It's still some time away from the expansion, so this improves Gandhi until that time. Besides, any ideas we come up with now can be reused for other things in G&K. A civilian movement bonus would fit a variety of leaders. :)

Fair enough - but what about a faster improvement rate instead of the faster movement? That way Gandhi actually needs fewer workers, which has a more meaningful benefit in terms of faster hook-ups, less maintenance costs and lower hammer investment.

I don't have my game open - how does the 12 compare to a Horseman? I would assume it's quite a bit higher (or the War Elephants are cheaper, and don't require horses).

@Seek
Something I realized while playing India in Civ 4 is faster movement is basically the same as faster rate. Consider building a mine on a hill:


1 turn onto hill + 080%*5 turns to improve = 5 turns total.
0 turn onto hill + 100%*5 turns to improve = 5 turns total.

With 3:c5moves: and hills cost 2, we can start improving one turn earlier. Faster movement is better when we need to go long distances, or build quick improvements, such as repairing a pillaged tile. Faster rate is better for long-duration build times. I lean towards a speed bonus because it combines better with Liberty/Pyramids, has precedent form Civ4, and was easier to code (copied off Mongolia's trait).

@Txurce
12:c5strength: 12:c5rangedstrength: is the same as horsemen. The advantages are:


Ranged.
No resource requirement.
No vulnerability to spears.

Sounds good enough to have everyone try it. If I have any doubts, it would be about its placement on HBR vs the Wheel given that it's a defensive unit, but we'll see how it works.

Played a bit of a game with Gandhi, and I don't really find his new UA too fun at all.

The +1 Movement settlers aren't too great early game since I always keep a settler on the same tile as a military unit anyway in case of barbs, and the +1 Workers, while useful, aren't that exciting. Finishing a farm one turn earlier does stack up, but it's just not that fun, in my opinion.

That idea for Pop / Food on the completion of growth buildings (pthmix's idea) sounds more enjoyable to me, and looking over the last few posts seems to be pretty popular.

EDIT: Just a small issue, but is the War Elephant not affected by the Spear v. Mounted penalty? Because, historically, that doesn't make too much sense.

Also, I figure this is as good a place to post it as any, but I've been using my own Levy icon recently which I made mostly from scraps of other unit icons, and thought I'd post it in case anyone else wants to use it. (Nothing against the current one, I just felt it wasn't quite Civ 5-ish enough.)

http://i.imgur.com/PYLcG.png

Oh! Somehow I misread pthmix's idea... it wasn't until you restated it I realized what he said. I must have been rather tired yesterday. Somehow I thought he said to add food to the buildings, not when they're constructed. The idea he actually stated is much more interesting than how I interpreted it... :lol: :crazyeye:

I like that icon. :goodjob:

Mounted archers are not affected by spears because they attack from a distance. I don't think it's possible to separate attack and defense bonuses against a unit class.

Thankyou, and ah, the Elephant not being weak to spearmen makes sense to me now. It's much more logical to have no penalty, as opposed to a negative on a ranged attack.

But yeah, pthmix's idea is great, especially now that Korea's UA is completely different - Gandhi will be unique in his 'finishing buildings' bonus.

I agree, it'd be a fun UA. :)

Maybe throw Garden into the mix too? That'd make it Granary, Aqueduct, and Garden for 3 pretty early +:c5citizen:Citizens. I figure by the time Hospital and Medical Lab roll around, 1 Citizen won't be much of a boost.

Thal, is the Vanguard bonus to adjacent units supposed to be inivisible?

I agree, it'd be a fun UA. :)

Maybe throw Garden into the mix too? That'd make it Granary, Aqueduct, and Garden for 3 pretty early +:c5citizen:Citizens. I figure by the time Hospital and Medical Lab roll around, 1 Citizen won't be much of a boost.
I like the idea of including gardens in that + what about 1 extra food on bonus resources tiles like deer,cows,sheep etc along with the pop boost when food buildings built. That will give it more use by giving a constant food as well along with a one time boost (similar to how SPs like Reformation give 1 time boost & a long-time boost).

