DESIGN: Unit Values

[Tamerlin]

As far as I am concerned we should be aware that reducing the movement allowances will dramatically lengthen the military operations. One of the few things I don't like in unmodded Civ4 is the fact wars are too long because the units can't use ennemy roads (which is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard of, IMO). If we reduce the movement allowances, we are increasing the time spent moving units simply to reach their target. The more turns a unit will need to be moved, the sooner it will become obsolete before it has actually fought. The more time a unit need to reach a point on the map the more the situation will have changed and the unit will have to face an unknown situation. Strategy is about planning and you can't plan anything when you are so "blind". With such long travel, the best thing to do is thus to send two 12 units stacks able to face anything.

Needless to say it will have an effect on exploration and scouting.

I would prefer naval movement allowances to be slightly increased.

Nevertheless we should remember that turns are years long.

About the upgrade paths, are the new paths designed for the AE mod or are they designed in order to be incorporated in the vanilla game with new units ? As far as I am concerned, I am happy with the current units and I like the current Upgrade paths.

I think that the new projects and tweaks should be clearly identified as being "AE mod" or "vanilla game"... or "both".

[LemurMadness]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Technically I don't know if SAM are still rockets as they're guided, certainly not artillery, and the sprite isn't like rocket artillery at all. It's a shame really as the name is much cooler.

I guess the term they used for the game, was a mobile surface-to-air platform, however, as you can see in the game, it also serves as a ranged ground-vs-ground unit, so the SAM term isn't really good since it isn't air-only. The SA-4 could carry different kinds of warheads, SAM and SSM (tactical short range ballistic missiles, in comparation of a Cruise Missile, which is more like an intercontinental missile - thus making possible to take it down with active defense systems [radar detection should spot them]); it also could carry conventional, nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-4_launcher_001.jpg

Im pretty sure that's the real-world MobileSAM.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by HuangShang
TEL is cool to me...

well this is what i think about movespeed:

2	warrior, explorer
1	march infantry
2	mechanized infantry
1	range up to artillery
2	range from TEL
2	mounted
3	tanks

I agree with all that, with only a few expceptions:

"Warrior" doesn't imply that it's a scout unit. I agree that it could be the early scout unit (without the need for a new early scout) then, but it shouldn't have 2 moves. You could rush the AI with it, not to mention the barbs could be annoying to everyone including the other AI. It could become really weird. If we want a really early 2 move unit, it has to be a new "defend-only" unit IMO.

Most infantry move 1, and that is set as the measurement for all the other move speeds (so it is our meter). The warrior/scout and then marine/plasmatica/hover (because they are assumed to be mechanized infantry) can move 2.

I would say Hover Inf/Plasmatica should get 2, but Marine/Paratrooper and earlier foot units should all get 1. These 2 units have special abilities anyway, so if you use them right, you already get 2 moves unloading then attacking.

In the same vane ranged move 1 until the TEL, which because is on a mobile platform instead of pulled by horse and rail, can be 2

IIRC the Artillery appears to be on half-tracks/wheels, though I'm not going to argue with you, as I think 2 moves coming at TEL/Missile/whatever is better. Sometimes you can get Artillery really early.

Then Mounted units are given 2, which make sense because the horses still need to rest and eat everyday, and in the end wouldn't be any faster than mechanized infantry. We have the elephants that flank and the m.archers that are ranged. Then its the Knight that is ranged and the cavalry that is both.

Why should we still use M. Archers as ranged? They aren't a ranged unit IMO, and really don't fit well there. If we use them as a flanker it means we don't need to add Elephants, and it prevents this M. Archer from doing nothing for the AI. The AI won't build it as a range unit as it has equally good Archers and very little time before Longbows come.

Even in realism terms the Horse Archer/M. Archer is flanking cavalry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_archer

"The typical employment of horse archers in battle was in the manner of skirmishers; lightly-armed missile troops capable of moving swiftly to avoid close combat or to deliver a rapid blow to the flanks or rear of the foe."

