DESIGN: Unit Values

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by E


I agree to those. though I think 3 on coracle movement to make travel a little attractive. but not a deal breaker Other than that i agreewith the other mvmt stuff.

I am rather in favor of increasing the speed of a unit rather than decreasing it. Reducing the speed only extends the time needed for an invasion. Moreover, I think that higher technology units should be far better than lower technology ones. A Pikemen must have no chance against a tank.

[Maquiladora]

I agree Pikemen should have no chance against a Tank, but shouldnt a Pikemen have a chance against a Knight? Currently Pikemen+Catapults are stronger than Knights, but you cant get anywhere near the Knights, this is a problem with most of the units of each era in the game.

You go for the fasted units because the AI cant respond in time with its stronger (but slower) armies, and predictably it loses badly.

The speed of units is a major issue for the AI. The human can surprise attack, the AI cant (or not as deliberately or as well), this speed benefits the human. When the AI finally attacks with greater force (the only way it can), greater movement units will help the human get many units into position for defence - again, this helps the human because the AI uses (as it should) balanced and strong armies.

There is one way to fix this without lowering ground movement in favour of defence, and that is to make the AI only research and use the best units (Knights, Cavalry, Tanks, Fusion Tanks etc) and ignore the rest, but whats the point in reducing the game to that?

If you look at AoM mod in the first part of the game, you can see CtP2 combat as it shoud be, units advance very gradually, and theres no killer units that move so much greater than a unit one advance away. Combat is interesting because every unit has a role and can take part, an invasion never feels slow, even on the gigantic map.

Also we're only proposing generally reducing ground units speed (the ones that take cities and ultimately decide wars), so the initial invasion wont be slowed if you cross water or invade by air.

[Tamerlin]

I agree with you Maq, combat needs to be modified if we want the game to be challenging. I would have preferred an AI that would have learnt how to use properly the units as they are today, but I know that it is harder.

Upgrade paths :

Do we agree on this change :

Warrior > Swordsman/Samourai ?

Swordsman/Samourai staying a dead end unit.


About the Archers :

As far as I am concerned I would not upgrade the Archer until Infantryman. If we consider history, the Longbows plagued the battlefield until they were replaced by Muskets and Rifles. The first gunpowder unit being the Infantryman in CtP2, I think that Archers should upgrade to Infantryman.

The proper upgrade path would thus be :

Archer > Infantryman > Machine Gunner > Marine > Hover Infantry

What do you think about it ?

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by E
yeah its easier to follow the "Tamerlin Rule" when we know what Tamerlin is thinking

The Tamerlin's rule is fairly simple : don't change anything from the original gameplay and don't add any cheat. If you want to change something from the original gameplay (like adding new goods )... make it optional.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I agree with you Maq, combat needs to be modified if we want the game to be challenging. I would have preferred an AI that would have learnt how to use properly the units as they are today, but I know that it is harder.

Well we can make the AI use the best units and it would make a difficult AI (once it moves armies to attack), but that means the AI not using a lot of useless units, which is a shame. I prefer to fix the useless units.

Upgrade paths :

Do we agree on this change :

Warrior > Swordsman/Samourai ?

Swordsman/Samourai staying a dead end unit.

This looks fine to me, although i still think 5 support and 460 prod. for an "ancient age" unit is WAY too much to spend. What do you think?

Considering a Hoplite+Archer (175p+150p) can kill a lone Samurai (460p) easily, it might need to be reduced, or improve the Samurai stats closer to a Knight, but without the Knights movement.

About the Archers :

As far as I am concerned I would not upgrade the Archer until Infantryman. If we consider history, the Longbows plagued the battlefield until they were replaced by Muskets and Rifles. The first gunpowder unit being the Infantryman in CtP2, I think that Archers should upgrade to Infantryman.

The proper upgrade path would thus be :

Archer > Infantryman > Machine Gunner > Marine > Hover Infantry

What do you think about it ?

Well this suggests the Archer would be a defensive unit, but i know thats not what you want.

In combat the Archer acts exactly the same as a Catapult, which at the moment makes the Catapult clearly better. For the Archer (or a variant) to stay in use until Infantrymen, and at the same time the Catapult giving a different use (siege bombarding), and for the Archer to outlive the Catapult, we would need to introduce a Longbow unit, for example at Feudalism or Monarchy?

I know there is an alternate Archer sprite made by Activision for the Alexander scenario. Not exactly a "long" bow, but its fully animated and different enough from the normal Archer.

I suppose this also means you want to leave the Marine in that upgrade path?

So perhaps:

Archer> Longbowman> Infantrymen> M. Gunner> Marine> Hover Inf.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Maquiladora


Well we can make the AI use the best units and it would make a difficult AI (once it moves armies to attack), but that means the AI not using a lot of useless units, which is a shame. I prefer to fix the useless units.

I know, I know...

This looks fine to me, although i still think 5 support and 460 prod. for an "ancient age" unit is WAY too much to spend. What do you think?