The ability to cross mountains through promo is too powerful. It makes exploration too easy & makes u escape your scouts from enemy melee units. I think climbing mountains should consume all :c5moves: & units should loose 1 HP every turn when they are on mountains representing the harsh conditions.

The ability to cross mountains through promo is too powerful. It makes exploration too easy & makes u escape your scouts from enemy melee units. I think climbing mountains should consume all :c5moves: & units should loose 1 HP every turn when they are on mountains representing the harsh conditions.

In my opinion mountains should be impassable, as they are in vanilla, so that they can serve the defense- and map-shaping role they have there. Probably the biggest reason for having it be that way is that the AI seemingly never takes advantage of the change, despite having aptly-promoted units. This is an outrageous advantage for the human player - one that verges on exploit.

Gandhi's trait should improve all food buildings, so if you notice one I forgot, please mention it. :)
'BUILDING_LIGHTHOUSE',
'BUILDING_GARDEN',
'BUILDING_GRANARY',
'BUILDING_AQUEDUCT',
'BUILDING_HOSPITAL',
'BUILDING_MEDICAL_LAB'
Adding food to resources via a trait would not be practical with our current tools.

@Babri
Picking up mountain passability means we lose out on A) +30% strength or B) Medic promotion, and those are significant tradeoffs. Increasing the movement cost of mountain tiles wouldn't work since the first promotion makes units ignore movement cost. I find completely impassible areas of the map frustrating because I'm a perfectionist and like to explore the whole map. :crazyeye:

What makes the mountain-pass promotion not a killer for me is that I don't have to use it, and the AI doesn't, so it's as if it doesn't exist in my Civ reality!

What makes the mountain-pass promotion not a killer for me is that I don't have to use it, and the AI doesn't, so it's as if it doesn't exist in my Civ reality!

I keep forgetting it's still in because it also doesn't exist for me!:lol:

That's why I leave it in... I figure few use it, but it's a lot of fun for people like me who want to send our scouts to every last nook and cranny of the map. :crazyeye:

The only problem I have with it is that it makes exploration too easy. You can simply ignore barbs by using mountains & u can explore map much more quickly since u have largest sight when u are on mountain. Otherwise it is fine.

I have noticed that some civilizations start with way more units then the others.
Especially on Immortal+ u can see the difference. Am I missing something or is that a bug ?
I assume that the more militaristic a civ is the more units it get. Thats the only explanation coming to my head if that was indeed intentional/intended ( with form should i use here ??? hehe )

Yes, militaristic AIs start with extra bonuses to compensate for their low skill in combat.

Might it help to shift that bonus to the entry into the classical era so that they don't rush themselves to death and receive some more seige units?

In the two games I've played with this patch, three aggressive AI's had successful first wars, and one lost and died shortly after (Monty, unsurprisingly.). So I think the bonuses are fine - it makes sense that they should occasionally be too headstrong and lose early.

A couple comments playing india after v132. I like the unique attribute but it would feel more exciting if a popup would announce the +1 citizen at the completion of the building, something like "due to your increased capacity for grown in (insert city name) a citizen has joined from the countryside" or something like that. I always forget when i finish building one of the food buildings that the UA is even there which is less fun for me.

Secondly the UU is very very strong in its current form. Having a ranged unit so relatively early with 12 strength is dominating. I was at war with Japan and finished the research and my war elephant (read singular war elephant) pretty much took out most of his army. I do like it on Horseback riding though rather than replacing chariots. I would lower its strength to maybe 10 and/or take away its move after shooting bonus to represent the elephants slower relative movement speed. Also maybe it should consume horses even if that doesn't make much sense to limit the amount of them. Maybe they would be ok as is if they required iron for the elephant armor so it would be a trade off between having swordsman and war elephants although i still think they shouldn't move after attacking.

@rhammer
I thought of exactly the same things while playing Gandhi, and in fact am in the middle of adding an alert. :)

The move after shooting is limited by its being total moves being 2 in the first place, so O would prefer keeping the move-afeter (good for tactics) and nerf it elsewhere. My preference there: don't make an elephant horse-dependent; just lower the HP's, and/or make it more vulnerable.

