RAND 1.76 Balancing and Suggestions

@Koshling

That sounds good.
In multiplayer games I take a big advantage by founding 2 or 3 religion by researching the first one and educate then great prophets let then them give me the required technologies for the next religion.

gfurst said:

Same here.

In my point of view, spearmen and its derivatives should all give a boost on defence. I forgot how they are in AND, but everyplace else they're praticaly useless...

Have you ever saw those movies, where the swordmen infantry rushes torwards a wall of shielded spearmen, only to be pierced by the majority of it?
Plus a very wide used infantry for defence in the middle ages were the pikemen.

Click to expand...

They were indeed used a lot, because cavalry was used a lot. But swordmen (especially armored swordsmen) beat pikemen, once they got in close the pikes were useless, and pikemen didn't have shields.

I think there should be a bit harder to handle "founding" multiple religions. I mean if you own 2 holycities or more. It is too much benefit from founding the religions and way to little hassle having them. Much more unrest is needed if u ask me.

high walls currently eliminate the Dun special abilities for the celtic civ. This removes their UB benefits (or the high wall benefits) for much of the time walls are effective. I assume there are other civs whose UBs get upgraded before they would normally be obsoleted.

(haven't checked this in 1.76 yet, just figured out why I lost my Guerrilla promotions when I played Celts in 1.75 though).

Gomer_Pyle said:

I think there should be a bit harder to handle "founding" multiple religions. I mean if you own 2 holycities or more. It is too much benefit from founding the religions and way to little hassle having them. Much more unrest is needed if u ask me.

Click to expand...

That's why there is the Limited Religions Option available at Game setup. Use it if you don't like Multiple Religions Option.

JosEPh

EDIT: In the light of the positive feedback I have received sofar, I have uploaded my XML files. To test out my balance changes, backup your xml folder and replace it with the one I uploaded.

I currently play AND 1.75C with the following modifications; they have worked wonders for me but still need improvement; would be interesting to hear feedback on this :

Traits:

Espionage:

Movement:

Techs:

Units:


Bonuses:

Improvements:

Buildings


Leaders Traits:

gfurst said:

Same here.

In my point of view, spearmen and its derivatives should all give a boost on defence. I forgot how they are in AND, but everyplace else they're praticaly useless...

Have you ever saw those movies, where the swordmen infantry rushes torwards a wall of shielded spearmen, only to be pierced by the majority of it?
Plus a very wide used infantry for defence in the middle ages were the pikemen.

Click to expand...

While I understand your perspective when comparing the game to real life, you must take game balance issues into consideration:

1) Spearmen are currently available way too early (they should require bronze working)
2) They require no resource to build (should require copper or iron)
3) Their primary role in the original game design was to defend against mounted units (however mounted units are virtually non existent early game in the current AND implementation (see below or see my above post))
4) They are anything but useless; In the current implementation, they are build en masse by the AI and myself for early game rushes. In fact I am tired of seeing them cluttering up my early game.

What should happen instead is:

1) spearmen should require bronzeworking with copper or iron to produce
2) mounted units should be more widely available early game (by reducing research costs for mounted techs and increasing the horse resource spawn rate).

Making the aforementioned 2 changes would give back the spearmen the niche which they actually belonged to which was to defend against mounted units. Furthermore it will make for a more interesting ancient era as there will actually be mounted units early game combined with the other units rather then current ******** javelineer + spearmen rushes.

Excellent post Arkatakor ! I agree with most of your points especially the unit changes & Mounted tech changes. I would also like to mention that Hagia Sophia is under powered too. Worker speed boost don't matter much in Renaissance. You can simply create more workers to get the job done.

Arkatakor said:

While I understand your perspective when comparing the game to real life, you must take game balance issues into consideration:

1) Spearmen are currently available way too early (they should require bronze working)
2) They require no resource to build (should require copper or iron)
3) Their primary role in the original game design was to defend against mounted units (however mounted units are virtually non existent early game in the current AND implementation (see below or see my above post))
4) They are anything but useless; In the current implementation, they are build en masse by the AI and myself for early game rushes. In fact I am tired of seeing them cluttering up my early game.

What should happen instead is:

1) spearmen should require bronzeworking with copper or iron to produce
2) mounted units should be more widely available early game (by reducing research costs for mounted techs and increasing the horse resource spawn rate).

Making the aforementioned 2 changes would give back the spearmen the niche which they actually belonged to which was to defend against mounted units. Furthermore it will make for a more interesting ancient era as there will actually be mounted units early game combined with the other units rather then current ******** javelineer + spearmen rushes.

Click to expand...

I second that:

Of course spearmen were a good defensive unit against cavalry and lightly armoured infantry. But against trained swordsmen they are not much use.
In the antique world the highly organized macedonian style phalanx was not only outmaneuverd by the Roman legions, the legionaries just simply cut off the spear tips, and cut themselves through the wall spears like a buzzsaw...

