Suggestion: outdated units get penalties

[w.f.schepel]

I like the game, I really do, but what gets me every time is how museum units happily roflstomp 'modern' weapons. It really shouldn't be possible to waltz over soldiers armed with assault rifles using 19th century line infantry. It gets even better, crusader knights (with various permanent buffs) also happily killed information era units.

I would suggest that every the timeline progresses to the next era, all units from previous era receive progressive nerfs. One era behind shouldn't be that big of a deal, but the older units are, the less use you should get out of them. Of course, newer units could get enormous buffs, that would lead to highly inflated stats. What if units simply receive a malus every time a new era is reached? The balance of old unit vs old unit wouldn't change, but no more comedy central with medieval knights killing information era units simply because they got a few buffs down the line.

On a sidenote, I would highly appreciate it if special units could also be promoted to regular new units.

[The Former]

Agreed. I feel like spearmen should pretty much never be able to take down a tank. Sure it's doable, but everything would have to work out so perfectly that it may as well be impossible.

[The Konrad]

No, too realisitic.
To be true to Civ I and II it needs to be stupid.
I want an epic battle between my 6 nuclear submarines battling it out on the shallow coast against a single barbarian war canoe.

I also want my raiders and horse archers defeat the alien invasion and the rogue A.I. because f*** technology we have composite bows.

[low_apm]

wouldnt work, because there are ancient units you can still produce in much later ages

[The Former]

Originally posted by The Konrad:

No, too realisitic.
To be true to Civ I and II it needs to be stupid.
I want an epic battle between my 6 nuclear submarines battling it out on the shallow coast against a single barbarian war canoe.

I also want my raiders and horse archers defeat the alien invasion and the rogue A.I. because f*** technology we have composite bows.

Within reason, this actually would be realistic. No reason composite bows can't deal damage to a robot when it pierces the bendy bits.

[Patriot03]

I feel like there's a fine balance to achieve here, with consideration for the specific units/eras in question. (I'm not a big fan of you rofl stomping everything just because you have a 1 era more advanced melee unit compared to my combat hardened veterans)


When you get to modern firearms/machines? Yea ancient units shouldn't be able to do basically anything, on the other hand a skilled ancient warrior can probably fight a well equipped knight even if he's at a disadvantage.



Also there's another caveat, similar to how barbarians automatically get upgraded with time I think low tech units should turn into modern irregulars at some point, so it shouldn't LITERALLY be spearmen versus a tank but what about an angry mob with limited anti-tank capability? We've seen modern well equipped nations fail to defeat third world populations after all. With that being said this game is willing to entertain whacky things in the name of fun and I've been enjoying that.

[Exemplar]

Originally posted by Patriot03:

We've seen modern well equipped nations fail to defeat third world populations after all.

Only because of public sentiment and politicians that want to be re-elected. :P War is an ugly business, it takes time and sacrifice to dig out entrenched combatants. No one likes consequences like civilian fatalities or family members coming home crippled, so the conflict will often end early before major goals are achieved. It's very rare that it "cannot be done".

But to the op, I agree it doesn't make sense. I really like some innovations tho like spartans getting bonus unrest management. Leonidas can hang up his shield and be a beat cop. Maybe more things like this, or actually park the units in a region capital with a museum for some benefit.

[Patriot03]

Originally posted by Exemplar:

Originally posted by Patriot03:

We've seen modern well equipped nations fail to defeat third world populations after all.

Only because of public sentiment and politicians that want to be re-elected. :P

Whatever the reason it's just an observation derived from reality, motivation and manpower matters a lot too and I think that gets overlooked.


My main point is that it's just weird that a spearman is viewed the same way when you see it in the modern era vs an Ancient unit. Obviously there aren't Spartans today but you still have technologically primitive fighters around the globe that despite being inferior to the best of the best still present a challenge on the battlefield.


If you have a modern economy and drone technology, whose to say my "spearmen" aren't using commercial drones in improvised warfare?




Like yea it's strange for ancient units to meet modern ones in game (and do relatively well), but it's also strange to view that encounter as a literal modern tank going up against literal ancient spartans or whatever. That's just inherent to the quirkiness of the game I guess, but in my mind a spearman in modern times is like the equivalent to modern guerrilla/insurgent fighters.

I still think it would be unfair to make them literally useless because then the meta quickly becomes just rapidly advancing the tech tree which is already potent.




PS: Also when we talk about this problem I really do think we need examples, idk if it's just because I'm only playing at adept rn, but my ships completely decimate lower tech barbarians, it's not even a close battle. Same deal for my first gunpower units. So older tech units are already weaker.

