Stirrups, Animal Handling, Poisons, Bowyers, and Iron Working Comparisons
techs for mounted (costs)
agriculture(100)>animalhusbandry(160)>horsebackriding(320)>stirrups(1280)
techs for recon (costs)
exploration(100)>hunting(160)>tracking(320)>animalhandling(640)*
tech for melee (costs)
crafting(100)>mining(160)>bronzeworking(320)>smelting(640)>ironworking(1280)
tech for ranged (costs)
exploration(100)>hunting(160)>archery(320)>bowyers(2560)**
techs for assassins (costs)
exploration(100)>hunting(160)>tracking(320)>poisons(640)
*animalhandling requires animal husbandry
**bowyers also requires bronzeworking

units for those tech lines
tier 0
scouts 1 strength, 2 moves (mounted line)
scouts 1 strength, 2 moves (recon line)
warriors 2 strength, 1 move (melee line)
warriors 2 strength, 1 move (archery line)
scouts 1 strength, 2 moves (assassin line)
tier 1
horsemen 3 strength, 3 moves (requires horse)
hunters 3 strength, 2 moves
axemen 4 strength, 1 move (requires copper)
archers 3 strength, 1 move
hunters 3 strength, 2 moves
tier 2
horsearchers 5 strength, 3 moves (require archery and horses)
rangers 7 strength, 2 moves
macemen 7 strength, 1 move (requires iron)
longbowmen 6 strength, 1 move (requires bronzworking and copper)
assassins 6 strength, 2 moves

the first thing to notice is that while the recon lines (for rangers and assassins) both increase by doubling each tech up, where as every other line doubles the final techs cost (or in like in the melee line doubles and has a tech the same as the recon ones right before it as well; or like longbowmen costs 4 times as much and requires another tech line).
also note the need for resources for all the other lines.
but the simplest thing to notice is the general trend. units with 2 moves have 6 strength, units with 1 move have 7 strength, and units with 3 moves have 5 strength, basically, strength+moves=8.

so from all this what i think should be done is:
bowyers reduced to 1/4 its tech cost, like the recon line
stirrups reduced to 1/2 its tech cost, like the recon line
rangers reduced to 6 strength (though maybe remain 7 for Ljosalfar)

some crazier ideas might be to make rangers require atleast 1 animal resource to build them
in general the mounted line could use some functionality, maybe some buildings that they allow that help in some builder fashion (maybe something related to workhorses, or horse drawn-carriages)



Poisons & Deception
Both Dead End techs.
Both yield 1 unit type alone, nothing else. In the case of Deception this is a world unit (Trojan Horse) which may have already been created so the tech can be even more useless.
Both aptly apply to Assasins.
Assasins can upgrade to Shadows, but the tech requirement for Shadows is Guilds, and Guilds has no dependency on Poisons.

I recommend both those techs be combined into a new tech, maybe even called Poisons&Deception (or maybe Trickery or Intelligence Gathering or Formlessness or Dishonor or Plotting). I also recommend that tech be required for Guilds.

Trade, Currency & Stirrups
Stirrups vs. Trade
Stirrups costs 4 times as much as Trade
Stirrups allows a unit with 5 strength and 3 movement if you have Archery, Stables, and a horse
Trade allows a unit with 6 strength and 3 movement if you have Construction, Siege Workshop, and a horse.
Note: it is still takes less research time to get trade and construction than it does to get stirrups alone, and trade and construction offer many many good things)
Stirrups vs. Currency
Stirrups costs 2 times as much as Currency
Stirrups allows a unit with 5 strength and 3 movement if you have Archery, Stables, and a horse
Currency allows a unit with 5 strength and 3 movement, no other requirements.
Note: The mounted line may go somewhere eventually, but you'll never reach it when your enemies are getting techs that give better units earlier with less trouble that also improve their economy hugely.

I recommend the unit allowed with Trade (Chariots) be removed or placed in a later tech. For currency I recommend that the unit gained through that (Mercenaries) be weakened to either 4 or 3 strength, and possibly only 2 movement. In general Stirrups and that line also needs to gain benefits and have their costs lowered significantly.

Also of note, Honor should be the requirement for Feudalism instead of Trade. That would remove a bit of the deadendness of the Trade offshoots.

