Vokarya's Workshop: Units

[Lord Bigfoot]

After some wikipedia searching I do kinda agree with Lord Bigfoot as far as historical inaccuracies in AND go.
Though not being a naval history buff myself I'm not that annoyed.

Lord Bigfoot, apart from names switching around and the graphics change, did you want to also change stats of the ships or not?

I'd say a Battlecruiser would be nearly as strong as a Battleship.(Not the modern one mind you but the one that comes right after the Dreadnought.) Maybe 2-3 lower but more likely i'd say 5. It would also have a weakness against Battleships due to weaker armor but it would be at least two moves faster then a Battleship.

 

[Vokarya]

Hey vokarya, can you give an explanation of the Early Destroyer?

I'm trying to help Bigfoot with the 1900 AD scenario, and by researching Russian Imperial Navy list of Destroyers I realized there are many things they called destroyers, including small mine deployers or torpedo boats. So I'm not sure which of these to categorize as the Early Destroyer

I think pretty much all of them would count as Early Destroyers, but maybe group a few together to be one Early Destroyer unit. We cannot cover every single nuance of shipbuilding, so the really small ships get overshadowed by the larger ships.

I didn't create the Early Destroyer, so I'm going on guesswork here, but I think its purpose is to be a bridge between the Iron Frigate of the early Industrial Era and the Destroyer of the late Industrial Era. Regular BTS doesn't have that many ships, pretty much jumping from the Age of Sail to diesel ships with really only the Ironclad in between. AND does a better job of fleshing out the various lines of ships.

 

[Vokarya]

I'll put in the HMS Hood artwork for the Battlecruiser. That is not a huge problem.

I'm also going to bring down the size of the Early Destroyer a bit. I had all the ships next to each other for size comparison and the Early Destroyer looks larger than most of them.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I'll put in the HMS Hood artwork for the Battlecruiser. That is not a huge problem.

I'm also going to bring down the size of the Early Destroyer a bit. I had all the ships next to each other for size comparison and the Early Destroyer looks larger than most of them.

Sounds very good to me.

 

[os79]

Currently Infantry upgrades to Motorized Infantry. I'm reporting this because it's weird upgrade. Both of them are too close together in strength and technology.

Do you think Riflemen can upgrade to Motorized Infantry too? Rationale: you made Musketmen upgrade to Mounted Riflemen so it's similar logic.

 

[Vokarya]

Currently Infantry upgrades to Motorized Infantry. I'm reporting this because it's weird upgrade. Both of them are too close together in strength and technology.

Do you think Riflemen can upgrade to Motorized Infantry too? Rationale: you made Musketmen upgrade to Mounted Riflemen so it's similar logic.

I'm not changing that upgrade path. It's a very conscious decision on my part. Motorized Infantry is literally infantry + trucks to drive them around. There is a gap between the two (Automatic Weapons vs. Mechanized Warfare). You can still build Infantry because they shouldn't disappear until you get to Modern Infantry.

 

[os79]

I'm not changing that upgrade path. It's a very conscious decision on my part. Motorized Infantry is literally infantry + trucks to drive them around. There is a gap between the two (Automatic Weapons vs. Mechanized Warfare). You can still build Infantry because they shouldn't disappear until you get to Modern Infantry.

Then we are looking at two different SVN versions. I'm looking at 781. It showed Motorized Infantry being available at Automatic Weapons, the same tech as Infantry availability. But okay .

 

[Vokarya]

Then we are looking at two different SVN versions. I'm looking at 781. It showed Motorized Infantry being available at Automatic Weapons, the same tech as Infantry availability. But okay .

My mistake, but it still requires Armored Vehicles as well as Automatic Weapons.

 

[Der_Zorn_gottes]

I got the quest "noble knights" which requires a certain amount of knights to be buildt.
However, at the time I got it, I couln`t build knights any more - just cuirassiers and dragoons.

Mabey the event should be changed so that it doesn`t trigger after the tech that obsoletes knights.

