• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Vokarya's Workshop: Units

Why Stealth Bomber can perform 'Fighter Engagement'?Is that intentional?It doesn't sound reasonable.
 
Some scattered unit thoughts:

Fast Battleship is definitely underpowered. It should be more powerful than Missile Cruiser. The Fast Battleship represents a modernized Iowa or a "what-if" unit that a modern superpower could build if it tried. I don't know what its strength should be right now, but I will say it currently is not right. The purpose of battleships is to destroy any other ship, except that Destroyers exist to counter Submarines. That's not happening here.

What should any Carrier unit be able to do without adding aircraft? Should Carriers even be allowed to attack? Starting with the Steamer, transport ships can only defend. I wonder if Carriers should do the same thing.

Does invisibility serve a purpose on Air units? Aurora Scramjet, Orbital Fighter and Orbital Bomber are invisible (INVISIBLE_CAMOUFLAGE) but air units evading interception is done with the Evade mechanic, not invisibility. I think I will try and look at the DLL sources.
 
Not really, because modern warfare is all about stealth, rockets and torpedos. You win, if you see the enemy first and you can detect ships before you can see it visually - rockets away. You can easier evade detection and missles if you're small. If you want to make a SuperBattleship work, then it needs a lot of counter measures. They are big, slow and make a lot of noise.

Carriers should be allowed only to defense itself imo. They have no real offense (maybe torpedos). Main role is .. well.. carrying aircraft. For everything else they have the escort.

They are invisible???? .... I can see them without a detection unit at hostile cities... no.. it does not serve a purpose...

I play RoM on a regular basis - since the first time stumble upon this mod (2013) - so I have an opinion to every matter...
I hope you don't mind that I'm flooding this forum, folks
 
About Fast Battleship:
The truth is that battleships exist no more in modern navies.They have been replaced by missile cruisers as top naval warfare platforms.Surely in game it seems a bit useless because Missile Cruiser is more powerful and can perform many other tasks.

About Carrier:
It should only defend.What about giving it cargo space for Paratroopers?

About advanced fighters:
They shouldn't be invisible.I agree with Vokarya that evasion ability means how much "invisible" is the aircraft.
 
Battleship, should merge into the Missile cruiser line, its not obsolete. The Missile cruiser is now the counter to the destroyer, as its to submarines, as its to missile cruisers circle of rocks paper scissors.

Carrier, only defense, yes, its an aircraft platform at sea. Caring troops, No, transports could be seen as converted cruise liners. Such as the QE2 in the Falklands war.

Invisible fighters, that's what stealth is for, to improve evasion chances. Once you evade the air to air missiles, you down to line of sight for cannons on aircraft.
 
The DLL does say that to calculate the best interceptor on a plot for a given unit, the unit to be intercepted has to be visible. So an invisible unit can't be intercepted. But I still think the evasion mechanic is all that is necessary.
 
However, I see in my current game that enemy Fighters intercept nearly every time my Stealth Bombers. Maybe 50% evasion is a bit low?
 
Is there any intention to revisit the unit shortcut keys? The one that really gets me is "C". In civ since at least Civ3 this has been "Centre view on currently active unit". In AND for most units it is this, but for some it is some automated action (patrol borders perhaps?) The use of this key is hard coded into my play style, so I end up with a few units wondering about on their own, and they frequently get killed as they are hanging about on my border. I would suggest getting rid of this shortcut altogether and let people who use this use the button.

The other one that slightly irritates me (about 100 times less than the above) is "S" being bombard even for units that cannot bombard, so you have to use the button to put a unit on sentry. I do not know anything about the mechanics of this, I could suggest "S" only means bombard for units that can, or "B" means bombard, but I do not know if these are possible.
 
On using 'C' to centre view screen. as of last couple of revisions, I'm having crashes using this hot key.

It maybe due to my using multiple work spaces, under Ubuntu, and running LibreOffice 6.0 writer at same time.