In the (late) middle ages, pikemen were in high use, but mainly because of their cost-effectiveness ratio. Later troops (like the Landsknecht Infantery, unlike in civ) armed with heavy swords specialised in cutting down the walls of pikes...
The main purpose of spear infantery was to stop cavalry, which was a very powerful force on the battlefield. But against other meele infantery or archers spearmen just were NOT effective, especcially used defensively.
I will gladly provide sources if necessary.


In conclusion: If the overall value of mounted units increases, spearmen automatically also gain value.

Instead of making spearmen and pikemen stronger defensively (which would be historically very inaccurate) I would strongly reccomend the following changes.

Spearman:
5 strengh
+ 75% vs. mounted units - 25% vs. archers

Pikeman:
7 Strengh
+150% vs. mounted units - 25% vs. archers -10% meele units - 25% vs. gunpowder units
Technology: Military Training!!!

Heavy Pikeman:
11 Strengh
+150% vs. mounted units - 25% vs. archers - 10% meele units - 25% vs. gunpowder units


Apart from the commando bonus it would be extremely important - for reasons of realism - to rebalance mounted units in general, especcially with considerations of terrain.

I would suggest to give all mounted units:

+20% Grassland, Desert, Plains Attack - 20% Forest, Jungle, Marshes Attack. This would be very important. Cavalry had severe limitations in unsuitable terrain and urban combat, but was very hard to beat in the right terrain... there is a reason the horse became the weapon of choice for the peoples of the vast, steppe emires, and not of the city-dwelling peoples or jungle or forest cultures...

+ 25% vs. archers (NOT longbowman or crossbowman) +25% vs light swordman - 25% city attack to represent the effect they had on battle. Formations of unfortified archers or light infantery, in the wrong terrain were simply torn apart by cavalry. This changed when ranged units became more formidable with the invention of the crossbow and/or longbow.


So Affo:

- Please make mounted units stronger/weaker - according terrain
- And consider my suggestions regarding spearmen and pikemen

these suggestions should strongly increase realism and improve the quality of the game

Arkatakor,

Lots of good ideas.

I am using your tech and resource ideas.

I also agree with the trait changes, expect that I changed the max anarchy to spirituality to 1, not 0 (0 is to OP, IMHO). Protective already had double production to the bunker.

Civic changes are irrelevant, I rewrote the civics already.

I reduced the Javalineer's mounted protection, and made the spearman require bronze or copper. I also reduced the strength of the light swordsman by 1. I made no other changes, I disagree with the vast overall had you had there - I've already given mounted units a big promotion in beta2.

HOWEVER, Athletics gives Light Swordsmen + 1 strength, and Mathematics gives Archers +1 strength. (New XML tag. )

I also bumped up Athletic's cost.

Improvement balancing is also irrelevant, from the civic changes I've already made. I also disagree with the movement changes. But I did adopt the espionage change.

Instead of the free River Authority for the Chichen Itza, I've given it 2 free trade routes and +25% trade. In the past, it was an economic center, so it fits better. Also now 650 hammers (was 500).

I think the Great Wall is fine as is.

I've also adopts youmakemefart's ideas on mounted units with terrains (but nothing else). I am worried that this will tip the scales too far in 1 direction.

If Mounted Units are still weak with beta 3, I'll consider more changes.

Afforess,
hi,

any chance youll address the multiplayer problems reported?

Afforess said:

I am using your tech and resource ideas.

Click to expand...

Cool. Bear in mind that these tech modifications are currently not enough to give ancient era mounted warfare incentive, nor to prevent Gunpowder / Matchlock beelining. My current contention is that Matchlock and Gunpowder need to have their research costs increased even further (and by a considerable amount).

Afforess said:

I am using your tech and resource ideas.
I also agree with the trait changes, expect that I changed the max anarchy to spirituality to 1, not 0 (0 is to OP, IMHO).

Click to expand...

Let me know what you think about adding 25% defense against espionage for Protective. I could not figure out how or where to make that change.

Afforess said:

I reduced the Javalineer's mounted protection, and made the spearman require bronze or copper. I also reduced the strength of the light swordsman by 1.

Click to expand...

Nice. I would also make spearmen require Bronze Working as well, this will help add incentive people to build early mounted units. Another thing, I get the impression copper is quite a rare resource; it might be an idea to increase its spawn rate slightly to compensate for the new resource requirement for spearmen.

Afforess said:

HOWEVER, Athletics gives Light Swordsmen + 1 strength, and Mathematics gives Archers +1 strength. (New XML tag. )

Click to expand...

This is interesting. I am looking forward to seeing this implemented.

Afforess said:

Improvement balancing is also irrelevant, from the civic changes I've already made. I also disagree with the movement changes. But I did adopt the espionage change.

Click to expand...

I made a mistake in my improvement section; I meant to say that cottages / villages / towns get a +1 in food with City Planning, not Civil Engineering.

Afforess said:

Instead of the free River Authority for the Chichen Itza, I've given it 2 free trade routes and +25% trade. In the past, it was an economic center, so it fits better. Also now 650 hammers (was 500).

Click to expand...

This is a better solution, because as it is Civs that have lots of river tiles get too much benefits as it is (irrigation canals / river authority / levees). When does it obsolete?

