AU mod: Cavalry

[Jaybe]

... with MT as a prereq (is that possible?).

A prerequisite tech has to be in the same era.

[sabrewolf]

As for the idea of delaying heavy cavalry until Communism or Fascism, keep in mind that infantry and artillery are only three techs deep in the industrial era if players pursue a beeline. So by the time players would research two industrial techs in order to get heavy cavalry, they would be almost to a point where they could start using infantry/artillery tactics, an approach that is slower but that remains overwhelmingly powerful a whole lot longer. If we want cavalry rushes to be an interesting alternative to infantry/artillery warfare, I thiink delaying the more powerful cavalry beyond Nationalism would seriously undermine that goal.

interesting thought.

but maybe then our new infantry are too powerful in the attack?!?
the human is the only player who will beeline to RP. with artillery he can soften up any defence and infantry are used to get rid of the redlined oponents.

i know we increased infantry to 8 because the AI has it flagged as "offensive unit", but isn't it now just the "slow" gamebreaking unit for the human (when combined with artillery)? i know this is the strategy i'd be using in games where i have a slight tech lead and the AI has riflemen.

do you see this as a problem or not so much?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
One other quirk to the change, and I'm not sure how good or bad it is, is that players could bypass Military Tradition entirely since heavy cavalry would be available with Nationalism whether they have Military Tradition or not.

A possible cure for this would be to make Military Tradition a required tech.

Of course without Military Tradition, players couldn't build the Military Academy. But the fact that we've reduced the power of armies in the AU Mod would make that less of an issue.

I view a 9hp-unit (elite plus army hp bonus) with movement bonus and blitz as quite powerful. If I'm wrong, there's the possibility to a) give armies a bigger hp bonus b) make the Military Academy spawn armies more often.

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay
One of the two cavalry units would use the graphic from the Austrian Hussar. (Austria is a civ that ships with Conquests but that is disabled due to the limit on how many civs can be played, so the graphic already exists.)

Don't you need to make a change to a text file (PediaIcons.txt and Civilopedia.txt) to use the Hussar graphic? Remember, we considered this in the past (see the first pages of this thread) but we concluded that it's a no-no for this mod because you wouldn't be able to just take an AU mod save and start playing it without installing the mod.

Otherwise, Nathan's proposal sounds good. I'm not too concerned about the reduced power of Military tradition. It's still going to be very useful as a beeline against unprepared/backwards civs.

[Theseus]

I am highly against anything that would require more than the download of a save or opening a scenario.

[pvzh]

I would like to point out that "problem" of cavalry is not so much of problem of cavalry as a unit, but a lack of resonable defender. Musketmen cost 60 for 4 defence! We are better fix that and put all cavlry back to stock. Just simple reduction in cost of musketman by 20 and problem would be solved mostly.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman

Don't you need to make a change to a text file (PediaIcons.txt and Civilopedia.txt) to use the Hussar graphic? Remember, we considered this in the past (see the first pages of this thread) but we concluded that it's a no-no for this mod because you wouldn't be able to just take an AU mod save and start playing it without installing the mod.

It looks like you're right that we'd need to change too much to use the Hussar graphic. I did some playing around in the editor, and it turns out that the "Icon" setting controls only the icon used on build lists and such, not what the unit actually looks like in the game. It's the Civilopedia Entry that controls what the unit looks like in the game, and the Husar's Civilopedia entry and related data aren't fully configured in the game as it ships. So I guess we can forget about using the Hussar's graphics, at least in the standard edition of the AU Mod.

That, in turn, means we'd presumably end up using the same graphics for light and heavy cavalry. That's a little more potentially confusing than I'd really prefer, but probably not too bad.

If anyone wants to try it (or look it over to see if I made any mistakes), here's a version of the 1.06 AU Mod modified to split cavalry into a 5.3.3, cost 80 "Light Cavalry" available with Military Tradition and a 6.3.3, cost 90 "Heavy Cavalry" available with Nationalism. I haven't tested it myself yet, and I'm not sure when I might, but I figured I'd go ahead and post it in case anyone's interested. Note that the light version is renamed from the standard cavalry unit, while the heavy is an added unit. (The "NAB" in the file name reflects a habit I've gotten into of prefacing scenarios I develop myself with my initials so they don't get mixed up with standard content.)

[nbarclay]

Since there seem to be no further comments, I'm officially placing the following package under consideration:

1) Change the name of the current 5.3.3 Cavalry unit to Light Cavalry and add a 6.3.3, cost 90 Heavy Cavalry unit available with Nationalism. Both would use the same, standard cavalry graphic.

2) Restore the Cossack to standard rules. Since it starts with an attack value of 6, no upgrade is needed.

3) Leave the Sipahi the way it currently is in the AU Mod, with an attack value of 7 and cost of 100. There will be no upgrade for it, but even without an upgrade, it remains superior to Heavy Cavalry.

Voting will be in a week.

[Theseus]

I'll play around with your mod, Nathan, and report back over the weekend.

[alexman]

If we are going to use the above proposal, which sounds good to me, I'd rather have distinct graphics for Heavy and Light Cavalry.

One way to do that would be to use the Cossak graphics for all 6-3-3 units. That way we would get visual confusion only for the Russian player, rather than for everyone.

[nbarclay]

Okay, I'll amend the proposal under consideration to what Alexman suggested unless someone objects.

