Vokarya's Workshop: Units

[Vokarya]

I agree although destroyers still have the ability to detect subs which is unique for surface units until the Missile Destroyer and Missile Cruiser show up.

Yes, but this works only if the Submarine is defending. If you can see a unit with one of your units, you can send another to attack, so you can use a Destroyer to spot subs and then a Battleship to attack the subs you can see.

However, we need a unit that can defend against attacking Submarines, or else Submarines charging from outside sight range can kill off Transports with no way to protect against that.

 

[GreedyManul]

Quick question: what's the reason for keeping units like "heavy swordsman/pikeman", "modern grenadier/marine/infantry/etc.", and "Gatling/Machine Gun", for example, when the main difference between the older unit and its upgrade is strength level (and a higher unit cost)? They're redundant, and any strength buff we'd want to give could be done with a tech, like we do with archers and war elephants. Removing those redundancies would also ease resource load.

 

[Rezca]

Quick question: what's the reason for keeping units like "heavy swordsman/pikeman", "modern grenadier/marine/infantry/etc.", and "Gatling/Machine Gun", for example, when the main difference between the older unit and its upgrade is strength level (and a higher unit cost)? They're redundant, and any strength buff we'd want to give could be done with a tech, like we do with archers and war elephants. Removing those redundancies would also ease resource load.

I'm not sure about the Heavy Sword/Pike, but I think with the later units its just that they 'look more modern' and so fit the era they're in. Otherwise you'd still be using archaic-looking units with obsolete weapons, but still doing more damage. At least that's how I see it

 

[GreedyManul]

I'm not sure about the Heavy Sword/Pike, but I think with the later units its just that they 'look more modern' and so fit the era they're in. Otherwise you'd still be using archaic-looking units with obsolete weapons, but still doing more damage. At least that's how I see it

You could still do the art switch through eras like it happens with workers. Sure, they may be weaker for a while, but at least they won't look anachronistic.

 

[Vokarya]

I don't think it would work. Unit strength is the only thing we can adjust with tags (without rewriting the DLL, which is not within my capabilities). Having multiple units allows us to adjust other factors. For example, Swordsmen require Iron while Light Swordsmen can be built with Copper (or Iron); without Iron, you have to build Light Swordsmen even with Smithing. Modern Grenadier has a more accurate Ranged Attack and a bonus against Infantry. Modern Marine gets an extra bonus against Siege Units.

Now perhaps we could adjust other units to get similar changes; what if Swordsman was only Strength 9 but had +20% city attack? It would still be pretty close in power (10.8 vs. the 11 it currently is) but not as strong on the field. I've tried to use the +Strength tag as lightly as possible. If there was a Medieval Elephant unit, I'd probably use it.

Also, unit art is not very finely controlled; there are EarlyArtDefine, MiddleArtDefine, and LateArtDefine tags for each unit, but that's all there are. I don't know how these tags are applied. So I'd be reluctant to use that.

 

[GreedyManul]

I don't think it would work. Unit strength is the only thing we can adjust with tags (without rewriting the DLL, which is not within my capabilities). Having multiple units allows us to adjust other factors. For example, Swordsmen require Iron while Light Swordsmen can be built with Copper (or Iron); without Iron, you have to build Light Swordsmen even with Smithing. Modern Grenadier has a more accurate Ranged Attack and a bonus against Infantry. Modern Marine gets an extra bonus against Siege Units.

Now perhaps we could adjust other units to get similar changes; what if Swordsman was only Strength 9 but had +20% city attack? It would still be pretty close in power (10.8 vs. the 11 it currently is) but not as strong on the field. I've tried to use the +Strength tag as lightly as possible. If there was a Medieval Elephant unit, I'd probably use it.

Also, unit art is not very finely controlled; there are EarlyArtDefine, MiddleArtDefine, and LateArtDefine tags for each unit, but that's all there are. I don't know how these tags are applied. So I'd be reluctant to use that.

Well. I guess that explains it.

 

[Vokarya]

I'm doing some art style analysis to see if there are places we can make cuts or repurpose units. I started by looking at the Asian styles. There are four main ones that I am looking at:

• Asian (base): used for Khmer and Korea.
• Mongolian
• China
• Japan

The Japanese style is the most distinct. It has 22 differences from the base Asian style and two units not defined in the Asian style: the Fighter (Zero) and the Battleship (Yamato). I will leave this alone for now.