I have to use 'Home' key to go to nearest city.
 
However, I see in my current game that enemy Fighters intercept nearly every time my Stealth Bombers. Maybe 50% evasion is a bit low?

Stealth Bomber is the first bomber that has an evasion chance, so I don't want it to be too high.

What I really want to do, but this won't be right away, is scrap and rebuild the current air promotion system. What we have now is what I consider to be an overcomplicated mess. The promotions need to be radically simplified. One of the lines I would like to introduce is an Evade line that just grants +% evasion. That way if you want more evasion you can have it, but it will cost you in terms of other promotions.
 
I think I can just about get rid of the Hi-Tech Invisibility if we can figure out what to do with Stealth Armor. I'm already planning to remove it from the Aurora Scramjet/Orbital Fighter/Orbital Bomber and with the free promotions, the Genetic Soldier/Super Soldier don't need to be invisible either. I think the promotions give them enough of an identity. Getting rid of the invisibility type would also mean cleaning up a lot of units that have the ability to see those invisible units.

The Stealth Armor is one of the two Transhuman light tanks. The Hover Tank is the other. I don't have any good ideas for what to do with the Stealth Armor. I don't want to outright eliminate it. The artwork is fairly generic and could be just about any kind of near-future tank.

Any ideas for what to do with it?
 
Taking a look at the Unitinfos.xml units with INVISIBLE_CAMOUFLAGE can also see other units with INVISIBLE_CAMOUFLAGE, so there are counter units. Why remove it than?

My thought pattern here is "don't do anything once." In this case, dealing with INVISIBLE_CAMOUFLAGE:
  • The air units don't need to be invisible. Evasion handles this without invisibility being a complete "out." Weak defenses can still do a little.
  • Genetic Soldier/Super Soldier don't need to be invisible. I'm refocusing them along the lines of fast and self-sufficient raiding troops. I think it's enough of a gimmick for them to have a few built-in promotions that allow you to spend your starting XP on other promotions. Also, if these units are NOT invisible, then they can also defend as well. And I think someone reported problems with invisible units in cities as well.
  • That leaves only Stealth Armor, and having an invisible option for just one unit does not work for me. If we change this unit so it doesn't have INVISIBLE_CAMOUFLAGE, then we can drop all mentions of it.
The other thing I don't see is what I would consider a proper counter-unit for camouflage. I can totally understand destroyers being the proper counter-unit for submarines, because otherwise you would only build the most powerful warships and being able to see subs gives destroyers a niche. None of the current "see camouflage" units ring true to me.

I definitely don't want Bolter Infantry to be a "see camouflage" unit. Bolters are the default unit of the Transhuman Era and having them see invisible units practically neuters the concept on the spot.
 
I'd like to make a comment on unit upgrades.

Specifically I have a problem with the Arquebusier unit, upgrading to a Dragoon.

Couple of reasons;
  1. The AI, will upgrade ALL arquebusier units to Dragoons, leaving them with no 'infantry' defenses for cities.
  2. Dragoons, can't gain a city garrison promotion.
  3. You need a horse resource to enable the unit.
  4. Once on this line, they are stuck with it, can't switch back to infantry line.
I feel you should keep a separate line of Mounted and infantry, and they shouldn't cross over. The Mounted Infantry upgrades to a man at arms upgrades to a dragoon, which is fine. Infantry should only be the 1 tile movement units, with the French UU of 2, due to Napoleons forced marches.

This also knobbles the AI due to no specialist city defenders.

I also have a problem with Muskets upgrading to Mounted riflemen, again the same reasons outlined above.

The final merge with Mechanized infantry is fine, but before then, for diversification, unit uniqueness and game play, I feel it shouldn't merge the lines.

Mounted is one line of troops,
Infantry is another line of troops.
Tanks have separate and individual line.

I have no problem with the mounted infantry line, or defense bonuses, just the 'infantry' line merging with it.
 
