Seeking feedback on units

[Turrosh Mak]

I'm thinking of changing some unit characteristics and would like others opinions before I go charging off. These changes would be on top of the standard AU Mod

Remove the airlift flag from Modern Armor, Mechanized Infanty, and Robot Artillery. In reality these units are too "heavy" to lift in brigade/division sized numbers. It doesn't appear that the AI airlifts units whereas players can (and I have) supply a 30 MA force through one airport (?!?) Unreal.

Add the airlift flag to great leaders, cruise missiles, and tactical nukes.

Increase Robot Artillery movement rate to 2. They fall too far behind with a movement of 1 to be useful.

Reduce Cavalry movement rate from 3 to 2. It doesn't make sense for these horseback units have higher mobility than Motorized units a full era later. Lower mobility also helps the AI on the defensive against a human.

Increase Fighter defense from 2 to 3 and Jet Fighter/F15 from 4 to 6. This increase should be enough to make bombing missions for fighters (in order to to initiate dogfights and clear the way for bombers) a reasonable attrition strategy.

Thats all I have for now. I look forward to your response.

[Wazell]

Re: Seeking feedback on units

Well, this would fit better in Creation forum, but on the other hand your changes are small, everyone experiments with this stuff sometimes.

Originally posted by Turrosh Mak
Remove the airlift flag from Modern Armor, Mechanized Infanty, and Robot Artillery. In reality these units are too "heavy" to lift in brigade/division sized numbers.

Sounds good, I think most modders try to make game more realistic this way.

Add the airlift flag to great leaders, cruise missiles, and tactical nukes.

For cruise missiles that's good, others become too powerful IMHO.

Increase Robot Artillery movement rate to 2. They fall too far behind with a movement of 1 to be useful.

Nah, I don't see how this makes game better. Might create a Howitzer effect, especially if you have lethal bombarding on.

Reduce Cavalry movement rate from 3 to 2. It doesn't make sense for these horseback units have higher mobility than Motorized units a full era later. Lower mobility also helps the AI on the defensive against a human.

Why wouldn't it make sense? Mobility is what efficient Cavalry (and Cossacks, Riders) is all about. Remember also that motorized units weren't exactly the fastest on the field, and that's what Tank resembles in civ.

Increase Fighter defense from 2 to 3 and Jet Fighter/F15 from 4 to 6. This increase should be enough to make bombing missions for fighters (in order to to initiate dogfights and clear the way for bombers) a reasonable attrition strategy.

Haven't tried this, but it sounds working.

Happy modding, and check creation forum for further advice!

[Jaybe]

I especially agree with the increasing of the fighter defense. My increases were somewhat different:
Jet Fighter: 7.
F-15: 8 (to make it a SUPERIOR air superiority fighter) and a range of 8.

--
Take the airlift flag off of tanks, too.

[Arrian]

If you're going for more "realism" with Cavalry, you might be better served making them 5/3/3 instead of 6/3/2. The mobility of the unit doesn't strike me as a "realism" problem, but the balance of its attack value vs. the defenders it's likely to encounter (muskets/rifles) is. Fact is that Cav shouldn't really be hitting cities with fortified defenders and kicking serious ass, like Cav does in the game. They were more of a fast recon/light skirmish unit than an assault unit, no?

But I don't really care about that, and I like Cav. So mine are fine at 6/3/3.

-Arrian

p.s. I HATE COSSACKS! Sorry, random rant on my part, but I had to. 1 AI Cossack took down 5 of my attacking Cavalry (1 elite, 4 vet) before finally dying last night (and the 6th Cav was redlined!). Open terrain, unfortified. That random number roll sucked.

[gunkulator]

Don't reduce Cavalry attack. By the time they come along most of those defending Muskets and Rifles are in size 7+ cities and perhaps a few 13+ metropolises. Out in the open, Cavalry should have an advantage over infantry, except in high ground.

In fact, I find the time from Cavalry to Tanks to be decidedly tipped toward the defender. Once Infantry comes along, forget taking any cities with Cavalry.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by gunkulator
In fact, I find the time from Cavalry to Tanks to be decidedly tipped toward the defender. Once Infantry comes along, forget taking any cities with Cavalry.