You might want to be sure to make a distinction between Animal Handling (640) and Feral Bond (1280?). Just for the sake of clarity; otherwise the diagram is valid as far as I can tell.

oops, well i missed that, one sec

weird. i think using > adds random spaces around lol, the spaces arent there when i edit (like in smelt ing)

horsemen 3 strength, 3 moves (no requirements?)
Horsemen need horses

ah good point, forgot about that

Things that have already been done:

1. Council of Esus has been added to the Deception tech, making it more worthwile.

Im considering:

1. Removing the Mercenary unit.
2. Recosting techs (asked Nikis-Knight to provide some recommendations).
3. Making the Poison tech a requirement to produce Shadows (but not a requirement of Guilds).
4. Having Feudalism require Honor.
5. Raise the production cost of chariots (keep in mind that Horse Archers also have a better withdrawal chance and first strikes than a chariot).
6. Increasing the unit costs of rangers (which I don't see as being as easy to mass produce as macemen or longbowmen).

Things that have already been done:

1. Council of Esus has been added to the Deception tech, making it more worthwile
Looks fun, but it still leaves it as a tech that has a world unit and a world wonder--good for two players at most. how about tying commando promotion to deception?

Things that have already been done:

1. Council of Esus has been added to the Deception tech, making it more worthwile.

Im considering:

1. Removing the Mercenary unit.
2. Recosting techs (asked Nikis-Knight to provide some recommendations).
3. Making the Poison tech a requirement to produce Shadows (but not a requirement of Guilds).
4. Having Feudalism require Honor.
5. Raise the production cost of chariots (keep in mind that Horse Archers also have a better withdrawal chance and first strikes than a chariot).
6. Increasing the unit costs of rangers (which I don't see as being as easy to mass produce as macemen or longbowmen).
those changes would definately help make the horseback line more viable. for tech costs, itd be nice if animal handling, bowyers, and stirrups all had the same research cost (since the prereq tech for all of them have the same research cost, and the units gained from those techs are all comparable).

6. Increasing the unit costs of rangers (which I don't see as being as easy to mass produce as macemen or longbowmen).

How about giving hunters and rangers -50% city strength?

Yes, defense as well as attack, if possible.

personally im a fan of -100% city strength and 6 strength (atleast for the non UU ones), to make it prohibitive to use in relation to cities, so people keep them out in the land to defend things. Atm they're coverall attacker/defenders.

Heh, a tier 3 unit that has 3.5 effective strength isn't going to be exactly the best choice for defending cities. Consider that tier 2 melee units have four strength, and tier 3 ones have seven strength. We don't have to make it impossible for them to defend cities, we just have to make it inefficient to do so.

ya but their effective strength would still be 12 (?with subdue animal they get 25+75=100%?) against animals, giants, skelettons, which is still more than enough. maybe also give them a promotion thats the reverse of homeland, giving them a bonus to strenght and withdrawing when outside anyones borders. and at the moment, they're easier to get than axemen, so axemen should be able to beat them in cities (but they still wouldn't, since 3.5 is going to be modded by the city defense to be over 4, thats for sure, and the axemens melee bonus does them nothing).

City raider promotions do though.

im leaving promotions out of it, or else the ranger could have hill defense and the city could be on a hill, or they could have drill promos, or have been upgraded from an archer and have city defense promos

yes, if one has certain promos the balance shifts, but that clouds the issue, the base amount is the important part, because theres many mods through promos, terrain, and buildings possible.

City defense should still aply to them. Just because they're specialized for the wilderness doesn't mean that they forget how to use a hatchet when they're inside city walls. And axemen are not tougher to get than rangers, unless you happen to be playing a one city challenge and don't start near copper.

Axemen:Crafting=>Mining=>Bronze Working

Rangers:Exploration=>Hunting=>Tracking=> Agriculture=>Animal Husbandry=>Animal Handling

There's a substantial difference. Rangers are overpowered, but let's not be ridiculous here.

Catapults:Crafting=>Masonry=>Construction

I think if the foe has rangers, you're probably going to have catapults to neutralize the % city defense bonus, anyway.

true, but getting copper really isnt a guarrantee. catapults on the other hand do seem a good bet. is there really no other requirement for construction? i may try a catapult rush early some time, heh

Don't get your hopes up. They're only strength three. No more artillery rushes like in vanilla Civ. It's better this way.

unless you're doviello :eek: those 6 strength skull-catas are the bane of my existence lol

Very intriguing discussion.

I like the concepts of minimalizing recon line numbers and city-usefulness (I agree they shouldn't get penalized for defending a city, but perhaps not able to utilized the defenses perfectly either. Maybe -100% city attack -50% city defense. (The chaos of a city in combat may be too much comotion for them)

Also, on deception, the new wonder will go a ways to helping. But what about more tangible diplomatic benefits? One could introduce a unit and/or concept that ties directly into inter-civ relations.