Ship movement is kind of weird. Ironclads have steam engines but they are not as fast as ship of the line? Lets have coracle move 3 and every upgrade add a move and a cargo spot, so troopship is still 6 move and carries 5. Then the same age navy generally moves one less as in the table below.

Cargo heli should move 6 because it already has the advantage of all tile movement. I think planes don't need change.

2	trireme
3	ship of the line (well 4 is ok i guess)
4	ironclad
5	battleship, subs
6	PT, destroyer

I reply to this later once we start on the naval units. We've got enough to do yet with the land units.

If we reduce the movement allowances, we are increasing the time spent moving units simply to reach their target. The more turns a unit will need to be moved, the sooner it will become obsolete before it has actually fought. The more time a unit need to reach a point on the map the more the situation will have changed and the unit will have to face an unknown situation.

That is something we should be prepared to face IMO. I can already reach the modern age before 1500AD on "Impossible", so it may be that the research/science system is part of the problem, not that war will be too slow.

Strategy is about planning and you can't plan anything when you are so "blind". With such long travel, the best thing to do is thus to send two 12 units stacks able to face anything.

You don't even need to plan using the units we have now. It makes it so much harder for the AI when the human can send 4 or 5 lone Knights in and pillage all their roads before the main attack comes in. Or later use the same units to ZOC their units from reenforcing a city.

If units were slower you just couldn't pillage and exploit it as much, which would require greater planning, and probably stronger pillaging/disruptive armies. On the whole just more difficult.

Needless to say it will have an effect on exploration and scouting.

I don't think this is a problem though. Most of the exploring is usually done either by early Warriors and/or units found in huts. You shouldn't find anything better than Ancient units in a hut anyway, but that's just my opinion.

I'm sure it will have an effect on combat for much the better though.

The AI will actually be able to do something before an attack is brought to a city. A hell of a lot of battles should be fought in the fields, not always the city centre, where battles can be easily won if you have superior numbers. It's easy to take a city once you get 2 or more full armies next to it, so we want to make that as hard as possible IMO. Of course not so hard attacking becomes harder than defending, but it has to be difficult and more carefully thought out to approach a city.

About the upgrade paths, are the new paths designed for the AE mod or are they designed in order to be incorporated in the vanilla game with new units ? As far as I am concerned, I am happy with the current units and I like the current Upgrade paths.

All these changes are only for the AE mod.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by LemurMadness

I guess the term they used for the game, was a mobile surface-to-air platform, however, as you can see in the game, it also serves as a ranged ground-vs-ground unit, so the SAM term isn't really good since it isn't air-only. The SA-4 could carry different kinds of warheads, SAM and SSM (tactical short range ballistic missiles, in comparation of a Cruise Missile, which is more like an intercontinental missile - thus making possible to take it down with active defense systems [radar detection should spot them]); it also could carry conventional, nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-4_launcher_001.jpg

Im pretty sure that's the real-world MobileSAM.

What is it going to be called though? TEL? (catchy but very unclear) Mobile Missiles? (strange term but clear) Missiles? (catchy but unclear) Mobile Launcher... etc

[Ekmek]

I pretty much agree with Maq's Post


Oh and before we finish land we should talk about bombard ranges because that can be adjusted now too.


Maybe we should do a poll for the new SAM name? I guess a list of proposals would be keep thesame, missile (or rocket) artillery, Mobile Missile, Launcher, and of course bananas.

[Maquiladora]

OK so here's an easier to read table. The question marks are what I think we havent agreed yet, or just new suggestions.

Attack

[b]	att	def	ran	arm	dam	mov	vis	cost	require[/b]
Legion	20	10	0	1	1	1	1	225	IronWorki.
Samurai	30	10	0	1	2	1	1	460	Bureaucra.
Musket.	40?	20?	10?	1	3	1	2	1000?	Gunpowder
Marine	60	40	30	1	4?	1	2	1400	AdvInfTac.
HoverI.	80	50	40	1	5	2	3	2500	ChaosTheo.

