GEM: Land Armies

that still doesn't work for me with gem 1611 and civup 2041

edit: it seems to heal the unit 1 turn after you choose the promo.

[to_xp]Gekko;11794001 said:

it seems to heal the unit 1 turn after you choose the promo.

Click to expand...

anyone else notice this?

also, unit upkeep is much better now but I still think warriors need to be reduced to 1 upkeep, there's no way they should cost double vs a scout or same as an archer imo.

I don't think that's necessary. You really should only build them for early rush or as Aztec or Maori anyway. But if it is, they could get a. 75 or. 5 discount like vanguards.

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I'm noticing the AIs sometimes building an excessive number of vanguard units in the early and mid game. I mean like literally no other units but vanguard units, no archers, no siege, no normal infantry, no cavalry, no ships, even on sea battle maps like Tiny Islands. A specific example if it helps is last game on a Tiny Islands map at high sea level and Prince difficulty, Byzantine basically just bunkered up and built so many Levys half of them were in the water around their two cities. They just sat there, ineffective, and stagnated on the map until two of my subs came by and blasted their "overflow" out of the water before taking their cities with no real resistance. I think they built one or two scout ships the whole game, which they probably lost early on. Russia had the same problem that game. Even the other civs that were doing well and building enough ships had a carpet of vanguards on their islands with maybe only a couple archers.

This is with the latest version of GEM.

they do seem to build a lot of vanguards right now.

That could be because they're currently about as strong as regular infantry with the camaraderie promotion despite costing significantly less production and maintenance.

AI flavors are probably too high on vanguards still? They're not as strong as regular infantry except for defence where they should be close enough. (Alternatively, the camaraderie promo could be weakened?)

Definitely too high, but reducing the promotion bonus to ten or fifteen percent would go a long way towards making regular infantry useful again.

I tend to agree: they cost less hammers, less maintenance, are equally as good on the defense and also on the offense when adjacent to friendlies ( which is most of the time )

this is especially bad for scout vs warriors, but I guess it applies to all others as well

After posting in this thread earlier I deleted the camaraderie promotion from recon units altogether, reduced the levy unit to 13 strength and I feel like it really encourages a more mixed army. Obviously the AI flavors would have to be adjusted to compensate for the nerfs, but I'd recommend making similar changes and seeing how it plays out.

It seems just about everything is getting to be too strong. Perhaps it's just the bonuses given to the AI.

But this is supposed to be GnK where you can actually survive longer than you used to in combat. I have had camel archers that can one shot Turtle Boats and Longswordsman. Camel archers that can move into the sea then move another hex in the same turn, also move out of the sea and shoot in the same turn.

I was fighting against Catherine in another game, I saw a Catapult unit and a vangaurd unit from another civ take out her city right before my eyes in two shots. I restarted it to see if it was just a fluke and managed to get 3 Longswords and 2 archers to the city before the other 2 units. With all 5 of those units... I was only able to bring the same city to half.

AI gets a city attack bonus, so that's one. We can tone that down if they're too effective at conquest alongside other changes.

I'm not sure what the camel archer move/disembark is doing. That sounds like a bug (or should be something attached to the amphib promo but I don't believe is). It sounds actually like camel archers are just bugged entirely.

I wouldn't get rid of the camaraderie promo (reduction to 10-15% from 20% sounds more plausible), but we could design the unit with a partial assessment of it in mind (particularly for the AI), and reduce vanguard raw strengths by 10% or so. This is less of an issue later with conscripts and airborne units I imagine since it sounds like levies and skirmishers are the noted offenders.

I think the AI city attack bonus may be too high. I'm not sure yet about vanguards. I've never been a big fan of vanguards, I just don't think they're that interesting, and I think the AI is more effective without them.

Actually, I don't understand why this mod adds another line of "cannon fodder" units. We already have swords which requre strategic resource, and spears which don't. Just tweak promotions, price and strength a little, and it would be enough. Scouts and ranged infantry, on the other hand, really need some love. Gatlings and MGs are absolutely useless now, in my opinion. They have too low ranged attack, too short attack range and no ranged promotions, so there is no reason to use them as a sity garrison. I'll just put artilery in my sities instead, and it'll easily outdamage GGs/MGs. They are useful at "field" defence, but I can use infantry/vanguards instead, which are more flexible. Scouts... Well, ok, I know, vanguards have this function now. But cannon fodder and scouting functions doesn't mix well, i think. Vanguards, after they get few promotions, just become Unkillable Ninjas of Doom. It would make more sense if they would be replaced with "sharpshooters" line: fast ranged (2-3 tiles range) units with scouting/ranged promotions, strong attack against infantry (strong enough, to use them instead of siege units for weakening an enemy) and weak in melee. Main roles: ranged support, barbarian genocide, exploring, pillaging. Vanilla ranged line can be changed to cheap garrison-only (until gatling/mg) units. If it's possible to add promotion which gives bonus to ranged attack while garrisoned, that would be simple.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. Sorry for infiltrating into the thread. And thanks for the mod - it's great.

Replacing the vanguard line with a set of sharp shooters isn't a bad idea, or even removing them altogether. As the mod currently is set up, vanguard units honestly don't add much and could easily be replaced by reducing the strength/maintenance of the infantry that don't require strategic resources. Also, the camaraderie promotion just adds another element of pointless micromanagement and the AI doesn't seem to use them particularly well.

A Sentinel upgraded by a goodie hut skips Levy and turns into a Skirmisher.