Pikemen have a bit of weirdness about them: Asian and Mongol do not define Heavy Pikeman at all (falling back on the base model) while China's Heavy Pikeman is the same model as the base Pikeman for Asian and Mongol. I think it would be best if we standardized on the Chinese Pikeman and Heavy Pikeman and deleted the Asian Pikeman. I compared the three styles (Pikeman on the left, Heavy on the right).


Archers are odd too. We have one model serving as the Asian and Mongol Longbowman and the Chinese Archer. It's in the Warlords art folders, and I think it was used for the Chinese Unification scenario. I want to use the Asian Archer (upper-left) for the Chinese Archer (upper-right) and then we can use standardize all three Longbowmen on either the Chinese Archer or the Chinese Longbowman (lower-right).


I'm still working on this. There are a few more other units I am looking at. Mongolia didn't have a separate style for Heavy Swordsman either. I assigned the Chinese Heavy Swordsman to it as well.

 

[Vokarya]

Early Elephants are also strange. I just noticed that Elephant Rider and War Elephant are using the same model. I will have to live with this.

However, we do have two different Asian elephant models, one being used for two different units.

At the upper left is the standard Elephant Rider. The upper right and lower left are the Asian War Elephant. At the lower-right is the Chinese War Elephant. I will use the Asian War Elephant as an Elephant Rider for all three styles and the Chinese War Elephant as a War Elephant for all three styles. That way it looks consistent across styles.

 

[<Nexus>]

I was wondering whether the AI is aware of our UU philosophy? I mean does it still build Pretorians when Heavy Swords are available and upgrade them to have promoted Heavy Swords or trains unpromoted but newer units? Any experience about this?

EDIT: I really like the way it works, just curious.

 

[Vokarya]

I did some comparison of the ethnic unit arts for the classical Mediterranean civilizations: Greece, Rome, Carthage, and Byzantium. I noticed there were several places where an ethnic unit was not defined and so the unit fell back on the default design. I decided to have some unit arts do extra duty and fill in for the missing definitions. I think it will at least look more appropriate than the generic unit.

So this is what you will see starting with the next revision.

Byzantine:

• Cannon uses Roman
• Cavalry uses Roman
• Cuirassier uses Roman
• Grenadier uses Roman
• Horseman uses Roman
• Javelineer uses Greek
• Lancer uses Middle Eastern
• Light Cavalry uses Roman
• Musketman uses Roman
• Rifleman uses Roman

Carthage:

• Cannon uses Roman
• Cavalry uses Roman
• Cuirassier uses Roman
• Grenadier uses Roman
• Javelineer uses Greek
• Light Cavalry uses Roman
• Musketman uses Roman
• Rifleman uses Roman

Greece:

• Minigun uses Middle Eastern

Rome:

• Javelineer uses Greek

 

[Vokarya]

More filling in. I did some comparisons between the Middle Eastern, Babylonian, and Arabian styles. I found several gaps that I am filling with existing art definitions. There is a huge gap in that there is no Middle Eastern Arquebusier or Musketman. Those art styles fall back on the European model. I'd like to fix this but it would mean repacking the Units FPK. I will do it at some point. I want to try and incorporate Colonization's Wagon to replace the model on our Pioneer.

These are changes that I will do in my next upload.
Middle East:

• Cavalry uses Arabian
• Heavy Horseman uses Arabian
• Heavy Pikeman uses Arabian
• Man-At-Arms uses Arabian
• Modern Infantry uses Arabian
• Rifleman uses Arabian

Babylon:

• Cavalry uses Arabian
• Heavy Horseman uses Arabian
• Light Cavalry uses Arabian
• Man-At-Arms uses Arabian
• Modern Infantry uses Arabian
• Mounted Infantry uses Arabian
• Rifleman uses Arabian

Arabian:

• Javelineer uses Middle Eastern

 

[Vokarya]

Here's some more work on art styles. I did some side-by-side comparisons and I think we can consolidate all of the South American (Inca), Mesoamerican (Mayan) and Aztec styles under one style. I also looked at the Native American style, but it has close to 20 distinct units and because it is being used for two civilizations (Native American/Sioux and Iroquois), it gets a pass.

Between the three styles, there are only 8 units that are specific to one style. The South American style has a unique Axeman. The Mesoamerican style has a unique Crossbowman, Maceman, Musketman, and Spearman. The Aztec style has a unique Grenadier, Heavy Pikeman, and Swordsman. I think there are ways to repurpose some of these units.

The South American style's unique Axeman is named "Elite Quechua" (upper-left). It's only a flavor unit, though. It has no special abilities, unlike the Quechua. I think we should go with the Maya unit instead (upper-right). The Mayan special Maceman is not very interesting (lower-right). It looks a lot like the generic Maceman. The South American Maceman (lower-left) looks much more appropriate.