Thats fine by me, I just felt it needed to be nerfed in some way, as much as i enjoyed having my kick ass war elephants massacre the AI armies :)

Thats fine by me, I just felt it needed to be nerfed in some way, as much as i enjoyed having my kick ass war elephants massacre the AI armies :)

It's always fun to be the guy who gets to play with an OP unit before doing the right thing and reporting it!

I'm thinking 10:c5rangedstrength: 8:c5strength: War Elephants (was 12/12)... opinions? Most ranged units have low :c5strength:, but I'm hesitant to make it too low because heck, they're elephants! :lol:

That's probably decent. Either that or you could go the other way, 8 strength and 10 defense, im sure its harder to shoot from the back of an elephant but they would have much better defense. Not sure if it would be as fun but def more realistic

Also, they don't upgrade atm from War Chariots (or is this intended?). If it's supposed to be primarily a defensive weapn, then why not make it a full on "tank" (as it it tanks damage) = High Melee Defense (but no attack) and Low ranged attack. So that it's difficult to get past them and they do deal you some damage, but not too much. Would be unique, right?

There's precedence (postcedence?;)) from the one tile ranged units in G&K - it could be like a really early machine gun (high melee defense and one range). Could be interesting to experiment with.

By "defensive" I mean a defensive player - sticking them in our cities to bombard enemies. High melee strength would make War Elephants better for attacking players, since they would be more durable in enemy territory.

Basically the rule of thumb is:


High :c5strength: = good for attackers
Low :c5strength: = good for defenders

This is why vanguard units are best for warmongering players. They're durable in the field and provide cannon fodder.

I don't necessarily see a problem with that - having an early UU should make one consider rushing - it's an interesting decision.

With only one range, moving offensively with them could be more difficult than with two range (it's pretty easy to rush with vanilla war elephants). Or I'd think so, anyway, I haven't tried it! Though if you're hesitant to do so because of overlapping with G&K I understand.:)

The reason I want to make elephants good for peaceful players is it fits Gandhi's peaceful theme. :)

But is a ranged unit that cannot attack and has low ranged strength really good on offense? It's more of a blocker of which you wouldn't need many anyways. Also it's an early unit so chances are high that you are not able to build a balanced army. To effectively take cities you would need a siege unit and a melee attacker as well. You can even give it a negative city attack modifier if you want to ;)

I'd more see it like a "barbarian blocker" in that it would be very hard to get killed by barbarians (or other units in general). One of those would probably defend against many barbarians while your city takes them out. But by itself, its attack would be too low probably...

I also wouldn't hamstring the UU's offensive capabilities too much - even playing tall, I often expand into the choice settlements of my neighbors. I've played India a lot, and the old UU worked as an occasional offensive tool, but mainly as a slow, powerful chariot even playing defensively, because it then became a more secure archer. I'm fine with buffing and moving to HBR as an alternative - just not to the point where is made too one-dimensional. Thal's suggested nerf seems like a good next step, now that we've embarked on the HBR route. Keep in mind that this tech is much more of a detour than the Wheel - it has to pay off.

I just noticed in my current 137 game that peaceful civilizations like india or Babylon lack in or have no army. After using reveal map mod i was able to confirm that Gandhi have in his command army formed of ONE archer. And thats all. He wasnt in any wars whatsoever.
Babylon army is formed of 1 archer 1 bowman and 1 spearman. Other civilizations like Germany or Rome on same continent have tons of units and rolling over all neighbors.

There may be a need to correct military production favors for peaceful AI.

@MortalD: What turn number was this?

Maybe the new AI Gold Spending component could be tweaked to ensure a minimal standing army for each civ?

@MortalD: What turn number was this?

215

Thats marathon speed. We aare about to enter classical era ^^

I wonder to what degree this is why there has been more early AI conquest reported lately?

I wonder to what degree this is why there has been more early AI conquest reported lately?

Thats what i was thinking.
Its not the attackers that do better, but defenders are defenseless.

Same result, right?

Yeah, I was surprised to see "An unknown leader has lost its capital!" on turn 20 or so of my new v137.3 game.

edit: I'm guessing there's something wrong with the new AI unit priorities: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11371969

Same result, right?

