I've now played a couple of games on v123, and had a few observations after a game as Siam.

The first is that by taking advantage of Angkor Wat and the minimum-influence Patronage policy, I wound up on T267 with four cities sizes 41, 34, 31, and 24 - without building hospitals. I bring this up to show how easy it is for the AI to become huge if that's its goal, given its bonuses.

I quickly lost two Chang Suaks to Levies attacking, and continue to think that Levies are much more than cannon fodder.

Finally, there may be a bug where an RA is canceled (or ends?) because of an erroneous DoW... but there is no war, and I buy a new one right after.

On an entertaining note, I lost a space race as a 4-city Babylon to a giant America despite buying time by DoWing and capturing a city with an SS part inside... by two tiles. That's how far my last SS part was from reaching my capital - just before America launched.

I quickly lost two Chang Suaks to Levies attacking, and continue to think that Levies are much more than cannon fodder.
I agree with this sentiment: Levies and Skirmishers should be cheaper, but weaker. Maybe tone down the adjacent-unit combat bonus a bit, too.

But really, the bigger problem is that the AI loves using Vanguard units for everything, including offense, so that's all it churns out. Which works decently because masses of not-so-valuable units fits the current combat AI's general ineffectiveness, I guess, but if/when that combat AI improves, that'll need to change.

Maybe the levy bonus should just be defensive? I think that would make more sense, both for gameplay and realism.

Maybe the levy bonus should just be defensive? I think that would make more sense, both for gameplay and realism.
Well, the Vanguard unit class's combat bonuses (innate defense bonus, XP-earned terrain-specific bonuses) are already defense-only, other than the adjacent-friendly-unit one.

I don't have a big problem with levies myself....other than the +1 extra movement promotions.

Comparing their strength to a swordsman or knight, they are generally in the weaker category.

However, skirmishers are in a strange area to me. They have a 15 strength compared to the musketman's 16 and with their bonuses are often equal or even greater than many contemporaries.

XP-earned terrain-specific bonuses) are already defense-only

I will disagree with again pointing out the power of +1 movement. And its not "+1 movement", its +1 movement and have this great defense bonus too.

I will disagree with again pointing out the power of +1 movement. And its not "+1 movement", its +1 movement and have this great defense bonus too.
OK, I've edited the post to make clear I was just talking about the combat bonuses.

I'm okay with the +1 movement but would prefer Vanguard units to be weaker (at least on the attack) to compensate.

So you could rush Vanguard units out onto the front lines to see where the enemies are and hold a few tiles in key combat areas while your main offensive army catches up, but their attacks alone generally wouldn't get the job done against a defending army of similar strength. Currently, IMHO, the balance is too in favor of using Vanguard units for everything.

Well, the Vanguard unit class's combat bonuses (innate defense bonus, XP-earned terrain-specific bonuses) are already defense-only, other than the adjacent-friendly-unit one.

Right, that's why I think it doesn't make sense for them to have a bonus on the attack. They're supposed to be entirely defensive units; they shouldn't be able to kill higher-tier units as easily as they sometimes can.

I think the problem is that the levy has the same strength as their core unit counterpart, the pikeman, which is already a defensive unit. The pikeman should be more expensive than but superior to the levy.

Its particularly problematic for the levy because early in the game, units aren't highly promoted, so the fact that they don't have offensive bonuses from terrain promotions is much less harmful.
I'd drop their strength to 9.

But really, the bigger problem is that the AI loves using Vanguard units for everything, including offense, so that's all it churns out.

^This^

If you make Vans weaker then the AI will suck even more. Play a game with the intent of conquering the world at any cost right from the start and you will see that the AI cannot defend itself anyway, even with the boosted Vans. At least at King level.

Currently the only time I use Pikemen is when I have a spearman that upgrades or I get a free one from a CS. Units in general feel like they have too much parity.

Pikemen should be able to just about 1 shot any horseman within or behind thier era, Knights should be able to just about 1 shot Swords. Swords should be able to just about 1 shot Pikes, thus forcing the players/AI to go to a combined arms approach, allowing a player to start to build counters to 1 sided armies. Vans should defend against all well and should not be able to attack well against any. Relying on the main units for that.

So a good attacking army would have a combined arms approach or a heavy helping of main units with siege to boost against cities. A good defensive army would have many Vans and and would have a smattering of the others, and would build counter units once an enemies disposition was figured out. So if they are horse heavy pikes, if they had Longswords then Knights etc.

