What do you think of these unit stats?

[Steph]

Updated!

After creating the webpage listing all the stats of the units I currently have in my mod, I've realized I'm not completly happy with that.

So I tried a new base settings, with increased range. The idea is to give more possibilities for flavour units.

These are the base stats. They will be modified with equipment. For instance, if a medieval unit has no armor or no shield, it will be weaker than a medieval unit with armor and shield.

What do you think of the new stats?

 

[Ozymandias]

Hi Steph,

I've been approaching AF/DF/etc. from the POV of what should/should not historically happen. For instance, I have Ironclads all but unsinkable by other contemporary warships. In the examples you list, a Napoleonic unit has a ~10% chance of survivng combat against a WW2 unit; I'd try to get that down to much less - and, yes, by the time you're done, you have some HUGE numbers.

Best,

Oz

 

[Steph]

Hi Steph,

I've been approaching AF/DF/etc. from the POV of what should/should not historically happen. For instance, I have Ironclads all but unsinkable by other contemporary warships. In the examples you list, a Napoleonic unit has a ~10% chance of survivng combat against a WW2 unit; I'd try to get that down to much less - and, yes, by the time you're done, you have some HUGE numbers.

Best,

Oz

I'm Ok on principle, but can it create a risk of unbalancing the game, where you could to easily beat an ennemy civ that is behind technologically?

I agree it's more realistic, but is it fun to play?

But your remark is a good one, I'll try to increase a bit the efficiency of modern units

 

[Stormrage]

Haven`t I read somewhere that the strength of Defensive Bombardment doesn`t really matter? I either damages the attacker or it doesn`t..

 

[Underpaid]

I think - and this is purely what I think, so it probably doesn't matter much - that the ranged units line will get totally killed, unless balanced by shield costs, and even then, I'm not sure how the AI would handle it.

 

[Steph]

I think - and this is purely what I think, so it probably doesn't matter much - that the ranged units line will get totally killed, unless balanced by shield costs, and even then, I'm not sure how the AI would handle it.

The main role of this line is to provide bombard, weaker than catapult or cannon, but cheaper and able to defend.
They are flagged as artillery unit, and so they should not go fight alone, but as support of the other units.
The earlier one have a range 1, later they don't, as then "real" artillery is available.

 

[Underpaid]

So WWII Machinegunners can reach over 2 squares? That would be maybe a couple hundred miles, not really all that accurate (or are they accompanied by a couple howitzers? )

 

[Ozymandias]

I'm Ok on principle, but can it create a risk of unbalancing the game, where you could to easily beat an ennemy civ that is behind technologically?

I agree it's more realistic, but is it fun to play?

But your remark is a good one, I'll try to increase a bit the efficiency of modern units

I'm tweaking my mod quite a bit in the hopes of having both historicity and playability (at least insofar as the AI engine allows). The one thing I don't mess much with are the costs per unit, as I suspect that that would require an entire additional level of playtesting, ergo no formulaic linking of AF/DF/etc. to cost; the only exceptions are extrapolations from the "vanilla" cost which I'll probably play around with more for play balance than anything else.

Best Regards,

Oz

 

[Steph]

So WWII Machinegunners can reach over 2 squares? That would be maybe a couple hundred miles, not really all that accurate (or are they accompanied by a couple howitzers? )

That's supposed to be the ROF, 0 is the range, but I just realize I made a mistake in the list, as ROF 2 is useless for defensive bombardment

 

[Underpaid]

Oh.

I thought HOF was how many times it could defensively bombard in one turn and how many HP it could damage from a single bombard. Is it?

 

[Ozymandias]

Oh. I thought HOF was how many times it could defensively bombard in one turn and how many HP it could damage from a single bombard. Is it?

ROF is for offense only; defensive bombardment is a one-shot deal and, AFAIK, it only inflicts one HP of damage.

Best,

Oz

 

[Virote_Considon]

Haven`t I read somewhere that the strength of Defensive Bombardment doesn`t really matter? I either damages the attacker or it doesn`t..