 

[Vokarya]

I got the quest "noble knights" which requires a certain amount of knights to be buildt.
However, at the time I got it, I couln`t build knights any more - just cuirassiers and dragoons.

Mabey the event should be changed so that it doesn`t trigger after the tech that obsoletes knights.

We need to clean up a lot of those events and quests. It's not just Noble Knights; Elite Swordsmen, Overwhelm, Assassin Discovered, and Spy Discovered all need some help and there are problably others as well to look at.

 

[<Nexus>]

For a long time I have a "dream" about a Trojan Horse world unit. It could have the same mechanic as the YAM (immediately capture a city), only it would't be a nuke but a regular unit.
It could be a nice ability for the GGeneral to turn into the Trojan Horse.

What do you think? Is it a good idea or just another crazy one

 

[Rezca]

For a long time I have a "dream" about a Trojan Horse world unit. It could have the same mechanic as the YAM (immediately capture a city), only it would't be a nuke but a regular unit.
It could be a nice ability for the GGeneral to turn into the Trojan Horse.

What do you think? Is it a good idea or just another crazy one

My vote is for 'crazy'

As a one-time World Unit that can't be built a second time by anyone ever, maybe - but I'm still unsure. One of those "Cool in concept, questionable in execution" sort of deals.

 

[Noyyau]

Realism Invictus has a few units like that, basically a World Wonder only as a unit.
Though I'm not sure if that concept fits in AND.

 

[Afforess]

For a long time I have a "dream" about a Trojan Horse world unit. It could have the same mechanic as the YAM (immediately capture a city), only it would't be a nuke but a regular unit.
It could be a nice ability for the GGeneral to turn into the Trojan Horse.

What do you think? Is it a good idea or just another crazy one

Honestly something like that would make more sense as a random event, not a unit.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I think something like that is not too different from the catacombs building, if we could make that exploit less frequent. But I still think that catacombs should be axed if we don't find another way to change it. And frankly YAM too doesn't make much sense to me. It might be fun but is there anyone who has ever used it?

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

A YAM, I've never used the extended nuclear weapons, and never knew how it worked, what it did, * I thought it just went "Boom"* Seems a ridiculously powerful weapon.

One missle, concurs an entire city??? No police/Army/repression??? (Fantasy I know)

 

[Rezca]

I've used a YAM once and only once. Spawned it in the World Builder in a test map just for laughs. Can't say it's something I'd want to see being used repeatedly (Same can be said for Peacemakers actually)

Theoretically, if you were on a smaller map couldn't you build a few of them then wipe out a civ by firing them all at once? I don't know what their national limit is though, since I've never really been keen on using one.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

IIRC, I've limited them to 1 per civ

 

[Rezca]

IIRC, I've limited them to 1 per civ

Ah okay. Kinda goes to show how little interest I have in that weapon if I haven't even noticed that

 

[88GTS]

I had some thoughts regarding aircraft naming and their upgrade paths that I think might be useful to discuss in this thread.

First, I think I saw that Vokarya doesn't like using national specific names, so to eliminate some of those the names below could be used to rename current aircraft:
IL-2 to Dive Bomber OR Fighter-Bomber
A-10 to Ground Attack Jet
P-59 to Subsonic Jet Fighter
OR P-59 to Jet Fighter and Jet Fighter to MultiRole Fighter

Second, on upgrade paths, they don't currently really match how these aircraft were actually deployed. I think a better model for how the planes were actually used would break them into 3 trees ( they could probably keep current unit categorizations) that would be Strategic Bombers (shortened to bombers below) that would be the type that would focus on bombing cities, factories, large armies, Ground attack/Light Bombers/Tactical Bombers that are more focused on taking out specific targets, and fighters:
Bombers: Blimp->Bomber->Strategic Bomber -> etc. (Ie, remove IL-2 from this path)
Ground attack/Light Bombers: IL-2 and Seaplane -> A-10 -> Stealth Fighter (despite the name it is not used in a fighter role)
Fighters: Remove Stealth Fighter (F117) from upgrade path

3rd, and probably the most difficult, is it possible to scale aircraft range by map size, and does it seem like a good idea?