But I all ready know the answer to this. The AI doesn't handle that dynamic well and the code to change it is in the Source code that only Firaxis has access to, so until then we need to make due.

>after thought< perhaps Vans should be geared as either a defensive unit, or offensive, or even mdeical or scouting based on promotions. Making the unit itself weaker but making the promotions both easier to come by and scalable.

So if you choose to go wide and make them a bit defensive and a bit offensive and a bit scouty then you would only gain modest gains in each.

However if you gave them multiple levels of offense, thier defense would suffer but they would get much stronger.

If you make Vans weaker then the AI will suck even more
Do we know how the AI decides what units to build? Is it based on an actual flavor value, or do unit stats matter?
If the latter, then reducing the strength of the unit would tend to make the AI build fewer skirmishers and more mainline infantry, which I think would be desirable.

perhaps Vans should be geared as either a defensive unit, or offensive, or even mdeical or scouting based on promotions
If you do this, then you're basically back to the old design where you had the main infantry units that could do this, in which case; what is the point of the vanguard class?

Main units should be strong, expensive, based on resources best defeated with a hard counter.

Vans are cheap, main line units that lack the training or equipment to do all things well. Don't rely on resources. However I am suggesting that they could do something well if promoted enough. Either it could be defense, offense, scouting/ medical. So if you brought them into the wrong situation they would perform badly.

So a typical green infantry conscript may have both defensive and offensive promotions making them decent at most things but still not up to the level as a main line unit. They could be used to fill gaps both offensively by killing damaged units or defensively the same way.

LOC units during the Dunkirk miracle. They were Line of Communications units that were thrown together to plug the lines and were way out of their element. Same with the Volksgrenadiers (old men and Children) and the Luftwaffe infantry units. They could hold a line defensively but basically nothing else. This would be an example of promoting your units to be defensive in nature but if they try and go on the attack they will get mauled. So you would leave them in your own territory to defend.

Penal Soldiers for the USSR are a great example of highly motivated offensive units that weren't allowed to defend. These would be Offensive type units that would crumble under an attack. You would have to push them forward and attack, attack, attack. But if they didn't have other units around to absorb the counter attacks they would break.

Main units should be strong, expensive, based on resources best defeated with a hard counter.
I have a different view of things. I think the resource-based units should not be the main units. I think that the main units should be pikes, muskets, rifles and infantry. Historically, these have made up the majority of the line of battle.
I think "elite" units should requires strategic resources and be quite powerful and hard some direct counters (though not a system of hard-counters, which the AI won't manage). And I think that militia units should be weaker and cheaper than the main frontline units.

I think that trying to make the resource-based units into the "main" units is one of the biggest design flaws in vanilla, and that VEM has had significant success in remedying by making the resources more rare.

The type of things you're talking about (particularly those related to morale) make sense only in a tactical sense, I don't think they have much place at a more strategic level.

If we're going to have a separate set of vanguard units, they have to be *different* from those of the regular infantry line. They have to have a different role. If you make it so that they can do all the same things, then what is the point?

Right, that's why I think it doesn't make sense for them to have a bonus on the attack. They're supposed to be entirely defensive units; they shouldn't be able to kill higher-tier units as easily as they sometimes can.

This is the core issue. The AI uses Vanguards as offensive units, and they are strong enough to succeed where they shouldn't. In fact they are strong enough to succeed in a human army, if we didn't have better choices. Right now the AI pretty much ignores Pikemen, yet I never feel like the way to roll through the Medieval AI is with a bunch of knights. (Nor do I build any pikemen.)

I think the problem is that the levy has the same strength as their core unit counterpart, the pikeman, which is already a defensive unit. The pikeman should be more expensive than but superior to the levy.

Its particularly problematic for the levy because early in the game, units aren't highly promoted, so the fact that they don't have offensive bonuses from terrain promotions is much less harmful.
I'd drop their strength to 9.

This strikes me as the best single solution. The AI most benefits from the flanking promotion, because it uses units in greater numbers. But (for example) if the basic Levy were clearly weaker, the AI would build more Pikemen... which would help the AI, because it is overly geared toward offense.

Do we know how the AI decides what units to build? Is it based on an actual flavor value, or do unit stats matter?
If the latter, then reducing the strength of the unit would tend to make the AI build fewer skirmishers and more mainline infantry, which I think would be desirable.