Afforess said:

I think the Great Wall is fine as is.

Click to expand...

In that case you might want to consider adding a free spy specialist with it (or at least the option for adding a spy specialist). I am pondering on these options myself.

Afforess said:

I've also adopts youmakemefart's ideas on mounted units with terrains (but nothing else). I am worried that this will tip the scales too far in 1 direction.

Click to expand...

This will be interesting to try out; just bear in mind that in the ancient era there will be a lot of unchopped forests and jungles so it might be an impediment. But its definitely a good idea and should be tried out.

Afforess said:

I've also adopts youmakemefart's ideas on mounted units with terrains (but nothing else). I am worried that this will tip the scales too far in 1 direction.

Click to expand...

Great. I am more than happy - my mission is done - I can only look forward to the beta now....

youmakemefart said:

Great. I am more than happy - my mission is done - I can only look forward to the beta now....

Click to expand...

Can always give the mounted units an aiweight value if you think it's just not building them enough. This is just sticky tape solution to some underlying problem in the ai of course, but it might help a bit for now

I forgot to mention this one, because I've personally used it for so long its second nature:-

Forests and Jungles only give +25% Defence bonus.

50% is quite ridiculous to me and always has been. Why 50%? With the nature of combat odds, it makes it just too easy for the defender. But not just the defender. In the early game especially, an attacking army can often wander right up to the city gates of another civ's city completely unmolested, as its virtual suicide to attack similar units with a -50%/-75% penalty. It might make sense if an army or unit had "dug in", but civ can make no such differentation, i.e.:- between an army thats advancing, and one that's purely defending. The simple change makes the woodsman line of promotions actually very useful (as they should be in the early game).

I've used this change in vanilla for yrs, and every mod I've ever played. It doesn't effect the ai (it may slightly favor woodsman promotions more which is nice to see), as the forests and jungles still have a D bonus (but halved), and it of course decides on whether to attack or not based on combat odds.

Thoughts anyone?

Arkatakor said:

Nice. I would also make spearmen require Bronze Working as well, this will help add incentive people to build early mounted units. Another thing, I get the impression copper is quite a rare resource; it might be an idea to increase its spawn rate slightly to compensate for the new resource requirement for spearmen.

Click to expand...

If you really want more horsemen then a mapscript change might be in order, there's only one horse on my current huge map. (Erebus_Continents)

DrewBledsoe said:

I forgot to mention this one, because I've personally used it for so long its second nature:-

Forests and Jungles only give +25% Defence bonus.

50% is quite ridiculous to me and always has been. Why 50%? With the nature of combat odds, it makes it just too easy for the defender. But not just the defender. In the early game especially, an attacking army can often wander right up to the city gates of another civ's city completely unmolested, as its virtual suicide to attack similar units with a -50%/-75% penalty. It might make sense if an army or unit had "dug in", but civ can make no such differentation, i.e.:- between an army thats advancing, and one that's purely defending. The simple change makes the woodsman line of promotions actually very useful (as they should be in the early game).

I've used this change in vanilla for yrs, and every mod I've ever played. It doesn't effect the ai (it may slightly favor woodsman promotions more which is nice to see), as the forests and jungles still have a D bonus (but halved), and it of course decides on whether to attack or not based on combat odds.

Thoughts anyone?

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. It also adds more incentive to build forts.

I would also suggest that seige weapons never drain more then 20-25% health in direct AND collateral damage damage to units defending a city. This would apply weather they win a direct confrontation by attacking the city directly or by bombarding. So for example assuming an assault on a city with 0% defense (the city has already been bombarded out), 10 trubuchets then proceed to attack a stack of 3 defending longbowmen, Assuming all 10 trubechets win their respective combat rounds vs the 3 longbowmen, ALL 3 longbowmen would still retain 80% of their original health (since siege weapons never train more then 20% damage to units defining a city).

The reasoning behind this is that I find it a bit sad that (lets take an example of the middle aged era) all you really need to do to capture cities is a stack of crossbowmen, maybe a few heavy pikemen and of course a decent stack trebuchets. The only "strategy" currently required is to advance to an enemy city, bombard to zero, then attack with FULL stack of trubuchets and after that throw ANY of your full health units against the crippled defenders. Sure win.

So my beef with this is, why even bother building say, heavy swordsmen which specialize in city attack if, by the time you actually attack a city after your trebuchet assault, the defenders would be so weak that it would not matter what kind of unit you are using to attack the city? If however, we were to reduce the direct + collateral damage of units defending a city, there would be much more incentive to build units that actually specialize in city attack.

Are caravans considered balanced currently? I seem to get a huge amount of gold (several times the amount of gold I could make through any other method) just pumping caravans from one city to another 8 tiles away and conducting the trade mission.

You probably want to allow Spearmen to be built by Obsidian as well as copper / iron.

Arkatakor said:

Saladin: Changed to Deceiver / Spiritual (from Protective / Spiritual)

Reasoning: this combination did not exist, furthermore protective spiritual was a disgusting combo

Click to expand...

But that would be historically inaccurate. The current traits are fine.