What Types of Combat Units Would You Like to See More of?

What Types of Combat Units Would You Like to See More of?

  • More Units Within the Existing Unit Paths (Ex: 6's Addition of Line Infantry and Men at Arms)

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • A New Unit Class Alltogether (Beyond Cavalry, Ranged, Melee, etc)

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Support Units That Buff Adjacent Units (Ex: Medic, Supply Convoy, Drone)

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Military Infastructure Units that Create Things for a Millitary to Use (Ex: Military Engineers)

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Units that Diverge from an Existing Path (Ex: Camel Cavalry Path that Splits from Horse Cavalry)

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Current System is Perfect as Is

    Votes: 12 50.0%

  • Total voters
    24

sTAPler27

Prince
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
428
I've never been a militaristic player but I love the unit variety 6 offered so i'm curious what the rest of the playerbase thinks.
 
Yeah, I really need to get my hands on it to understand this system. The Ages really change how it works
 
Independent air units that can move around (that is, air units that aren't glorified city ranged attacks) but that would need a ruleset about fuel consumption so they can return-to-base.

And honestly, being able to have a unit "patrol" between 2 map tacks would be well deserved.

to add: some sort of "rare" unit that's not unique to a civ but also difficult to get. War elephants, cataphracts, hand cannons for infantry, railway guns, to name a few.
 
We don't need more units within the existing unit paths. Civ6 was perfectly alright before they added Men-at-Arms and Line Infantry, after the update they just clog up the unit progression tree. Unique units like the Legionary and the Janissary could only be used for a few turns before they had to be upgraded to the new version. It really ruined the experience.

(Though in Civ7 it seems unique units will last for the entire age, so that may not be as big an issue. Will have to play to see)
 
We don't need more units within the existing unit paths. Civ6 was perfectly alright before they added Men-at-Arms and Line Infantry, after the update they just clog up the unit progression tree. Unique units like the Legionary and the Janissary could only be used for a few turns before they had to be upgraded to the new version. It really ruined the experience.

(Though in Civ7 it seems unique units will last for the entire age, so that may not be as big an issue. Will have to play to see)
Musketmen to ww2 infantry felt super off. Civ 5 did it best. Musketmen, 19th century infantry, ww1 infantry, ww2 infantry.
 
I think it's fine as is - without having it played, obviously. I think additional classes, buff units, etc. are nice as unique units, as we have them in some cases already.
 
From what I've seen, we have all the unit types I'd want to see.

If anything gets added, I'd love to see more unique civilian/Great People type units to help add flavor and uniqueness to the civs
 
I prefer a simple system, and the current implementation looks admirably straightforward. But without having played, it's hard to say anything specific.
 
1. I really dislike how Civ6 stuffed units into existing paths with expansions. Generally you're forced to play at slower speed to just see most of the units
2. Unit classes often step on each other toes, so I wouldn't want too many of them either. Civ6 distinction between light and heavy cavalry, for example, never significantly played out to me
3. Support units don't have a lot of sense with commanders
4. Military engineers would look very strange in a game which got rid of normal workers
5. Units which diverse from existing path are fun as unique units - we've already seen one for Mongolia. I don't think they should be available for everyone

Overall, so far the system really looks good. Maybe closer to the first expansion we'll have some ideas.
 
I like the idea of functionality added to unit classes with certain techs rather than new units (ie Fortified Modern Infantry getting a "Machine gun bonus" that tanks ignore)

A lot more can be stuffed into commanders
 
Something like Warrior-Spearman-Swordsman---Pikeman-Men at Arms-Musketman---Line infantry-WW1 infantry---WW2 infantry. 50 turns of use for each give or take.
 
I wonder if we're going to see updates within unit models as the ages progress. Spain has Tercios at the start of the Exploration age even before gunpowder, but what if they start with no guns but start to use them as the age goes on? Or will we see Machine Guns and Bazookas fitting in with the Modern age infantry?