My understanding is that the AI is supposed to build a balanced army. What happens is that 1) there are limited strategic resources and 2) it builds a lot of units. The result is that it seemingly has an army of bread-and-butter units: presently, the Vanguard class.

However, I just played a game that replicated something I occasionally see: the AI responding to my tech edge. In this case I had tanks attacking skirmishers. After a while, the battlefield was flooded with AT guns. I've seen the same thing when using aircraft - all of a sudden the AI has an AA gun around. (It might have been luck, but in my last game the AI countered a 3-range blitz crossbow firing at a city with a 3-range frigate!)

However I am suggesting that they could do something well if promoted enough. Either it could be defense, offense, scouting/ medical. So if you brought them into the wrong situation they would perform badly.


One problem with this is that the AI probably won't use them in accordance with its promotions. They are almost always well-promoted in AI armies, and almost always used offensively. Since Vanguard combat promotions are not geared along defense vs offense, we wind up with the sub-optimal situation we have now.

I think the problem here is that while it makes sense to index industrial and modern vanguard units to rifles, infantry and mech-inf (with a ~20% strength penalty), it doesn't make sense to index to longswords or swordsmen, because these are strategic resource units. The levy and skirmisher need to have lower offensive strength *even with no promotions* than the pikeman and musketeer.

I think the problem here is that while it makes sense to index industrial and modern vanguard units to rifles, infantry and mech-inf (with a ~20% strength penalty), it doesn't make sense to index to longswords or swordsmen, because these are strategic resource units. The levy and skirmisher need to have lower offensive strength *even with no promotions* than the pikeman and musketeer.

Exactly.

I was just thinking about AI army balance from an era perspective, and thought that it was pretty good in Ancient/Classical, and once again in Industrial/Modern, where floods of Vanguards and ranged units make historical as well as game sense, especially en masse. It's in the Medieval and Renaissance eras where the Vanguard imbalance spoils overall AI army balance, and makes the game less interesting.

This has been a problem since the introduction of the Vanguard unit. It's now been tested for quite a long time. The reasoning may vary, but there seems to be near-universal agreement that the balance here is off.

By near universal you mean like 4-5 people replying in this thread:)

To completely switch topics for a second, I was wondering why the horseman has a 14 strength in the patch now, while the swordsman has 13?

Generally I have found iron to be a scarcer resource than horses, and horseman already have incredible mobility, why should they also be stronger?

By near universal you mean like 4-5 people replying in this thread:)

That's what "near-universal" means! Actually, this has been an active topic pretty much since the inception of the Vanguard class.

To completely switch topics for a second, I was wondering why the horseman has a 14 strength in the patch now, while the swordsman has 13?

Generally I have found iron to be a scarcer resource than horses, and horseman already have incredible mobility, why should they also be stronger?

Unlike swords, horsemen have a counter and are weak vs cities.

I agree, Vanguard should be a bit weaker on offense. But the main problem is rather that the AI builds too many of them, but that's a topic of the AI, right?

On another note, can we lower the the strength of Fishing Boats? It seems to me that the AI spams them even if they have nothing to build with them. In the ancient age with one-tile coasts, they can block the way for galleys, since you cannot move onto them anymore, right? (or am I wrong?) and they need several shots to sink. It's annoying...

I agree, Vanguard should be a bit weaker on offense. But the main problem is rather that the AI builds too many of them, but that's a topic of the AI, right?

The hope is that by lowering their base strength (at least at the Levy and Skirmisher level) the AI will build less, and more pikes, muskets and rifles.

On another note, can we lower the the strength of Fishing Boats? It seems to me that the AI spams them even if they have nothing to build with them. In the ancient age with one-tile coasts, they can block the way for galleys, since you cannot move onto them anymore, right? (or am I wrong?) and they need several shots to sink. It's annoying...

I don't know if this can be changed, but I've never had my way blocked by them. That's wild.

Well it happened to me once only, in my last game against the Danish ;)

Happened to me as well in the current game. I got Nebuchadnezzar down to one city. It was on a coastline that was indented. He built three Fishing boats even though he had no resource to put them on and blocked the three hexes I had to attack his city from the sea.

Took me two turns to kill all of the fishing boats before I could move my Navy in to finish him off.

Fishing boats all seemed to pop up on the same turn as well. Not sure how he could do that.