Defence

[b]	att	def	ran	arm	dam	mov	vis	cost	require[/b]
Hoplite	10	15	0	1	1	1	1	175	BronzeWor.
Pikemen	10	25	0	1	2	1	1	380	Feudalism
Infant.	25	35	10	1	3	1	2	920	Rifling?
M.Gunn.	30	40	20	1	4?	1	2	1200	Ind.Revol.
Plasma.	60?	70?	40?	1	5	1	2	2300?	ChaosTheo.?

Range

[b]	att	def	ran	arm	dam	mov	vis	cost	require[/b]
Archer	10	10	20	1	1	1	2	150	Ballistic.
Longbo.	10	15	25	1	2	1	2	370	Feudalism

Seige

[b]	att	def	ran	arm	dam	mov	vis	cost	require[/b]
Catapu.	10	10	30	1	2	1	2	740	Geometry
Cannon	10	15	50	1	3	1	2	1200	CannonMak.
Artill.	10	20	70	2	3	1	2	1500	Explosive.
Missil.	10	20	80	2?	4?	2	3	2000	Radar
WarWal.	50	40	95	4	5	3	4	3500	Cyberneti.

Flank

[b]	att	def	ran	arm	dam	mov	vis	cost	require[/b]
M.Arch?	20?	10?	10?	1	1	2	2	340	HorseRidi.
Knight	25	15	0	1	2	2	2	740	Feudalism
Cavalr.	35	20	20	1	3	2	2	1200	CavalryTa.
Tank	50	35	80	3	4	3	3	2000	TankWarfa.
FusionT	65	45	90	4	5	4	3	5250	Fusion

Other

[b]	att	def	ran	arm	dam	mov	vis	cost	require[/b]
Fascist	25	35	15	1	3	1	2	1000	Fascism
Paratr.	60	40	30	1	4?	1	2	1400	AdvInfTac.
Leviat.	90	100	90	6	6	1*	3	9000	UnifiedPh.

*=should be 1 move over any terrain, even if it has roads/rail/maglev/tunnel.

Musketeer/Skirmisher needs stats. I've given it opposite Infantyrman stats minus a bit and some lower cost. I also gave it Gunpowder, but this means moving Infantryman, which I put at a new "Rifling" tech for now.

Plasmatica is the same as Hover Inf but reversed and slightly better as it comes later than HoverInf. Slihgtly higher cost.

Something i noticed, Marine, M.Gunner, "Missiles", Paratrooper, should they have 4 damage to fit the scale in each area better?

M. Archer as a suggestion moved to the first flanker. Just swapped attack and ranged.

Missile armour should be 2 or even 3? It had 1 before, didn't make much sense. Certainly doesn't fit among Artillery and Tank.

Some other things like Cavalry, Tanks, other vision ranges, costs etc may still need changing, but I don't want to start too many unit discussions at once.

edit: just fixed war walker cost.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by E

Oh and before we finish land we should talk about bombard ranges because that can be adjusted now too.

This could be useful. We can talk about bonuses vs other units aswell.

Maybe we should do a poll for the new SAM name? I guess a list of proposals would be keep thesame, missile (or rocket) artillery, Mobile Missile, Launcher, and of course bananas.

I'll start a frivolous new thread.

[LemurMadness]

Mobile Missile Launcher. Or TEL System.

That list looks pretty good, Maq

I think we should keep "Missile" armor 2.

"Rifling" sounds nice, because the description on the website I give later, it says "Rifles were more accurate weapons than muskets but needed longer time to load.", meaning it's a more offensive capable gun, but i'd consider about making it "Infantry Tactics" (The advance that enables Marines and Paratrooper's called "Advanced Infantry Tacticts"), looks like this is centered in the Napoleonic Wars, which is appropiated since it's on the right timeline. This advance should be cheaper to get than Cavalry Tactics. http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in..._tactics_4.htm Infantry Tactics, Skirmishers, etc... (This is why I asked for a blue Musketeer http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Fr...kirmishers.jpg I think I showed a link before about Napoleon's blue uniformed skirmishers)

IMHO, we should keep a principle that defensive units should be cheaper than offensive,. The Skirmisher/Musketeer(1000?) should be more expensive than the Infantryman(920?), and Plasmatica (2100?) more cheaper than the Hover Infantry(2500?) (Plasmatica's avaliable after researching Chaos Theory -- "Passive" civilizations, those who have high cientific research, should benefit themselves with this). How about changing Plasmatica's Defense to 70, Movement to 1 (Why 2? it's like the other "foot soldier" units, however Hover Infantry should have 2 because they "hover" right? ) and Vision to 3 (Same as before, you can see better than a foot soldier if you're above ground) , and Musketeer's Attack to 40, Defense to 20 and Ranged to 20?