That it is the player to think about it and choose, the Swordsman is still a huge improvement over the Warrior. IMO, the Swordsman should be allowed to upgrade to Infantryman. This would be a good counterweight. It is less powerful than a knight but is able to become an Infantryman.

This Upgrade path could become :

Warrior > Swordsman/Samourai > Infantryman > ...

Well this suggests the Archer would be a defensive unit, but i know thats not what you want.

In combat the Archer acts exactly the same as a Catapult, which at the moment makes the Catapult clearly better. For the Archer (or a variant) to stay in use until Infantrymen, and at the same time the Catapult giving a different use (siege bombarding), and for the Archer to outlive the Catapult, we would need to introduce a Longbow unit, for example at Feudalism or Monarchy?

I know there is an alternate Archer sprite made by Activision for the Alexander scenario. Not exactly a "long" bow, but its fully animated and different enough from the normal Archer.

A longbowman is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote my earlier post. IMO, this Longbowman should be introduced at the same time as the Pikemen. If Alexander's sprite seems more ancient, we could give the Archer the Alexander's sprite and give the current Archer's sprite to the longbowman.

I suppose this also means you want to leave the Marine in that upgrade path?

Yes...

So perhaps:

Archer> Longbowman> Infantrymen> M. Gunner> Marine> Hover Inf.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

That it is the player to think about it and choose, the Swordsman is still a huge improvement over the Warrior. IMO, the Swordsman should be allowed to upgrade to Infantryman. This would be a good counterweight. It is less powerful than a knight but is able to become an Infantryman.

This Upgrade path could become :

Warrior > Swordsman/Samourai > Infantryman > ...

If you mean Samurai, then yes, its probably the best way to go. It will help bring the Samurai into more frequent use in the game.

What do you think about also renaming it "Swordsman", to give it a more general term?

A longbowman is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote my earlier post. IMO, this Longbowman should be introduced at the same time as the Pikemen. If Alexander's sprite seems more ancient, we could give the Archer the Alexander's sprite and give the current Archer's sprite to the longbowman.

What stats should this unit have? I also wonder if the AI would have to be taught to build both units, as theyre used around the same time, but the Catapult can bombard and shouldnt be immediately replaced by Longbowmen.

These are the sprites (CtP1 archer on the left):

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Maquiladora

If you mean Samurai, then yes, its probably the best way to go. It will help bring the Samurai into more frequent use in the game.

OK, I post the updated upgrade paths as soon as I have finished to write this post.

What do you think about also renaming it "Swordsman", to give it a more general term?

I think that Swordsman is good.

As far as French is concerned, it is far more tricky. Guerrier d'élite (elite warrior) would be the best.

What stats should this unit have?

The problem is that I don't know exactly how the stats are used by the game and what kind of calculations are made.

Cost : 370
Upkeep : 3
Assault : 10
Ranged : 25
Defense : 15*
Armor : 1
Damage : 2**
Visibility : 2
Move : 1
Powerpoints : ?

* As far as I know the Longbowmen were often wearing a good leather armor or a light chainmail

** I wonder if increasing the "ranged" factor to 25 is not enough. If not we could increase the damage to 2. The composite bow was a feared weapon on the battlefield.

I also wonder if the AI would have to be taught to build both units, as theyre used around the same time, but the Catapult can bombard and shouldnt be immediately replaced by Longbowmen.

I suppose that we only need to teach the AI how to use the Archers as it will automatically update them to Longbowman.

These are the sprites (CtP1 archer on the left):

IMO, the right sprite (Alexander scenario) is very good for a Longbowman, it looks like an Archer with a chainmail, and an iron helmet, a good medieval look.

On the contrary, the CtP1 sprite is more "Robin Hood" looking and I am not sure it is quite good.

[Tamerlin]

New AE Upgrade Paths

Warrior>Swordsman>Infantryman>Machine Gunner>Marine>Hover Infantry

Hoplite>Pikemen>Infantryman>Machine Gunner>Marine>Hover Infantry

Knight>Cavalry>Tank>Fusion Tank

Fighter>Interceptor>Stealth Fighter

Bomber>Stealth Bomber

Archer>Longbowman>Infantryman>Machine Gunner>Marine>Hover Infantry

Mounted Archer>Cavalry>Tank>Fusion Tank

Diplomat>Empathic Diplomat

Fire Trireme>Ship of the Line>Ironclad>Battleship>Plasma Destroyer

Destroyer>Plasma Destroyer

Catapult>Cannon>Artillery>Mobile SAM>War Walker

Coracle>Longship>Carrack>Troop Ship

Submarine>Nuclear Submarine>Moray Striker

Priest>Televangelist

Spy>Cyber Ninja

Kraken>Dreadnaught



New Upgrade Paths are in Bold text


-----Dead End units-----


Abolitionist
Aircraft Carrier
Cargo Helicopter
Corporate Branch
Crawler
Cruise Missile
Eco Ranger
Eco Terrorist
Fascist
Infector
Lawyer
Leviathan
Nuke
Paratrooper
PT Boat
Scout Sub
Sea Engineer
Settler
Slaver
Space Plane
Spy Plane
Urban Planner

[Tamerlin]

New Upgrade Paths II

Here is the Units.txt with the new Upgrade Paths (without the Longbowman).