Deception could provide that Trojan Horse, that Wonder, and perhaps a standard "Envoy" unit, that could be used to bribe units in other nations? Perhaps give it "hidden nationality". The price of bribing units could varry based on religion, diplomatic status (friendly or hostile), rank in the world standing, civics of the target nation - etc. Perhaps another function of envoys could be propoganda spread (like a mini-loki). And/or just the presence of them in a foriegn civ would increase diplomatic relations (from the propoganda being spread). Mayhaps powerful envoys (if given a method to gain experiance) could do things like change the civics of other nations. Of course, only ever to YOUR type of civics. Promotions could be made that reflect each "civic" catagory. And as a envoy matured, it'd be able to change opponents civics to your own, one for each "type" it has mastered. This would be very sneaky, and the computer would simply know to use them in "enemy" states. Clearly assassins and shadows should be able to stop them/capture them.

Still, it'd be sneaky, devious and a hell of a lot of fun. Ideas?
-Qes

I don't know what to think about this one. The multitude of non-combat units in Civ-CTP were great at first sight but on the long run I found that they killed the fun (too much micromanagement, and being constantly attacked by slavers, corps and priests really sucked). OTOH, I'd like to have *some* more spying and deceiving in the game. Just not too much, but a little more. I don't think that invisible units like shadows are the way to go, I'm rather thinking of something along the lines of missionaries : using the next guy's realm to build up yours (and maybe spy on him a little) without necessarily harming them directly. Spies in vanilla civ4 are good for that matter, although it took a bit of time before I could use them efficiently, because they allow you to actively know what your neighbours are doing and plan your moves a lot better. Being able to destroy improvements for a price didn't seem overpowered either. I'd like to get something along those lines.

I dont think at 50% penalty to city action for rangers would be over the top at all, for attack and defense. It has to be substantial to make a difference with all the promos.

Hate coverall rangers.

ya, -25% city attack is fairly meaningless when you can get rangers with 7 strength easier than axemen, when all your enemies have 3 or 4 strength units at best.

Why are rangers 7str to begin with ? That's the same strengh as macemen, which are expected to be organized and well-trained troops marching in line and waving big pointy chunks of metals around. I really think rangers should be str 6 units, and if that's not enough dropping them to -50% city attack would still an option.

ya, i like 6 with -50% city attack since then theyd be at a disadvantage attacking a city defended by an axemen. atm you can take them around leveling cities for quite some time if you make them your focus, and their tech line leads to good things as well

unless you're doviello :eek: those 6 strength skull-catas are the bane of my existence lol

Don't forget the Khazad Trebuchet ;)

Tree bucket?

If rangers had 6 :strength: and -50% city strength, not just attack, then they would certainly be used less often. Probably a good thing to do.

Tree bucket?

If rangers had 6 :strength: and -50% city strength, not just attack, then they would certainly be used less often. Probably a good thing to do.

I'm still a fan of the idea that Trebuchets are national seige units (only get 3 of em) - available to most civs.

And the Dwarves will have their "Tree buckets" as per normal. Are you going to correct the dwarves pronunciation? I didnt think so.
-Qes

ya, i like 6 with -50% city attack since then theyd be at a disadvantage attacking a city defended by an axemen. atm you can take them around leveling cities for quite some time if you make them your focus, and their tech line leads to good things as well

I echo the Rangers are too strong comments .. recon units in general are too strong, especially since they often appear on teh battlefield before their melee and archer equivalents. When they get limited invisibility their STR really has to be reconsidered. 4-5 STR sounds right, and then perhaps no city penalty would be needed. (Hunters STR 2 anyone?) *

What I never understood was the assassin city penalty. Assassins, it seems to me, should get a city bonus. (Would it be possible to code them to negate the city defense value? (Fully or partially?)) Are they not the skulkers of dark alleyways? Precious few of them dark alleyways in the woods. Or the assassin unit shold have the marksman selectable target ability and be a higher tier unit. I also never understood why they got a melee bonus...the last foe they want to face is a formation of heavilly armored and trained soldiers.

Does anyone build these assassins? They're nice if you happen to have 'em, but I've never been in a situation where I 'needed' their capability.

(Edit: *It might help if every unit STR value was doubled, and effects that currently add +1 STR added +2, etc. That would allow a little more 'fine-tuning' of STR values. e.g. Scout 2, Warrior 4, Hunter 6, Archer 6, Axeman 8, Priests 10, etc. That allows (e.g.) Hunters to be dialed back to 5, which still makes them better than mere Warriors. Tripling would allow even finer tuning, but the Mithril Golem is alread STR 40. I don't know if STR values > 100 are allowed.)