Mounted Archer as a flanker? I have no idea... I used to mix up MA with Knights, isn't there the possibility that we would leave no flanker unit on Ancient Ages? I'd thought about MA as a ranged/scout unit.

IIRC the Artillery appears to be on half-tracks/wheels, though I'm not going to argue with you, as I think 2 moves coming at TEL/Missile/whatever is better. Sometimes you can get Artillery really early.

The Artillery is really weird, I mean it looks like a vehicle but you haven't researched Internal Combustion

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
All these changes are only for the AE mod.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by LemurMadness

I think we should keep "Missile" armor 2.

It was originally 1, but 2 then for now would be fine by me.

"Rifling" sounds nice, because the description on the website I give later, it says "Rifles were more accurate weapons than muskets but needed longer time to load.", meaning it's a more offensive capable gun, but i'd consider about making it "Infantry Tactics" (The advance that enables Marines and Paratrooper's called "Advanced Infantry Tacticts"), looks like this is centered in the Napoleonic Wars, which is appropiated since it's on the right timeline. This advance should be cheaper to get than Cavalry Tactics. http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in..._tactics_4.htm Infantry Tactics, Skirmishers, etc... (This is why I asked for a blue Musketeer http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Fr...kirmishers.jpg I think I showed a link before about Napoleon's blue uniformed skirmishers)

I don't mind Infantry Tactics then. Prerequisite Gunpowder, then a dead end.

RE: the blue musketeer, i meant to reply earlier. long story short, i had problems converting all the images to make the sprite. I'll have another attempt soon, but for now we can use the blue infantryman from the directory as a placeholder if need be.

IMHO, we should keep a principle that defensive units should be cheaper than offensive,.

Good point, i had overlooked that.

The Skirmisher/Musketeer(1000?) should be more expensive than the Infantryman(920?), and Plasmatica (2100?) more cheaper than the Hover Infantry(2500?) (Plasmatica's avaliable after researching Chaos Theory -- "Passive" civilizations, those who have high cientific research, should benefit themselves with this). How about changing Plasmatica's Defense to 70, Movement to 1 (Why 2? it's like the other "foot soldier" units, however Hover Infantry should have 2 because they "hover" right? ) and Vision to 3 (Same as before, you can see better than a foot soldier if you're above ground) , and Musketeer's Attack to 40, Defense to 20 and Ranged to 20?

I think HoverInf were 4 vision before, however it seems too much, so 3 it is.

Musketeer seems too powerful to have 20 range, certainly if Infantryman doesn't have it. The rifle had far greater accuracy and range even in the same era. But the Musket had better loading times and so suits a simple skirmisher better. If anything i would increase Infantryman range before i increase Musketeer, but then we start changing things for no reason. We can give Musketeer the same 10 or 0. Relative to the seige/archer units though, they both should just stay at 10 range and stick to their specific uses IMO.

I've edited the table to reflect these changes now.

Mounted Archer as a flanker? I have no idea... I used to mix up MA with Knights, isn't there the possibility that we would leave no flanker unit on Ancient Ages? I'd thought about MA as a ranged/scout unit.

I used to use 2 or 3 behind Knights too, speed, flanking and range it was too perfect. It's an unbeatable pillaging/nuisance army (at least against the AI) I just don't understand why an Archer who fires from range would sit on a horse. The point is that it rides and fires from close range at the same time.

Anyway it can still be used as a scout, but it fits perfectly, historically and to fill the missing ancient flanker. It would encourage more balanced armies earlier aswell.

The Artillery is really weird, I mean it looks like a vehicle but you haven't researched Internal Combustion

I hadn't noticed before Perhaps they were originally going to use the Artillery sprite from CtP1, which looks more like an old howitzer, and certainly fits better at the Explosives tech.