The strength determines the chance of successful bombardment

 

[JSnider]

I've been playing with same increases based on 'tech level fighting' enhancements, your values are higher then what i am currently testing, but the base you have at the beginning (Iron) is higher then what i am using. Currently go from an attack/def of 1 to near a 1000 at this point (note i have extended play into future about 300 yrs and am attempting to add space and other planets onto overall map at this point, so end goal may be diff then what you are doing as after space veh become avail exploration opens up again). I can send you an excel ss of units and values have if need a cross comparison ... but overall seems your values are fine.

 

[Steph]

I've been playing with same increases based on 'tech level fighting' enhancements, your values are higher then what i am currently testing, but the base you have at the beginning (Iron) is higher then what i am using.

I have higher starting values so I an make variation from civ to civ without unbalancing things to much.
If I have a base A/D of 6/5 for a shield and mail unit, but one civ as no shield / no mail, I can decide to make it 5/4, or even 4/3, without unbalancing things to much, but if the base is 1/1... I can't make the unarmored untis weaker! And if the base is 2/2, making the unarmored unit 1/1 is a big balancing hit.

 

[JSnider]

Yes that does give a lot more flex to unit design and national diff's (or ones blt without the required resource/s). Might have to redo what i am playing with if idea borrowing is ok.

 

[Steph]

I have updated the unit stats in first post once again.

Basically, now I have the main infantry line with attack = defense.

 

[Ozymandias]

You broach something I've been wrestling with: how to justify increased stats for the same kind of unit as the years flow by. Do advances in metallurgy and tactics alone justify huge increases in a Swordman's strengths? How much stronger should a Napoleonic lancer be than a knight and why?

Best,

Oz

 

[Steph]

That's a tricky question, and when trying to decide for new unit stats, I've almost been despaired.

I can't get it right...

But before moving to my problem, I'll try to answer your question.

For the early game, it is easy.

Bronze weapon and armor are inferior to iron, medieval long sword are better than a gladius (longer range), and chain mail / full plate are clear upgrade.

So we can basically consider that units are indeed geeting stronger until the medieval era, except in some cases (where training could make a difference).

The renaissance era starts to get tricky. Are pikes with no armor stronger than medieval pikemen with armor?

I think they shouldn't. That's why my pikes for "around 1650" are in fact the same strength as the medieval. But they have a +1 HP to simulate larger units than in the medieval time.

For the cavalry, that is indeed a tricky question. Is a Napoleonic cuirassier formation stronger than a knight? Well, as they had also carbin or pistol, we could consider they are indeed stronger.
But you'll notice for the 1700 heavy cavalry, as firearms were not so widespread, I made them only sligthly stronger than knights. I would have made them weaker for realism, but for gameplay I wanted to keep the units "upgrading".

Now, my really tricky part. Something that annoys me a lot.

As a general rules, I have roughly added 50% to a unit when it upgrades.

So a unit with A/D 10/16 will upgrade to 15/24.

Initially, the spearmen / infantry lines had a better defense than attack.

But I ended with something like
WWI infantry: 10/16
WWII infantry : 15/24...

And so if WWI attacks WWII, chance of succes = 29%, but if WWII attacks WWI, then chance of succes = 48%

I found it strange... A WWI vs WWII should give similar result, there's no reason why would gould attack much better than defend.

So I've made basic infantry : Attaque = defense

For assault troops (grenadier, engineer) and for cavalry/tanks, I've given an attack bonus, and for archer/voltigeur/MG a defense bonus.

For marines, I have a slight attack advantage, and for paratrooper a slight defense advantage (so they can "hold" the position they capture). And that's also to preserve balance.

 

[BadKharma]

Spearmen / Pikes are kind of irrelevant after 1700 aren't they? I assume at some point they are actually infantry.

Pike and shot tactics evolved continually as firearm technology became more advanced, until the flintlock musket and the bayonet cured many of the traditional shortcomings of the "shot" toward the end of the seventeenth century, at which point the pike and shot formation was phased out.

Although I have seen plates of French and Indian War French armies still fielding the rare Pikeman along with the musketmen. From my research until the "flintlock" was introduced increasing the firepower pikemen still protected musketmen although the ratio of pike to musket was decreasing even before that point.

 

[Steph]

In my mod, Arquebuse appears about at the same time as pikes then comes the musketman (with no bayonet), and then the musketeer with bayonet. And the pike upgrade to musketeer.