As for the discussion about the purpose or effectiveness or whatever of vanguards, I actually do like them. My only problem with them is that after scout they lose the automatic ignore terrain promotion. This creates an occasional serious blow to early game scouting when you start trying to build a few scouts and your starting warrior hits a goody hut that grants The Wheel. You are instantly gimped at scouting until you can build a barracks or find a lone barbarian to beat on your Sentinels for a couple turns (if you have them turned on). That said I also think the Spear line could have fulfilled the same purpose just fine if the promotions were shifted over. "Anti-cavalry" has never really been an important role because there aren't enough horses on the map. Scouts already use sticks, almost seems like natural progression that they'd upgrade to spears.

I think the only reason the AI sometimes builds so many vanguards is because they are so cheap, and the AI in this mod can't seem to keep more than 100 gold on hand (what's a research treaty? never seen one).

Lissindiel said:

Actually, I don't understand why this mod adds another line of "cannon fodder" units. We already have swords which requre strategic resource, and spears which don't. Just tweak promotions, price and strength a little, and it would be enough. Scouts and ranged infantry, on the other hand, really need some love. Gatlings and MGs are absolutely useless now, in my opinion. They have too low ranged attack, too short attack range and no ranged promotions, so there is no reason to use them as a sity garrison. I'll just put artilery in my sities instead, and it'll easily outdamage GGs/MGs. They are useful at "field" defence, but I can use infantry/vanguards instead, which are more flexible. Scouts... Well, ok, I know, vanguards have this function now. But cannon fodder and scouting functions doesn't mix well, i think. Vanguards, after they get few promotions, just become Unkillable Ninjas of Doom. It would make more sense if they would be replaced with "sharpshooters" line: fast ranged (2-3 tiles range) units with scouting/ranged promotions, strong attack against infantry (strong enough, to use them instead of siege units for weakening an enemy) and weak in melee. Main roles: ranged support, barbarian genocide, exploring, pillaging. Vanilla ranged line can be changed to cheap garrison-only (until gatling/mg) units. If it's possible to add promotion which gives bonus to ranged attack while garrisoned, that would be simple.

Click to expand...

Two points on the MG issue:
1) Using GK default design, they were way too powerful at attacking to the point you didn't need more than one or two infantry units. I think there's some balance point we could reach where they can be useful at damaging units like archers are in earlier epochs, but also more useful than archers at holding ground as part of an assault or defence line. That they are ranged makes them already flexible in a way that infantry/vanguard is not. That shouldn't be overlooked (indeed, it seems to be accounted for in the idea of using a ranged vanguard line instead of the current design).
2) I tended to use artillery in cities in GK anyway in late games if I needed a defensive point rather than MGs. Partly because I tended to take the free maintenance upkeep policy on garrisons, and artillery aren't cheap in GEM (MGs are). And mostly because I needed the range and safe keeping of experienced siege weapons more than I needed the MGs. If the AI is attacking me at that point, they are often using 3-ranged weapons of their own that I would need to be able to hit safely.

As far as the vanguards, I can take them or leave them. I think they add something, but not much to combat (by having a light and cheap defensive formation which could in theory help the AI). The foremost problem with them at the moment is that they're not balanced yet with the rest of the lines and too powerful on assault with all the other AI bonuses relative to elite/mainline melee units. A secondary problem is that they're so cheap that the AI can overburden its movement by building many of them.

I think a new ranged line would be too difficult for the AI to use effectively in the designated role and that the existing ranged line is doing just fine as a cheap garrison/ranged damage for assault/defence role without needing to replace it.

@Zai. I think that ITC should be preserved on scouts that get upgraded, and available on newly constructed vanguard units as part of a promotion, possibly instead of extra movement being as readily available.

I think, arlillery is still too strong against units. It should be nerfed a little, and get higher attack bonus against sities. Again, if it's technically possible, MGs could be given promotion, that increases their ranged damage (and range?) while they're inside the sity. This will help AI, by the way. It often uses MGs as a sity garrison.

Existing ranged line is doing fine, until crossbows becomes obsolete. Don't know about AI, but isn't it possible to change it's priorities, so it will use existing ranged units for defence, and "snipers" line for offense/exploring?

Artillery and cannons were already nerfed against units (earlier in GEM) and having a higher attack bonus against cities would make anti-city promotions rather useless. It is possible the unit strength part needs revisiting, but as then, it seems like the bigger reason they may seem powerful is that other (mainline) units were reduced in strength slightly more. Which made them easier targets.

It should be possible to give the AI a tactical priorities effect yes. If that needs changed for MGs, that's something to check into. I have seen it using artillery as a garrison however to defend and shoot back at my siege attacks. Which would be my preference where it isn't using artillery to attack me or another civ.

The benefit of MG's as garrisons is that the city itself gets a bigger boost to attack (and defend) with over crossbows or artillery because it bases it off unit melee strength (I believe). Is it necessary to make both the city and the unit superior under those conditions?

I feel taking cities is too hard in the latest version of this mod.

I am playing as Atilla of the Huns and am trying to take an early city with a battering ram. I tried attacking it with two battering rams and four warriors but lost all my units without getting the city into the yellow. I reloaded and gave myself SIX battering rams and replayed the battle. This time I got the city down to about 20% hit points before losing all my units.

In the unmodded game one or two battering rams would have been sufficient this early.

I feel that these changes have nerfed the Huns so hard that playing with them is almost pointless.