer to rein in.
     
  7. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    On more analysis, I think we can just get rid of the Modern Fighter completely and move the Aurora Scramjet back to Metamaterials, keeping it as the main early Transhuman Era fighter. We have FIVE Bomber units in the Modern Era (Bomber, Strategic Bomber, Stealth Bomber, Nighthawk, Drone Bombers), so we can get by with just one for the Transhuman Era. With the Drone Bombers coming at the very end of the Modern Era, the DB will be the main bomber for the early Transhuman Era.

    I think I've mentioned this before, but I don't really like having all of Aerodynamics, Jet Propulsion, and Supersonic Flight in the early Modern Era. They all feel like they want at least one air unit apiece, but with only fighters and bombers as unit lines, that means cramming in one more unit than is ideal for proper unit lifespans. At the moment, the matchups are Aerodynamics - Bomber, Jet Propulsion - Jet Fighter, Supersonic Flight - Strategic Bomber. If we didn't have one of these techs, we could ditch the regular Bomber and rename the Early Bomber back to Bomber, giving us Jet Fighter/Strategic Bomber for the early modern and Strike Fighter/Stealth Bomber for the middle.
     
  8. Rezca

    Rezca The Greatest Jaggi

    Joined:
    May 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,966
    Location:
    United States
    Out of those three techs, if you had to remove one, which would you consider cutting?

    I haven't played in some time so I forget which techs did what and which came where, so I can't offer any solid suggestions myself
     
  9. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    Some of this represents in-process changes. I have a working copy of the mod to fiddle with.

    Aerodynamics is Modern-1 (requires Radar from the Industrial Era). It has the AA Halftrack, Bomber, Helicopter, and Airport. It leads to Jet Propulsion.

    Jet Propulsion is Modern-3 (Aerodynamics + Manufacturing). It has the SAM Infantry, Jet Fighter, Tactical Nuke, Blackbird, and Vacation Resort. It leads to Rocketry and Supersonic Flight.

    Supersonic Flight is Modern-4 (Computers + Jet Propulsion). It has the Supercarrier, Strategic Bomber, and MileHigh Travels. It leads to Modern Warfare.

    Supersonic Flight is the one I'd most like to cut. The real issue is spacing, in that Aerodynamics is still pretty close to Aviation where the previous bomber is. I would really like Aerodynamics on Modern level 2 instead of 1, or Jet Propulsion pulled back to Modern-2 instead of Modern-3. That would make Aerodynamics-Jet Propulsion close together with Strategic Bomber-Jet Fighter relatively paired up. I wouldn't want to push Jet Propulsion any further because that would push Rocketry-Satellites-Space Flight-Space Stations too far along the Modern Era. The "space race" belongs to the early/mid-Modern Era, not the late.

    The other option is Aerodynamics in place of Supersonic Flight on Modern-4, but that puts off Helicopter for a long time and places it too close to Gunship (Modern Warfare is Modern-5). Helicopter would have to be put somewhere else.

    Cutting any tech out of the Modern Era would also require a replacement tech to keep it at a round 40. I know it's arbitrary, but I want to keep it that way.
     
  10. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    Also, here are some changes I want to make to air promotions.

    I don't think we need both Extra Fuel Tank and Refuel in Air promotions. They have the exact same effect of +2 range and -15% strength. I don't mind one of these as an alternative to Range I, but I don't want to encourage two promotions with the exact same effect. I think Refuel in Air can be jettisoned.

    Fighters have access to both Interception and Air-to-Air Missiles promotions. I don't think they need both. I think we should actually get rid of the Air-to-Air Missiles line, or maybe keep one of them as a capstone to follow Interception I-II. But again, having two promotion lines with the same bonus does not work for me. (It also does seem a little funny to have Biplanes with Air-to-Air Missiles, and I don't want to have no access to interception-boosting promotions from the get-go.) However, I do think Hi-Tech units need access to the Interception promotions. They don't have any promotions that boost their intercept chances. Siege units have access to the Air Defense promotion line, which I'm a little skeptical about having in addition to Interception but is the primary anti-helicopter promotion line. The other thing to do with Interception is remove it from Bombers. According to the Sevopedia, Bomber class units are supposed to have access to Interception promotions by class but none of them actually get it because none of them have an interception chance.

    Precision Bombing, Napalm Bombs, and Low-Altitude Maneuvers all offer bonuses against Archery, Melee, and Mounted units that I don't think are ever going to come into play. The Chemical promotions also have bonuses against these types and Animal units which I think are unnecessary. Chemical also is supposed to be available to Gunpowder and Hi-Tech units but none of them can take it because Chemical boosts collateral damage and none of these units have it to boost. We should either delete the collateral damage or restrict Chemical to Siege units.
     
  11. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    I'm still working on air unit strengths. I did a brief detour and looked at bombing rates. Bomb rate is used instead of strength against improvements and city defenses. Against city defenses, bombers are about as good as siege units or maybe better, so I'm not concerned here. Against improvements, it's a contest between the bomb rate and the air defense rate of the improvement. Most improvements have a low level of air defense, but mines and oil wells/platforms are slightly better, which I think is there so that it's a little harder to disrupt strategic resources through air bombing. (I say a little; at typical bomber bomb rates, it's 70-90% per run to destroy a mine.) Forts and advanced forts do even better, so if you really need to protect a resource against enemy bombing, put a Bunker on it. You won't get the yield bonuses from a Well, but it will be much more resistant to air attack.