[Maquiladora]

Sorry, been busy messing with a scenario.

Originally posted by Tamerlin

Cost : 370
Upkeep : 3
Assault : 10
Ranged : 25
Defense : 15*
Armor : 1
Damage : 2**
Visibility : 2
Move : 1
Powerpoints : ?

* As far as I know the Longbowmen were often wearing a good leather armor or a light chainmail

** I wonder if increasing the "ranged" factor to 25 is not enough. If not we could increase the damage to 2. The composite bow was a feared weapon on the battlefield.

Definitely damage/firepower 2, as the Catapult has 2 aswell.

I see Longbowmens role in the game as a cheaper/non-bombarding Catapult, used at the same time as Catapults. Of course the AI upgrades all its Archers too, so it doesnt lose out when it starts building Catapults either.

The only situation where I can see the AI prefering to build Longbow over a Catapult is a setting in strategies.txt, which tells the AI the minimum build times it should accept for a unit. In some cases the Catapult may be too much but the Longbow wont. What I dont know for sure is if the AI will "jump down" the list of range units its told to build and go for a cheaper one instead? I suspect not.

I suppose that we only need to teach the AI how to use the Archers as it will automatically update them to Longbowman.

This is one of the main reasons i havent criticised some other upgrade paths. It really helps the AI to upgrade as many units as it can. Its also less frustrating for the human to recycle all his old units by disbanding "manually", for new units.

[HuangShang]

Infantryman would be more like attack because of its move speed and its range (i think). Machine gunner is the next pikeman really, and machine gun in real life is defensive. Maybe change some numbers on it and leave it until hoover to upgrade. i.e.

Warrior-Swordsman-Infantryman-Marine-Hover Infantry
Hoplite-Pikemen-Machine Gunner-Hover Infantry
Archer-Longbowman-(Facist)-Paratrooper-Hover Infantry

Archer goes to paratroopers because there are no archers in the navy... maybe. Perhaps turn Facists back to Longbowman when the gov is changed before paratrooper.

If mounted archer was flank, it needs to have less assult/range. It is the fastest for a very long time. Not being flank makes it so a stack of 6 will actually take some loss when attacking smaller stacks.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by HuangShang
Infantryman would be more like attack because of its move speed and its range (i think). Machine gunner is the next pikeman really, and machine gun in real life is defensive. Maybe change some numbers on it and leave it until hoover to upgrade. i.e.

As far as I am concerned, I don't think that we should care about the difference between attack and defence units. We should care about a logical path of upgrades and about the fact that CtP2 is a simulation and a game. A game is meant to be fun and a simulation is meant to be a mirror of "reality". As it is both a game and a simulation, CtP2, in my opinion, is meant to be a fun mirror of reality. I don't think that you are still producing, or interested in producing, Pikemen as soon as Infantrymen are available. There is a moment in the game when units are becoming multipurpose ones. I thus think that you are using Infantryman to attack and defend. Is there then any interest in still strictly thinking about defence and attack units?

Warrior-Swordsman-Infantryman-Marine-Hover Infantry
Hoplite-Pikemen-Machine Gunner-Hover Infantry
Archer-Longbowman-(Facist)-Paratrooper-Hover Infantry

Archer goes to paratroopers because there are no archers in the navy... maybe. Perhaps turn Facists back to Longbowman when the gov is changed before paratrooper.

If mounted archer was flank, it needs to have less assult/range. It is the fastest for a very long time. Not being flank makes it so a stack of 6 will actually take some loss when attacking smaller stacks.

For all the reasons above I don't agree with these Upgrade paths. Don't forget that there are different nations and different military doctrines. CtP2 is about building your own... and as far as I know Archers were used in Ancient times naval battles. Curiously enough, they disappeared with black powder and the musket.

[Maquiladora]

I agree with Tamerlin, at the moment theres no reason to differentiate between attack and defence units much, because of the way the combat system is, it doesnt matter much.

Besides i would still see Infantrymen as defensive or offensive.

We also cant forget about the AI. The more units the AI can keep upgrading the better, so the less dead-ends the better.

Regarding the M.Archer as a flank unit, i dont know what we decided? There isnt an ancient flanking unit without it, so its an idea. We could just reverse its attack (10) and ranged stats (20) and make it a flanker.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
I agree with Tamerlin, at the moment theres no reason to differentiate between attack and defence units much, because of the way the combat system is, it doesnt matter much.

Besides i would still see Infantrymen as defensive or offensive.

We also cant forget about the AI. The more units the AI can keep upgrading the better, so the less dead-ends the better.

Thanks Maquiladora !

Regarding the M.Archer as a flank unit, i dont know what we decided? There isnt an ancient flanking unit without it, so its an idea. We could just reverse its attack (10) and ranged stats (20) and make it a flanker.

As you wish, I can only say that mounted archers were exactly what their name implies... Archers moving on horses. They were only using their horses to move and were getting down from their mount before the battle. They were certainly not used as cavalry was.