That's true only if you don't attack with combined arms. Bring along a few infantry for defense and several artillery pieces and you're ready to rock and roll. I've found that it's nice to have at least 2 times as many artillery pieces as there are defenders in the city. Gives you a reasonable chance to knock a hit point or two off each defending infantry. Granted, this tends to slow down your assault, but the losses you prevent are worth it. While you'll likely do damage to useful infrastructure (marketplaces, barracks), it also helps reduce the enemy population, making cultural flip less likely and reducing the number of troops needed for garrison duty.

[gunkulator]

Artillery can severely slow down an attack. The Cavalry's 3 movement is completely negated by bringing along arties. Worse, they have to be "babysat" by Rifles on high ground. Leave them out in the open, even with a defender, and the AI will gleefully make a go at trying to take them.

If I want to keep the city, artillery often destroys all those expensive buildings I'd like. I've watched a dozen artillery all fail to reduce defender's hps.

It's just heartbreaking to watch Cavalry lose time after time against Rilfemen or Infantry in cities and metropolises. Sure you can win if you have 4 to 1 odds but boy is it expensive. All you end up doing is promoting their conscripts and regulars up to vets and elites. Lose enough and you'll create leaders. That's an awful lot of wasted shields on units when you could be building buildings and just wait for Tanks instead.

[Turrosh Mak]

Strategic Mobility vs Tactical Mobility

Cavalry has tactical mobility on the battlefield, which should be reflected in its attack strength (and multiple attacks if given blitz ability), but still rely on the same supply system as the footsoldiers. And that supply system moves at the speed of horse/ox drawn wagons.

I am thinking that Riders and Cossacks should be knocked down to 2 movement but given blitz ability, to reflect that smaller numbers of them could do more than their stablemates (knights and cavalry)

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Artillery can severely slow down an attack. The Cavalry's 3 movement is completely negated by bringing along arties. Worse, they have to be "babysat" by Rifles on high ground. Leave them out in the open, even with a defender, and the AI will gleefully make a go at trying to take them.

If I want to keep the city, artillery often destroys all those expensive buildings I'd like. I've watched a dozen artillery all fail to reduce defender's hps.

It's just heartbreaking to watch Cavalry lose time after time against Rilfemen or Infantry in cities and metropolises. Sure you can win if you have 4 to 1 odds but boy is it expensive. All you end up doing is promoting their conscripts and regulars up to vets and elites. Lose enough and you'll create leaders. That's an awful lot of wasted shields on units when you could be building buildings and just wait for Tanks instead.

In most cases, of course, you're right. My point is that IF you must fight a Cavalry versus Infantry war, the only sane option (in my opinion) is making heavy use of artillery. To send cavs against fortified infantry is suicide. I'd also point out that, depending on play style and tech research decisions, it may be a long time between the development of infantry and the arrival of tanks. Some of us don't like to wait that long to eliminate our rivals!

[jackl]

Artillery can severely slow down an attack. The Cavalry's 3 movement is completely negated by bringing along arties. Worse, they have to be "babysat" by Rifles on high ground. Leave them out in the open, even with a defender, and the AI will gleefully make a go at trying to take them.

I like the idea that artillery slows down an attack. Thats the way it works in the real world. Many a battle has been won or lost due to a commanders abilty or lack thereof to get his forces properly supported by heavy guns.
Artillery has to be dragged and rolled and is damn well heavy. I just shouldn't be able to run around the battle as fast as a group of cavalry.
And as for the AI taking the oportunity to deprive you of your artilliary on open ground isn't that what any good commander would do?
The key is to find a good compromise between the speed of your cavs and the speed of your artillery. Use captured railroads and plan ahead. Pick out defensive positions before you attack and ensure you send as many infantry as cavalry.

thats how i do it anyway.

[gunkulator]

All true about arties and cav. All the more reason I would just as well wait a few more advances and get tanks.

Artillery is great for defensive war but given the forced slowness in AI territory, it's better suited for multi-turn sieges than quick attacks. Contrast that to cavalry which isn't strong enough to attack the AI's good cities in the Infantry era but is really good at sneaking in to steal workers, pillage, or take out a small town.