Thematically this will somewhat fulfill what I want to see: as many Combat Units being shown as possible, while fulfilling what I want mechanically which are simple unit types.
 
Spain has Tercios at the start of the Exploration age even before gunpowder, but what if they start with no guns but start to use them as the age goes on?
This would be ideal.
 
I'm less concerned about the precise numbers and types of units, and have been since half-way into Civ VI.

Reason is simple, and you can all repeat after me:
Civ turns are Grand Strategy, not Tactics.

When the smallest time interval in the game is a year, and most turns are several years or decades each, your units could historically change weapons and tactics within the turn. Example: in 1861 half the troops in the US Civil War were armed with smoothbore black powder muskets. By the end of 1862 virtually eveerybody was armed with rifled muzzle-loading muskets. By 1864 large numbers of troops, including almost all the cavalry on the Union side, were armed with breechloading repeating/magazine rifles. In less than 5 years the firepower of the average infantry or cavalry unit had at least tripled and for trhe next 50 years armies were trying to figure out how to adjust to that single fact with their infantry tactics. The slaughter in the first month of WWI in 1914 showed how poorly they had managed to do that. So almost all the 'battlefield tactics' are strictly illusionary to let the gamer imagine that he is a General.

So, I am less concerned with whether the in-game unit has pikes, spears, or submachineguns than I am about how armies are formed, moved into battle, and controlled once they are there. Right now it looks like Civ VII has massively simplified the first two but the exact specifics of how much tactical control the 'Army Leaders' have is a bit sketchy.

So at the moment, I'll wait and see.
 
hard to say much without playing. but I'm most interested in fun abilities that mix things up a bit. things like splash damage, ambush, shoot & scoot, units that can missile or melee, defense specialists, that sort of thing.

seems like they are doing a bit of that with the uniques but I wouldn't mind seeing more of it in the base roster
 
From what little I've seen, the current system feels close to perfect. There is some historical underrepresentation of some unit types in Antiquity, though. Javelineers, Light Cavalry and Siege Towers. So, I would add a light ranged horseman unit and a siege tower unit. Light cavalry's role was to perform reconnaissance of the battlefield, conduct raids, screen the enemy force, harass the enemy with missiles, and finally run down the fleeing enemy. The current Horseman unit seems to fulfill the role of a melee heavy cavalry unit that performs fast flank attacks (and I like that). The Ballista is the siege unit of the age, and it fulfilled that role historically, but I would trade the arrows with huge rocks since the version with arrow bolts was used against armies and not stone walls. It would be nice if a Siege Tower inside a Commander's force could potentially let the unpacked melee units of a Commander bypass fortification modifiers entirely, since siege towers were used by a lot of civilizations in Antiquity.

Although I have to admit that those units don't need to be added for every civilization in the game. They can be added later down the line as special unit troops that are unlocked via city-state bonus choices like Foederati. The Peltast (if Thrace isn't a civilization in the game), the Tarentine or Numidian (if Numidia isn't a civilization in Antiquity) Horseman and the Helepolis. Even then, some civilizations might get some of these unit types as unique units. Assyria might get a siege tower or a horse archer, given that most Middle-Eastern units look so Assyrian. The Scythian or the Xiongnu or the Huns will get a horse archer unit for sure if one of the three comes to the game.

Some different approach with ranged units could have been used too. From what I understand, Slingers evolve to the stronger Archers and that's it. In reality, slingers, archers and javelineers existed at the same time with varying abilities for each troop type. Slingers had the biggest range (aside from composite bowmen), huge impact, and deadly accuracy, with their volleys being extremely deadly against troops without helmets and shields. Archers had more penetrative power than slingers but less range (aside from the composite bow). Javelineers had the most penetrative capabilities against the shielded and armoured opponents, the shortest range, but carried a shield to protect themselves from other missiles.
 
Top Bottom