[Exemplar]

Originally posted by Patriot03:

PS: Also when we talk about this problem I really do think we need examples, idk if it's just because I'm only playing at adept rn, but my ships completely decimate lower tech barbarians, it's not even a close battle. Same deal for my first gunpower units. So older tech units are already weaker.

oh ya, dragonfire grenadiers (3.0 attack vs line). it's super effective. one of these in each army makes you superpowered. regular grenadiers (2.5) are nice, too.

[vivas]

Haha i remember that this would happen in civ 1.

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Ärlig, Paradoxriddaren:

Agreed. I feel like spearmen should pretty much never be able to take down a tank. Sure it's doable, but everything would have to work out so perfectly that it may as well be impossible.

Among the many things tanks are designed for, fending off a lone man with a stick isn't one of them, and as a result they're singularly bad at it. It's why you never send them anywhere without infantry support.
It's kind of the problem with the notion of progress; really most weapons just come down to some form of pointy stick. We've invented variations of specialised pointy sticks, often to address situations where the generic pointy stick doesn't quite cut the mustard, but it's still fundamentally working on pointy stick principles. Stabbing someone with a spear remains as effective today as it was when we first started tying sharp rocks to tree branches, and while a modern MLRS artillery system is devastating in the right circumstances it's not particularly helpful to pull one out in a knife fight.

Originally posted by Exemplar:

Only because of public sentiment and politicians that want to be re-elected.

Not really. Or rather that's already tacitly admitting the reason for victory isn't the equipment but numbers, at which point it's more about the agricultural equipment than the military equipment.

Generally speaking I've found later units will defeat earlier units, often in fact in a single attack, all things being equal. When things aren't equal - leaders, numbers, XP levels and walls being the obvious examples, it's less clear cut.

[low_apm]

Originally posted by archonsod:

Generally speaking I've found later units will defeat earlier units, often in fact in a single attack, all things being equal. When things aren't equal - leaders, numbers, XP levels and walls being the obvious examples, it's less clear cut.

I have the same results/experience. The only time "obsolete" units are not getting instantly defeated is if there is a high level leader in the party. Otherwise, modern land units do steamroll earlier are land units.

[w.f.schepel]

Generally speaking I've found later units will defeat earlier units, often in fact in a single attack, all things being equal. When things aren't equal - leaders, numbers, XP levels and walls being the obvious examples, it's less clear cut.

- My experience is that I can happily use crusader knights (in equal numbers!) AGAINST the AI using far superior tech. That is because along the way they a get a few buffs from innovations and the end result is that in terms of stats they are in fact superior.

I don't believe the mismatch itself to be an issue, but the fact I can use very old tech so easily against new tech, that is not something I particularly like.

Simply put, this shouldn't work, but it does.

[Black_Rat]

Originally posted by w.f.schepel:

Generally speaking I've found later units will defeat earlier units, often in fact in a single attack, all things being equal. When things aren't equal - leaders, numbers, XP levels and walls being the obvious examples, it's less clear cut.

- My experience is that I can happily use crusader knights (in equal numbers!) AGAINST the AI using far superior tech. That is because along the way they a get a few buffs from innovations and the end result is that in terms of stats they are in fact superior.

I don't believe the mismatch itself to be an issue, but the fact I can use very old tech so easily against new tech, that is not something I particularly like.

Simply put, this shouldn't work, but it does.

There are many historical examples of the technologically superior force losing, normally to tactics. If you managed to train your armies so well by stacking xp and modifiers why shouldnt they stand up to higher tech units? It took a while for tanks to replace horses, it didnt happen over night.

[Armaged]

Originally posted by Black_Rat:

Originally posted by w.f.schepel:

Generally speaking I've found later units will defeat earlier units, often in fact in a single attack, all things being equal. When things aren't equal - leaders, numbers, XP levels and walls being the obvious examples, it's less clear cut.

- My experience is that I can happily use crusader knights (in equal numbers!) AGAINST the AI using far superior tech. That is because along the way they a get a few buffs from innovations and the end result is that in terms of stats they are in fact superior.

I don't believe the mismatch itself to be an issue, but the fact I can use very old tech so easily against new tech, that is not something I particularly like.

Simply put, this shouldn't work, but it does.

There are many historical examples of the technologically superior force losing, normally to tactics. If you managed to train your armies so well by stacking xp and modifiers why shouldnt they stand up to higher tech units? It took a while for tanks to replace horses, it didnt happen over night.

colonialism literally happened because europe got a hold of guns while the rest of the world kept using sword and spears.

in the 90s, a new military doctrine and superior technology led america to literally obliterate multiple countries without a sweat.

What you´ßre talking about are massive blunders that may have happened. For example, native americans were able to beat the USA a couple of times, before being almost exterminated. Same for indians, they were able to beat the uk a couple of time before being counquered by a trading company...

[Patriot03]

Afghanistan.