We've got two options: change the sprite to the CtP1 one, or move it to Internal Combustion? But that would mean moving it from the military branch.

Another option is to add another tech for it after explosives, but i really don't want to do that.

[Ekmek]

Originally posted by Maquiladora

I hadn't noticed before Perhaps they were originally going to use the Artillery sprite from CtP1, which looks more like an old howitzer, and certainly fits better at the Explosives tech.

We've got two options: change the sprite to the CtP1 one, or move it to Internal Combustion? But that would mean moving it from the military branch.

Another option is to add another tech for it after explosives, but i really don't want to do that.

Lets use the CTP1 and then down the road have a Mechanized Artillery Unit that is more mobile. The Howitizer would have a move of 1 and come before tanks. Mech Arty would come with or close after tanks.

[LemurMadness]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
RE: the blue musketeer, i meant to reply earlier. long story short, i had problems converting all the images to make the sprite. I'll have another attempt soon, but for now we can use the blue infantryman from the directory as a placeholder if need be.

Oh, no, I did find a Blue Musketeer from CTP1, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...25#post4868725
which is a little different from CTP2's InfantryMen (with black hats.)

Originally posted by Maquiladora
I think HoverInf were 4 vision before, however it seems too much, so 3 it is.

Seems alright, but then Plasmatica's vision should go down to 2.

Originally posted by Maquiladora Musketeer seems too powerful to have 20 range, certainly if Infantryman doesn't have it. The rifle had far greater accuracy and range even in the same era. But the Musket had better loading times and so suits a simple skirmisher better. If anything i would increase Infantryman range before i increase Musketeer, but then we start changing things for no reason. We can give Musketeer the same 10 or 0. Relative to the seige/archer units though, they both should just stay at 10 range and stick to their specific uses IMO.

10's ok, but I wanted to reflect a little bit more rewarding offensive power because of the advance research and it's going to be a dead-end advance, thus the cost is going to be higher and they have the exact sum of Attack+Defense. Certainly the range thing isn't good, because the unit's supposed to be concentrated on it's attack, so I guess raising it's defense for compensation? (25?)

On a side note, the HoverInfantry is almost on the same situation, but it haves higher movement (cross every terrain as the same, no idea if that's the same on roads), and higher vision for higher production cost -- so nothing should be changed, really. Should the HoverInfantry have the rights to move right away after unloading, like it's predecessor, the Marine? (and Paratrooper?)

Originally posted by Maquiladora I hadn't noticed before Perhaps they were originally going to use the Artillery sprite from CtP1, which looks more like an old howitzer, and certainly fits better at the Explosives tech.

We've got two options: change the sprite to the CtP1 one, or move it to Internal Combustion? But that would mean moving it from the military branch.

Another option is to add another tech for it after explosives, but i really don't want to do that.

Nah, just the sprite change. That's just too much complications

EDIT: Concerning the "Defense" bug, (Defense bonus vanishes after the first round of combat), how about making the Defense bonus higher, lets say, 100% (200%)? I don't know if the Attack bonus stays there too, because my weird logic tells me that after the first round of the defensive unit's attack bonus will vanish too..

EDIT: Im still worried (don't know why) about the defense capabilities of the Machine Gunner vs Marine...

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by E

Lets use the CTP1 and then down the road have a Mechanized Artillery Unit that is more mobile. The Howitizer would have a move of 1 and come before tanks. Mech Arty would come with or close after tanks.

OK. I think it's used in a few mods so I'll be able to find it and attach it after this post.

I intend to update the files with all the changes today anyway, so we don't lose track of everything.

Oh, no, I did find a Blue Musketeer from CTP1, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...725#post4868725
which is a little different from CTP2's InfantryMen (with black hats.)

But it doesn't have animations. The one I'm trying to make will have all animations.

Seems alright, but then Plasmatica's vision should go down to 2.

OK done.