Of course I am assuming that a 10-on-5 battle gives the exact same odds as a 20-on-10 battle.

The point is null for the Malakim, but assassins have always seemed useful, yet a bit baffling to me. I agree that bonuses versus melee and penalties in cities don't really make sense.

Does anyone build these assassins? They're nice if you happen to have 'em, but I've never been in a situation where I 'needed' their capability. I focused on melee recently, then AI assassains poped up and I hadto scramble to research some other unit to counter them. They're quite handy if your opponent plays like I did.

ya, i like 6 with -50% city attack since then theyd be at a disadvantage attacking a city defended by an axemen. atm you can take them around leveling cities for quite some time if you make them your focus, and their tech line leads to good things as well

And dont forget, there is no promotion versus the Recon-line, so there is another advantage. Almost every unit can get +120% versus melee, so that 7 strenght of a macemen is not that high compared to the 7 of a ranger.


(Edit: *It might help if every unit STR value was doubled, and effects that currently add +1 STR added +2, etc. That would allow a little more 'fine-tuning' of STR values. e.g. Scout 2, Warrior 4, Hunter 6, Archer 6, Axeman 8, Priests 10, etc. That allows (e.g.) Hunters to be dialed back to 5, which still makes them better than mere Warriors. Tripling would allow even finer tuning, but the Mithril Golem is alread STR 40. I don't know if STR values > 100 are allowed.)

Of course I am assuming that a 10-on-5 battle gives the exact same odds as a 20-on-10 battle.

Yea, in my cIVRPG mod every character class has a base strenght of 100. This so I can make alot of variation on the enemies strenghts. I dont know if 50 vs 100 is the same as 5 vs 10 or 20 vs 40 when it comes to the games calculations. But I bet that the higher the numbers are, the more probable the odds should be.

I made great use of assasins in a recent game. I was origianally heading for rangers, but I was able to quickly scout my continent and determine that only one other weak civ was on my continent, and alot of barbarians. Since barbarians are virtually 100% melee, I switch to assasins. They were also great for my early rush on the other civ on my continent... even with the city penalty, the +% to melee more then made up for it taking out the warrriors and axemen he had in his three cities.

It was a fun game... I then settled only half the map until boats from other civs started arriving. That let me get lots of barbs to level my assasins against. Once other civs showed up I quickly settled the rest of the continent and had 10+ level 8-10 assasins to guard things. It gave me a very solid base to move to a cultural victory.

If you know you'll primarily be facing melee units, then assasins are great.

Pel.

And dont forget, there is no promotion versus the Recon-line, so there is another advantage. Almost every unit can get +120% versus melee, so that 7 strenght of a macemen is not that high compared to the 7 of a ranger.
considering how easy rangers (and hunters, the easiest conquest unit) are to make, and the freedom from anti-promos against them, they should be the lowest str unit in their tier all the time

a progression like scouts 1, hunters 2, rangers 4, would make more sense... atm i have to avoid getting the recon line because frankly, it makes the game too easy, and the only way to make sense of it is to pretend the recon line is your cavalry, with the side bonus of being immune to animals as well.

the actual cavalry units, are much too weak, a 5 strength unit that cant get defensive bonuses, has no chance to defeat a maceman in defense or offense, making them useless unless you managed to overwin already, and have that tier before anyone else

the actual cavalry units, are much too weak, a 5 strength unit that cant get defensive bonuses,
and in FfH, they get this penalty twice, since attacking units might benifit from their terrain even if they don't!

ya, cavalry in woods = dead

they need to have the highest strength in their tier if you ask me..

another problem, is they're super limited in their promotions, they cant get any of the 2nds of the vs. type.. like no shock 2 for them, and they don't get any of the slaying promotions, why is that? a horseman can't get good at killing orcs?!?!?

right now they're gimped in every way and cost a ton.. i just don't understand it, they get good when you get to national, but anything before then is just a waste of time

the simplest sensical solution is half cost on stirrups, switch tracking and hunting with each other, and increase cavalry strength to 4 for horsemen and 7 for horsearchers, or 3 and 6 and lower the recon line all around (i also think the bowyers decrease was too little, its still over double the ranger tech)

Oh, believe me, I have a solution to the cavalry problem. I have a succession game I must play at the moment, but once I'm done, I'm making a new thread.

post your thread already, i wish to further post my discontent for the state of mounted :p