    Only a few tweaks are needed:
    • Increase Early Bomber from 5% to 10%. This gives it 55% odds against Mines.
    • Decrease Seaplane from 10% to 5%. I think Seaplane is mostly meant as a scout that water units can carry.
    • Give Airship a 5% bomb rate. It will be okay against basic improvements, but not so great against anything else.
     
  12. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    I did some crunching on air unit strengths. When I started comparing air unit strengths to the average strike damage inflicted on representative units of the time period where the air unit is available, I found air units actually needed to come down in strength to bring the air strike damage down in line with the same damage in BTS. Only in a match against obsolete units do you get more than about 30% damage per air attack.

    So this is what I think the revised strength curve for bombers should be:
    • Airship 10 (same)
    • Early Bomber 30 (was 40)
    • Bomber 40 (was 52)
    • Strategic Bomber 55 (was 75)
    • Stealth Bomber 70 (was 110)
    • Drone Bombers 110 (was 150)
    • Orbital Bomber 150 (was 200)
    Fighters also come down in strength so as not to deal more strike damage than bombers. However, in order to get the kill ratios up, all fighters get improved to +100% vs. bombers. The true Fighter is going to have a not-so-great kill ratio against Early Bombers and Bombers, because of the low intercept percentage. If I raise Fighter's strength any more or lower Early Bombers', then we have Fighters dealing more damage in an air strike, which I don't really want.

    This is a revised curve for fighters:
    • Biplane 15 (was 20)
    • Fighter 28 (not changed)
    • Jet Fighter 45 (was 54)
    • Strike Fighter 55 (was 70)
    • Aurora Scramjet 80 (was 130)
    • Orbital Fighter 120 (was 180)
     
  13. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    Nighthawk

    Here's my current thought-line on what do with the Nighthawk.
    • To make Nighthawk stand out from other air units, give it a high evasion chance. It should be higher than Stealth Bomber's 50%, but if it's too high it can become 100% with the right promotions. I'm thinking 60%.
    • 60 base strength. This means that if Nighthawk does get caught, it probably gets destroyed. Strike Fighter (110 net strength, 90% intercept) kills it 76% of the time. Jet Fighter (90 net strength, 75% intercept) kills it 68% of the time.
    • +50% vs. Land units. This makes Nighthawk a good ground-attack aircraft, with 90 net strength compared to Stealth Bomber's 70.
    • Collateral damage max 50%/10 units. This is the same collateral damage as the Stealth Bomber.
    • Keep the bomb rate at 14%. This makes it weaker than even a regular Bomber at bombing improvements.
    • Then of course, no fighter engagement or intercept chance and reclassify as a Bomber-class rather than a Fighter class. I don't know if it needs an upgrade path. Upgrading to Orbital Bomber would cost it a little of its evasion chance.
     
  14. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    More notes, because I'm looking at this stuff right now.

    Do Transhuman Era planes need Oil Products? I noticed that right now, all Industrial and Modern Era fighters and bombers, except the Airship, require Oil Products, but none of the Transhuman Era ones do. It wouldn't be too much of an issue to add it, because we're allowed one AND requirement and one OR requirement, and for airplanes, the OR requirement is filled by Aluminum/Durasteel and the AND requirement is generally the Oil Products.

    Drone Bombers has a very short range compared to other air units around it. The tradeoff for this is that it's currently classified as a SPECIALUNIT_TROOP, which actually doesn't do anything right now. I think it should be classified as a SPECIALUNIT_FIGHTER, which would allow it to operate off carriers.
     
  15. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,526
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    Both makes sense. Go for it. :)
     
  16. nionios

    nionios Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    392
    The SPECIALUNIT_TROOP means that Drone Bomber can operate from Stiletto Boat which is invisible to most units.So i think that ability counterbalances the very short range.
     
  17. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    According to the current XML, the Stiletto Boat can carry 3 of any land unit. It doesn't have the troop limitation any more. I think it's better for the Drones to operate off a carrier rather than a Stiletto Boat.
     
  18. IPEX-731BA5DD06

    IPEX-731BA5DD06 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,566
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    On game play, with drones, range 6 base, then you have Cruise missiles with a range of 8.

    Range 6, is 3 to target, 3 back to base, range 8 is 4 and 4, A Cruise missile is a end of line target.

    So now you have to sail carrier into range, 3 or 4 to attack target and sail out of range of cruise missile, 8, so carrier needs range 10, which it won't have UNLESS you give it speed only and no cargo.

    Solution - Increase range of drone bombers, dramatically, triple or to 20.

    reasoning - Lack of crew, smaller/lighter, greater fuel/range ratio.

    On Cruise missiles, how can they intercept a fighter/Bomber and not be destroyed. Granted a fighter or bomber attacking them on the ground, may only damage them, to be repaired BEFORE they can be used, (which is not the case), but for intercept?? NO
     
  19. aggri1

    aggri1 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    393
    I too found that the tiny range of drone bombers made them un-useful.
     
  20. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,599
    Missiles shouldn't be intercepting air units at all. The regular missiles have 100% interception AVOIDANCE, but if a missile is intercepting an air unit, then something else is wrong.

    Stealth Bomber is range 24, and Orbital Bomber is range 32, so either range 28 for the Drone Bombers looks right if they are an upgrade of the Stealth Bomber, or range 20 if SB does not upgrade to DB, but DB does upgrade to Orbital Bomber.
     

Share This Page