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. nionios

    nionios Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    376
    I think that a minor tradeoff for all those is the 0 unit cost/turn for DB.
     
  2. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,460
    That actually goes against the general rule; modern offensive units are the ones that get +gold/turn. Defensive units don't get costs above the baseline.

    What I'm looking at is figuring out how many forks should be in the Bomber category. After cuts, the remaining Fighter class units form an unbroken straight chain: Biplane - Fighter - Jet Fighter - Strike Fighter - Aurora Scramjet - Orbital Fighter.

    The Bombers are more complex. The "main chain" currently runs Airship - Early Bomber - Bomber - Strategic Bomber - Stealth Bomber - Orbital Bomber. The forks are: A-Bomb and Blackbird are one-off units that are just included in the Bomber category. Nighthawk is a special bomber that eventually upgrades to Orbital Bomber.

    Seaplane and Drone Bombers are the ones with extra issues. Seaplane has the issues of having a short lifespan, from Combined Arms (late Industrial) to Supersonic Flight (mid-Modern), an ill-defined role (it's currently a weak bomber and can be used as an aerial scout), and only one unit, the Cruiser, can currently carry it. I'd like to extend Seaplane a bit longer and let more units carry it; probably most Battleships and Cruisers, but Destroyers is a bit iffier.

    On one level, I want to make Drone Bombers part of the main bomber chain to cut down on the number of units available at that point, but I'm not sure of everything that would have to be given up to make DB fit in the chain.
     
  3. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,460
    Some more tweaks to Promotions. Interception needs a bit of a boost because it wouldn't be very useful for a unit with 100% interception. So I think it would be better like this:
    • Interception I: +10% intercept/+10% vs. Air units
    • Interception II: +15% intercept/+10% vs. Air units
    • Air to Air Missiles: +15% intercept/+15% vs Air units
    Air to Air Missiles II and III are gone because they overlap way too much with Interception. One promotion line like this is enough. Taking all three of these promotions plus Improved Radar (required) gives +45% intercept and +55% Strength against Air units. The main competition is the Veteran Pilot line. Taking the three promotions in that line gives +30% Strength, +25% evasion, +1 range, +45% XP earned in combat, and still leaves one promotion slot for Interception I or Range I or something else.
     
  4. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,460
    There is also overlap between the Maneuvering promotion line and the Firearms promotion line. Both give a combat bonus against Wooden Ships, and I don't want to have both. I think it devalues the Combat promotion line if the Maneuvering line gives nearly as good bonuses, but then the promotion is useless if you keep upgrading your ships.

    Maneuvering I is a very strong promotion even without the bonus against Wooden Ships because it reduces the cost to move across Ocean squares from 2 to 1. I consider it vital for any ocean-going transport ship to not have to spend so many turns to cross oceans and for any warship to escort transports. Its equivalent for land units is Mobility and Mobility has a higher prerequisite cost (requiring Flanking I + Flanking II compared to just Navigation I). So I think it would be fairer to have Maneuvering I just be the movement cost reduction and get rid of the later Maneuvering promotions. Firearms can stay because of its first strike bonuses.
     
  5. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,412
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    Shouldn't A-Bomb upgrade to some (any?) nuke?
     
  6. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,590
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    It does, to tactical nuke.
     
  7. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,412
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    Sorry. My bad.
     
  8. jackelgull

    jackelgull An aberration of nature

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,031
    Location:
    Within the realm of impossibility
    What are the requirements for the firearm promotion? I've never seen it and I generally have a large and well promoted navy.
     
  9. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,460
    Flintlock tech and either Combat I or Drill I promotion, but it's only available to Wooden Ships. It wouldn't be very useful to anything later, as the later ships get big enough bonuses against Wooden Ships that the powered ship should always win unless it was really damaged to begin with.
     
  10. Pongui

    Pongui Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    54
    ...and why I never waste XP for it. It becomes practically obsolete.

    Perhaps the melee, wood-ship, etc. promotions should be powered up a bit to make them better investments considering their lifespan?
     
  11. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,460
    I was looking at the Sentry promotions and I noticed that because of the Radar tech requirement on Sentry II, Wooden Ships and Steam Ships that should be eligible for the promotion aren't likely to ever get it unless you have a very resource-strapped civilization. I think we can remove that access without a problem.
     
  12. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,412
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    An idea I like in Civ6 is that workers wear out by time. I find it funny to build maglevs with the same worker I got from a goody hut before discovering the wheel :lol: Could something similar be implemented to AND too?
     
  13. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,761
    Honestly I'd prefer the exact opposite. By that I mean the FFH approach. In FFH workers get free promotions over time so they actually get better and better. This incentives you to preserve your workers and look after them.

    Than again, I love what FFH does to units in general. Like I'd love to see the metal weapon system ported to this mod.
     
  14. Slarki

    Slarki Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    200
    I like that idea too. Usually I either have too many or too few workers. This will give an incentive to build workers in the late game and more importantly makes building workers faster so the early game becomes more dynamic (since you need to reduce the cost in order to make workers balanced)
    :)
     
  15. aggri1

    aggri1 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    391
    I very much dislike the Civ 6 approach, where workers wear out.

    The best way I've come across was in Call to Power, where you didn't use workers to build improvements, but instead accrued Public Works points (adjustable slider like we have for Science, but skims off production) which were used each time you plonked down an improvement. MUCH less pointless micro-management in terms of moving workers around, and much more flexible in that you could really go on a public works rampage after getting a key tech' if you were happy to sacrifice normal (other) city production to do so. No stupid workers wandering around, or waiting for the next tech' where they are needed once again.

    Might be a bit hard to implement in Civ, unfortunately. And I'm sure that most of you are rather attached to the dumb Vörkers. :)

    Cheers, A.
     
  16. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,412
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    Could be a BUG option...

    I'd love it soooooo much, but....

    2 valid points.
     
  17. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,761
    Why would anyone want to remove micromanaging your workers to get your improvements just right??? That's one of the most fun aspects of the build part of the game!
     
    Rezca likes this.
  18. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    2,412
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    Most fun in in the ancient era...
    least fun in the modern era with 40+ cities.
     
    Samson likes this.
  19. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,761
    I disagree completely. City improvement is generally rather boring at the start of the game when it's just a chore you need to do once ever X many turns. It gets fun once you have a lot of cities and many workers and thus the need and tools to manually plan each one out not just as a unit but as part of your empire.

    I like games where I have something to fiddle with, adjust and plan for every single turn.
     
    Rezca likes this.
  20. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,590
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    To tell the truth, I think part of the code is already there. I think I borrowed it from C2C years ago. But it was causing troubles with other aspects of the game IIRC, so I dropped the project. Frankly, I don't fond it so interesting or relevant to resume it.
     

Share This Page