10's ok, but I wanted to reflect a little bit more rewarding offensive power because of the advance research and it's going to be a dead-end advance, thus the cost is going to be higher and they have the exact sum of Attack+Defense. Certainly the range thing isn't good, because the unit's supposed to be concentrated on it's attack, so I guess raising it's defense for compensation? (25?)

I don't get it. Won't Infantryman require the extra research and dead end to "Infantry Tactics"? That would mean it should be the better unit, at least range-wise. Gunpowder (and Musketeer) isn't a dead end though.

On a side note, the HoverInfantry is almost on the same situation, but it haves higher movement (cross every terrain as the same, no idea if that's the same on roads), and higher vision for higher production cost -- so nothing should be changed, really. Should the HoverInfantry have the rights to move right away after unloading, like it's predecessor, the Marine? (and Paratrooper?)

I would say keep those units unique for now, but it could replace both, let's test it first. Bytheway I noticed HoverInf can't move/attack on beaches or shallow, they're a land-only unit in every respect but their appearance. Maybe they can only hover for short periods.

EDIT: Concerning the "Defense" bug, (Defense bonus vanishes after the first round of combat), how about making the Defense bonus higher, lets say, 100% (200%)? I don't know if the Attack bonus stays there too, because my weird logic tells me that after the first round of the defensive unit's attack bonus will vanish too..

Are we certain those vanishe after the first round? I haven't tested it properly. I wouldn't mind increasing terrain defensive bonuses, but i fear it will have less effect than hoped...

Apparently units attacking get a bonus aswell. So a Warrior on forest attacks a Warrior on forest there would be no effect. This is at least according to the official readme:

"Example 3: Terrain Bonus, as displayed in the Battle View, shows a big bonus but I still didn’t win. Why?

Answer: Only the Terrain Bonus for the defender is displayed, however the attacker also gets a bonus computed. Mountains have a greater advantage over plains. If a defender is in the mountains, they will likely survive an attack from units charging from the plains (everything else being equal). Likewise, units storming from the mountains to vanquish a similar army in flatlands will normally win (everything else being equal). Bonus levels for units attacking or defending across identical territory (both armies starting in plains or mountains) are nullified."

EDIT: Im still worried (don't know why) about the defense capabilities of the Machine Gunner vs Marine...

The M. Gunner is fairly cheaper though. I had this idea of giving M. Gunner a +100% bonus vs attack units (if it were possible), basically simulating trench warfare. Any unit with 2 or higher armour would be impervious to it though obviously.

[LemurMadness]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
I don't get it. Won't Infantryman require the extra research and dead end to "Infantry Tactics"? That would mean it should be the better unit, at least range-wise. Gunpowder (and Musketeer) isn't a dead end though.

Oh, I didn't saw that, I thought the Infantryman required Gunpowder, and the Skirmisher/Musketeer required Infantry Tactics, my bad

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Are we certain those vanishe after the first round? I haven't tested it properly. I wouldn't mind increasing terrain defensive bonuses, but i fear it will have less effect than hoped...

The M. Gunner is fairly cheaper though. I had this idea of giving M. Gunner a +100% bonus vs attack units (if it were possible), basically simulating trench warfare. Any unit with 2 or higher armour would be impervious to it though obviously.

People were debating about this issue a while ago, I didn't had any idea about it, personally I don't see any difference.

I like the idea of increasing Defensive units advantage, and your idea of units being less effective against units less than # of armor, would balance the game A LOT, without watching weird fights like 4 knights taking out a tank

I'd also suggest increasing the defense bonus of Defensive units while Fortifying.

[Maquiladora]

We could incorporate all kinds of bonuses vs specific units. For example the "Mobile Missile System" could have bonuses against Tanks, considering we don't have a "tank buster" helicopter.

However these bonuses could only have any reasonable effect between units of the same armour and firepower, since those stats are too powerful to overcome by simply increasing attack or defence a little bit (unless we had an armor/firepower modifying bonus aswell). But i dont think this is a problem, we can still have some useful bonuses.

Yes, the fortify bonus in another easy one to aid the defender. Having tested it, even 200% is a small effect, but probably the best. IIRC it's 50% now, which is basically 25% as it uses it in half a battle. If i understand it correctly.