[Modo44]

If a graphic is to be changed, why not make sure that they don't confuse anyone? I mean, use the Hussar graphic as Light Cavalry, while leaving the Heavy Cavalry with the standard Cavalry graphics? Am I mistaken, or do both changes require almost the same additions to Pediaicons.txt and Civilopedia.txt?

[alexman]

We want people to be able to play the mod without having to download anything but a save file. See above.

[Modo44]

Now I see. Both cavalry units will use exactly the same Civilopedia name, giving them the same description and the same graphics. Sorry for the dumb question. I know how adding units works, so I should have figured that one out.

[Theseus]

Hehehe... playing Nathan's Mod as the Mongols... Keshiks are badass enough, and I'll have the Light Cavs on-line shortly.



I also happened to build the SoZ, so I;ve had a nice build-up through 2, 3, and 4 fastmover attack so far... I anticipate that continuing that through 5 and 6 attack will be, hmmm, elegant.

[sabrewolf]

each time losing the elite status, but otherwise neat

[nbarclay]

I think we have a problem with Alexman's suggestion of using the Cossack graphics for Heavy Cavalry. With the in-game graphic tied to the Civilopedia entry, unless I missed something, we can't use the Cossack graphic without also ending up wth the Cossack Civilopedia entry - complete with its claim that the Cossack can attack multiple times per turn, which Heavy Cavalry can't do. So I think we're stuck using the same graphics for light and heavy cavalry (if the proposal passes), even though that's not an ideal situation.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
each time losing the elite status, but otherwise neat

It's no biggie, really just the same issue traditionally from Knights to Cavs (less so actually): Upgrade your vets, and hold the elites for GL generation or for wearing down tough defenders, and upgrading when damaged.

The graphics issue is really... a non-issue. I have had NO problem keeping in mind the distinction between Light and Heavy Cavs.

I like the change, very much.

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay
we can't use the Cossack graphic without also ending up wth the Cossack Civilopedia entry - complete with its claim that the Cossack can attack multiple times per turn, which Heavy Cavalry can't do.

There's a precedent for that. Without downloading the AU mod civilopedia files, there are all sorts of inaccuracies in the civilopedia.

The problem is easily fixed by changing the optional civilopedia.txt file download, for those who want to rely on the in-game help.

[nbarclay]

Even with an optional file, the situation would still be kludgy because the Cossack and Heavy Cavalry would have to share an entry in our revised file. We'd have to write a single entry that describes both. I don't think that issue for players who do download the extra file, plus a far more serious Civilopedia problem for players who don't, is worth it just for the different graphics.

I've played part of a game using my modified scenario myself, in my case, a hotseat game where I control two civs. I haven't made much use of light cavalry so far - one of my civs only built a few before transitioning to heavies while the other has remained peaceful thus far - but what little experience I can draw from my game agrees with Theseus that the use of the same graphic for both isn't that big a deal. And since the units have the same movement rate, only slightly different attack values, and the same other capabilities, the repercussions even if the use of the same graphic would cause an occasioinal mx-up aren't nearly as great as they would be if the units' capabilities were more different.

[Theseus]

Yeah, I am now in a very large attack of mixed Cavs, and, let's remember, you're almost always have them in a stack anyway, and thus have to pick from the list, not just from a graphic. So really, it's no biggie.

[nbarclay]

Since no one's come up with a way to use separate graphics without producing, um, "interesting" side effects, let's go ahead and vote on the following package (a single vote for the entire package). If someone can come up with a better solution to the graphics issue, we can vote on it later.

1) Change the name of the current 5.3.3 Cavalry unit to Light Cavalry and add a 6.3.3, cost 90 Heavy Cavalry unit available with Nationalism. Both would use the same, standard cavalry graphic.

2) Restore the Cossack to standard rules. Since it starts with an attack value of 6, no upgrade is needed.

3) Leave the Sipahi the way it currently is in the AU Mod, with an attack value of 7 and cost of 100. There will be no upgrade for it, but even without an upgrade, it remains superior to Heavy Cavalry.

[alexman]

Yes

[Theseus]

Yes (although this nerfs Cossacks a wee bit)

[pvzh]

Sorry, to intrude, but where are Cossacks now? At Military Tradition or Nationalism with Heavy Cavalry?

[alexman]

First of all, nobody intrudes in AU mod discussions. All comments are welcome.

To answer your question, Cossacks in nbarclay's proposal remain at Military Tradition, so in fact they are somewhat strengthened, not nerfed.

[nbarclay]

Cossacks and Sipahi are both at Military Tradition under my proposal. Edit: Crosspost.

In regard to how this proposal affects Cossacks, in terms of unit strength, they are strengthened relative to both the stock rules and the current AU Mod rules. Under the stock rules, Cossacks' only advantage over cavalry is their blitz attribute. The current AU Mod rules keep that situation the same, with both Cossacks and cavalry being 5.3.3 instead of 6.3.3. In contrast, under the proposal we're currently considering, Cossacks get the additional advantage of having a higher attack value than Light Cavalry, providing an extra advantage until Nationalism.

The down side from a Russian perspective is that the option of skipping Military Tradition and relying on Nationalism for the ability to build a cavalry unit is not available. But in my view, the benefit of getting a 6.3.3 unit sooner, possibly a lot sooner, more than outweighs that consideration.

[Theseus]

Sorry, you are correct.

Then I vote an unreserved yes!!

[nbarclay]

My vote, of course, is yes.

[lockstep]

Yes.

Too bad we can't use the Hussar's graphics without additional text files.