The Mayan Crossbowman (upper-right) and Spearman (lower-right) look much more fitting than the Incan units on the left. I think the Spearman looks especially more appropriate for the Ancient Era. This Spearman is kind of weird in that, unless it is an assimilated city conquered by the Mayans, a city will produce Holkans instead. So it would be extremely rare to see this unit. If we use it for Aztec and Inca as well, it becomes far more common to see.


The Aztec Heavy Pikeman is supposed to be an Eagle Knight. The other Heavy Pikeman next to it seems a better fit.


There are separate Incan and Mayan Musketmen; I like the Incan better. I noticed as well that there is no Infantry for any of these three civs and I will take a look to find one. There are some other holes in the unit rosters that I want to fill, but as it means repacking the FPK, I want to do that later.

Also, I think the Aztec Grenadier does not look very good; it looks too European and I would rather use the Incan Grenadier on the left.


Finally, we have the Swordsmen. The Aztecs have a "Jaguar2" Swordsman and the Incans have a Swordsman. I think we can use the Jaguar2 as a Swordsman for all 3 civilizations and use the Incan Swordsman as a Heavy Swordsman. None of these three styles has a Heavy Swordsman defined and thus they fall back on the standard (European) model. I would like to avoid this whenever possible.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Very nice work Vokarya.
By the way, I've noticed only now that you've fixed the Motorized Infantry displaying the infantry unit when using Single Unit Graphic: now it correctly displays the truck. Thank you very much for this fix as I always play with Single Unit Graphic and Infantry and Motorized Infantry were identical except for the icon.

 

[Vokarya]

Very nice work Vokarya.
By the way, I've noticed only now that you've fixed the Motorized Infantry displaying the infantry unit when using Single Unit Graphic: now it correctly displays the truck. Thank you very much for this fix as I always play with Single Unit Graphic and Infantry and Motorized Infantry were identical except for the icon.

Actually, it's been acting a bit strange for me; the button isn't acting the way it should. I'd like to look at it in a little more detail.

 

[maglock]

Actually, it's been acting a bit strange for me; the button isn't acting the way it should. I'd like to look at it in a little more detail.

Just posted this very thing to the bug thread here.

 

[Vokarya]

Just posted this very thing to the bug thread here.

I think I didn't do the units that make up the mesh group correctly. I need to fiddle with that particular unit more.

 

[Vokarya]

When I was looking at the different unit classes for XP evaluation, I thought of something unusual we can do with the Nanite units (Nanite Swarm and Nanite Cloud). The idea here is to make them play less like every other unit in-game and more like controlled doomsday weapons.

This has two parts:
Flat Movement
Many units have the ability "Ignore Terrain Movement Cost", including light mounted units, helicopters, and most recon units. Only one unit, the Nanite Spy, currently has "flat movement cost". This ability means the unit moves its speed in tiles per turn regardless of other effects. A unit with Ignore Terrain Movement Cost can still benefit from roads, but a Flat Movement Cost unit can not.

I think it would be interesting if the Nanite Swarm and Nanite Cloud had the same flat movement cost restriction, plus a paradrop ability to allow you to deploy them at range. You could also still airlift them. It would require more planning to use them against enemies, but easy to keep them in a key city for counterattacking.

No Promotions
Nanite units are currently only eligible for 8 promotions. Three are the promotions they start with: Nanoids (extra healing), Sentry I (+1 sight range), and Rapid Deployment I (attack multiple times per turn, equivalent to Blitz). The fourth is Rapid Deployment II (equivalent to Commando). This is useless if the unit has Flat Movement Cost, which I proposed above.

The last four are the Combat AI 1.0 - 4.0 promotions. I expect most Nanite units to have 3-4 promotions as soon as they are created, and since these are the only choices, I think we can save a step by simply increasing the Nanite units' base strength and deleting access to the promotions. I think increasing to 200 for the Nanite Swarm and 400 for the Cloud would be sufficient. It's less than you would get from the full suite of AI promotions, but the Nanite Cloud especially outweighs any other unit on the map (Dreadnought Armor is strength 240 and Warbot is strength 290).

 

[<Nexus>]

Sounds good and reasonable

 

[GreedyManul]

The Nanite Cloud/Swarm as units always bugged me for some strange reason. Since they're going to be the resident OP units, why not make them a bit more restricted? Like, 3 nanite clouds and only 1 nanite swarm per civ.

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

Definitely make them a national unit.