Last edited:
Specifically I have a problem with the Arquebusier unit, upgrading to a Dragoon.

Couple of reasons;
  1. The AI, will upgrade ALL arquebusier units to Dragoons, leaving them with no 'infantry' defenses for cities.
  2. Dragoons, can't gain a city garrison promotion.
  3. You need a horse resource to enable the unit.
  4. Once on this line, they are stuck with it, can't switch back to infantry line.

Strongly agree with this. Arquebusier should only upgrade to Musketman, Rifleman, Infantry, etc. Dragoons should only come from upgrading Mounted Infantry and Man-at-Arms, the similar branch of mounted units.

A couple additions to IPEX's points...
  1. Arquebusier is a waypoint between archery units and early gunpowder. Melee and Archery both eventually funnel into Musketmen.
  2. Arquebusiers and Dragoons both come in at Matchlock. Doesn't really make sense to upgrade units that can be built at the same tech.
 
Camouflage:
I would like the concept to stay if possible. How about an upgrade line for Stealth Armor. I like the name 'Mirage Tank' for an other unit.
I think Rover could also get this invisibility.

Still need a good counter.
Marines? Special forces? SAM infantry? Helicopters?
 
I'd like to make a comment on unit upgrades.

Specifically I have a problem with the Arquebusier unit, upgrading to a Dragoon.

Couple of reasons;
  1. The AI, will upgrade ALL arquebusier units to Dragoons, leaving them with no 'infantry' defenses for cities.
  2. Dragoons, can't gain a city garrison promotion.
  3. You need a horse resource to enable the unit.
  4. Once on this line, they are stuck with it, can't switch back to infantry line.
I feel you should keep a separate line of Mounted and infantry, and they shouldn't cross over. The man at arms upgrades to a dragoon, which is fine. Infantry should only be the 1 tile movement units, with the French UU of 2, due to Napoleons forced marches.

This also knobbles the AI due to no specialist city defenders.

I also have a problem with Muskets upgrading to Mounted riflemen, again the same reasons outlined above.

The final merge with Mechanized infantry is fine, but before then, for diversification, unit uniqueness and game play, I feel it shouldn't merge the lines.

Mounted is one line of troops,
Infantry is another line of troops.
Tanks have separate and individual line.

I have no problem with the mounted infantry line, or defense bonuses, just the 'infantry' line merging with it.
I also agree with not upgrading infantry to mounted. You can wait for your neighbour to get to dragoons, they upgrade all their city defenders and you walk over them with elephants. I wonder if it could be improved my making sure that the mounted and unmounted upgrades are available at the same time.

I like the cavalry to tank upgrade. I hate having to disband my most upgraded troops because they are obsolete in BtS. It is very powerful to be able to keep your cavalry as horses until you need them, and only upgrade and pay the extra money per turn when you really need them, and this is not something the AI can do. However I think this is better than losing your best units.
 
Just out of curiosity: I know why the mobile defense line was created but... Is there anyone using those units. I mean I don't feel they are worth using. If I want fast units I train heavy cavalry, if I want defenders than I train archers and so.

I have similar feelings about the light cavalry line. They just don't worth it in my eyes.
 
Just out of curiosity: I know why the mobile defense line was created but... Is there anyone using those units. I mean I don't feel they are worth using. If I want fast units I train heavy cavalry, if I want defenders than I train archers and so.

I have similar feelings about the light cavalry line. They just don't worth it in my eyes.
The mobile defence line get bonus against archers, in the early game they can be the best units against cities. The ability to use terrain defence when you have a fast moving stack is a small but significant advantage. I do feel that they lose their edge as the game progresses.

I always keep at least 1 light cavalry to kill the last defender of a stack when it is on hills/forest. Later when combined with air superiority light tanks can allow your advance to be spectacularly fast, I wonder if they may be overpowered.
 
Top Bottom