Results are there, but the method is wrong.
Keep in mind that human player can go and roll over them just as the military AI do.

wobuffet: U may be right, however its not about priority on with unit to produce, but to produce one at all.

And my game is not beta (137.1+).

This is not related to AI unit priorities. I've been working on AI gold purchase priorities and war detection. When a peaceful AI goes into a war with the human, it starts purchasing lots of units and military training facilities. I'm still working on the overall system. :)

This is not related to AI unit priorities. I've been working on AI gold purchase priorities and war detection. When a peaceful AI goes into a war with the human, it starts purchasing lots of units and military training facilities. I'm still working on the overall system. :)

B4 he get to buy anything, there wont be anything left + it will get rolled by other AI in turns. Cant say i like it.

What alternative would you suggest for improving AI vs AI warfare?

What alternative would you suggest for improving AI vs AI warfare?

If only i know... One thing for sure : Peaceful AI need more units "on hand".

Only that much.

For v137.4 I switched the prince and king starting archers to universal instead of militaristic-only.

I had in mind army peaceful AI have at its disposal at all time thro the game to deffend himself. As noted few post back, mentioned India had only 1 ( yes one ) unit in turn 200 +. <-- I dint count 1 or 2 scouts here and there on the map.

But ofc that will most definitely help the AI not to get wiped so early on while such AI vs AI rush still have good odd of success.
Now at least not on a grand scale :p

Turn number is not something we can balance the game with for all speeds. It's the era that matters, and the Ancient Era is not enough enough time to build a defensive force like you describe. I could add some extra units on slow game speeds, if you think that would help?

Thinking it over now... I believe I can improve on the current system by using a formula that depends on difficulty, game speed, and militarism. The current method handles each one individually, which causes rounding difficulties...

I play on Epic, and I don't think there's an issue here. When the player actually declares war on these peaceful Civs, it's not as easy as it seems.

Can you please get the AI to stop building fleets of carriers? Especially since they rarely station aircraft on them and use them for attack, they just sit around getting picked off by subs. What a waste! Get them to build subs, destroyers, battleships, instead. Thanks!!

I'll see what I can do.

Turn 289 :

Germany got 20 + units and conquered Iroq
Rome conquered Babylon - number of units : countless
India : Settled 7 or 8 cities - number of units : 0

Only reporting...

Re: Carriers.

I also found it awful that the AI would build tons of carriers, far more than needed to hold its entire fleet of planes. It simply doesn't have a decent AI for carriers (which require a very unique AI to use). I fixed it by setting the flavors of carriers to 1. The AI doesn't build them anymore and instead seems to build a lot more battleships, destroyers, planes, which is all good in my book. I was tempted to just delete the carriers entirely but they don't seem OP in the player's hands, just useless for the AI.

@MortalD
Those sound like good numbers. :)

@orangecape
It's possible to delete the AI flavors without deleting the unit.

Quick question, does anyone ever use the 'settle cities' function of Conquistadors? I forgot they even had the ability until I played Spain just then.

Quick question, does anyone ever use the 'settle cities' function of Conquistadors? I forgot they even had the ability until I played Spain just then.

Actually, not yet. But I was just planning on playing as Spain soon and I wonder whether the change was made where that "settle city" function destroyed the unit or not. I think, given the very situational nature of its use (off-continent), this was an idea to buff the function without going OP...

Obviously I havent tested it though...

I recall the intent being to not have it die when it settles.

As annoying as early AI 3-range units are, they make for more fluid combat - especially AI vs AI. The only adjustment I would consider is dropping the siege promotion for ranged units to the third level. The militaristic AI will still get it, but it will slow human conquest a little.

If not, I would at least increase the city-siege nerf to hwachas. They are devastating vs units, making a kill-then-siege approach OP. I’d rather do that than nerf the unit boost (which makes them distinct), although that’s the alternative.

I wonder whether the change was made where that "settle city" function destroyed the unit or not.

I'd like it to not destroy the unit, but unit actions are a part of the game very unfamiliar to me so I've been putting it off. :shifty: