Balance and Gameplay discussion.

The composite bows sound like a good idea for my add-on. There were big gaps in the units upgrade paths that I wanted to fill. The composite bowman would fill the biggest gap as the archer>longbow is a 100% jump. Next I wouldnt mind making a filler unit after horseman, as the horseman>knight is +66% jump. Finally the jump from muskets to rifles is a 55% increase. As far as I can tell those are the biggest jumps in power left (besides motorized infantry>MechInfantry). The hardest part for me is making room for them to fit, also proper names for them. Its already crowded in teh tech tree.
 
I wasn't posting this request as an addition for the purpose of adding stuff. I really think it's a bad thing when the only unit that is dedicated to city defence during a period of the game (can get city garrison promotions) is obsolete before it can be upgraded to a better unit. The archer has really bad odds against swordsmen when city defence bonuses have been removed.

I'm posting this request as a game balance issue, not because I want more bow using units in the game. You can't just add siege units to the early parts of the game and think it won't change game balance.


To achilleszero: if you're willing to take a look at unit strengths, then the best way to get a fine grained balance is by starting to multiply all unit strengths by 10. So strength 20 warriors and strength 30 archers and so on. That will make it so much easier to get the exact right balance without the need for weird +10% bonuses just to give one unit a slight edge over another. You could have strength 20 warriors and strength 27 archers if you think that works better.
Of course some bonuses are still a good idea as it makes some units better in some situations and others better in other situations. But you won't be needing small artificial +10% bonuses just to fine tune the balance. I've never understood why the civ game in general always stuck to these low integer values that allow almost no flexibility or ability to fine tune stuff. Are the slightly larger values really scaring away customers?

The increase in strength when gunpowder comes around and is developed into weaponry may be a bit bigger just to translate the historical impact of the invention into the game. I actually think that the game captures the historical significance of the invention quite well and the jump in strength should be at cannons and riflemen, not at bombards and musketmen. (all in my opinion)

The problem with motorized infantry is that the designer of these values tried to capture two thoughts:
Around the end of WW2, infantry were transported a lot faster which made their tactical value a lot bigger (2 movement points), but their actual firepower wasn't increased a lot (low strength increase compared to squad infantry and due to its anti gunpowder bonus kept comparable to elite forces like paratroopers and marines).
I think it's better to look at the motorized infantry, paratroopers and marines as strength 24 units which makes the jump to the mechanized infantry at 32 reasonable.
If the knight would come a bit earlier in the game at strength 9, then the horsemen -> knight -> cuirassier -> cavalry progression would go a bit more smoothly. Now there is a long period between horsemen and knights and after that, technology moves relatively quickly. There's no historical or gameplay justification for that.
 
I wasn't posting this request as an addition for the purpose of adding stuff. I really think it's a bad thing when the only unit that is dedicated to city defence during a period of the game (can get city garrison promotions) is obsolete before it can be upgraded to a better unit. The archer has really bad odds against swordsmen when city defence bonuses have been removed.

I'm posting this request as a game balance issue, not because I want more bow using units in the game. You can't just add siege units to the early parts of the game and think it won't change game balance.

I get that it was a suggestion for game balance. And it was my point that I wanted to add it for my own thing as a balancer as well. I merely stated that I wanted to use it for an and-on to reassure that I thought it a good idea. Good enough for a mod-mod, As I think it will be hard to convince phungus to add anything to the game being so close to a final release.

To achilleszero: if you're willing to take a look at unit strengths, then the best way to get a fine grained balance is by starting to multiply all unit strengths by 10. So strength 20 warriors and strength 30 archers and so on. That will make it so much easier to get the exact right balance without the need for weird +10% bonuses just to give one unit a slight edge over another. You could have strength 20 warriors and strength 27 archers if you think that works better.
Of course some bonuses are still a good idea as it makes some units better in some situations and others better in other situations. But you won't be needing small artificial +10% bonuses just to fine tune the balance. I've never understood why the civ game in general always stuck to these low integer values that allow almost no flexibility or ability to fine tune stuff. Are the slightly larger values really scaring away customers?

I firmly believe that Firaxis needs to ditch the Warrior=2 strength and so on thing. Its nostalgic but it crappy, for the reasons you just stated. But I dont think I will be messing with that to keep in line with the unofficial expansion theme.

The increase in strength when gunpowder comes around and is developed into weaponry may be a bit bigger just to translate the historical impact of the invention into the game. I actually think that the game captures the historical significance of the invention quite well and the jump in strength should be at cannons and riflemen, not at bombards and musketmen. (all in my opinion)

I think there really isnt a big enough jump when you do hit gunpowder/muskets. Plus I think there should be two Musket type units. The musket we have now should represent the earliest muskets from gunpowders reception to the 1700s or so. And then a rifled type musket to represent the 1700's to right before the American Civil War(which the redcoat unit would be a part of). Maybe having a strength 10 or 11 with some sort of ability against melee. That would still leave a good sized jump to true rifles.
 
Personally I've always thought the Grenadier filled that missing musket role.
 
A plea for a classical age city defender.

Actually I disagree with this one Roland.

Your arguement is based on no city defense (cultural or walls) bonus to defenders.
I feel that If you manage to get a stack over to a city, stand outside for several turns to destroy the fortifications down to 0%, then you are justified to have advantage over the defenders. You have just smashed up all of their defenses, how are archers going to counter you now they dont have any walls to shoot off?

By this time the defenders should have brought over a counter force and knocked out some of your stack.

Secondly, there is a new counter for the swordsman, the axeman - str 4 +75% = 7. You can no longer rely on building a bunch of archer only defenders and thinking yourself safe. Needing to use mixed attachers and defenders must be an improvement over the old system. All the changes are based around reducing unit spam, I think this is an effective way of doing so.


I feel that this issue is based around walls not being used enough due to not being useful enough in the current system. If you have a small ancient city without walls, how are you going to defend against attackers? Where are your archers going to stand to defend? You need to use melee force to keep the attackers out of your city.


However this does not address my biggest problem. Collateral damage from siege renders most defenders totally useless, regardless of the attacker.

When the final release comes out I will mod my version to attempt to get a balance for the following;

1) Higher % chance of siege winning combat, but with must less collateral damage, and much higher maximum damage. (Excellent idea from Roland). Thefore making units more important in city attack/defense rather than just collateral damage from siege.

2) Making walls more useful, and more necessary. Either by;
walls + 50% or even +100%, therefore making siege necessary when attacking walled cities – and giving more time to counter the stack as it sits outside your city bombarding.
Or
Defenders +25% - 50% with walls.
 
I get that it was a suggestion for game balance. And it was my point that I wanted to add it for my own thing as a balancer as well. I merely stated that I wanted to use it for an and-on to reassure that I thought it a good idea. Good enough for a mod-mod, As I think it will be hard to convince phungus to add anything to the game being so close to a final release.

And I just wanted to make sure that my request was not misunderstood.

Phungus doesn't seem to react to this thread as much as you do. You are closer to Phungus, so do you know whether he might add stuff after version 1.0? Many mod developers keep developing their mods and that can also happen with a mod that doesn't want to become bloated. Even official expansion packs are patched where some patches are quite big. I do understand his desire to get a stable version 1.0 out there which defines the concept and scale of the mod.

I firmly believe that Firaxis needs to ditch the Warrior=2 strength and so on thing. Its nostalgic but it crappy, for the reasons you just stated. But I dont think I will be messing with that to keep in line with the unofficial expansion theme.

Glad to have found a similar minded fellow. And I do understand that you don't want to start messing with it even though you don't really like it.

You want to create an unofficial expansion for the unofficial expansion but keep close to the original unofficial expansion concept... right? ;)

I think there really isnt a big enough jump when you do hit gunpowder/muskets. Plus I think there should be two Musket type units. The musket we have now should represent the earliest muskets from gunpowders reception to the 1700s or so. And then a rifled type musket to represent the 1700's to right before the American Civil War(which the redcoat unit would be a part of). Maybe having a strength 10 or 11 with some sort of ability against melee. That would still leave a good sized jump to true rifles.

So the revolution in warfare caused by gunpowder would come through multiple quick changes (at least in a civ-time scale)? That also works, however it does require a lot of upgrading and makes individual jumps in units less meaningful. That's not meant as a point of criticism, just a statement.

There are many (r)evolutions in firearms. To mention a few that I've heard about:
The change from matchlock to flintlock muskets, the rifling of the barrel of a gun, the change from muzzle-loading to breech-loading, the repeating rifle, and finally automatic firearms.

The early gun is represented by muskets. One could separate it into 2 types of muskets, fired by matchlock or flintlock. The rifling of the gun is represented by riflemen. The change from muzzle-loading to breechloading isn't represented in the game, but it historically quickly followed the rifling of the barrel and both developments are related. The repeating rifle is represented by infantry and the automatic firearms by marines, paratroopers and machineguns. If you'd want to add another unit, I would suggest basing it on the introduction of the flintlock or maybe the change from muzzle-loading to breech-loading.

Personally I've always thought the Grenadier filled that missing musket role.

Could you give a short reaction to my post 59.

I think the grenadier was just introduced to make the warring in the era of riflemen more interesting as it was in reality, there weren't that many different units as in for instance the middle ages. Firaxis tried to create a game here instead of following history. I just read a part of the grenadier entry in wikipedia and from what I've read there, grenade throwing troops weren't used in the era of riflemen (as they would have been shot long before they could throw their grenades). Grenadiers were just elite riflemen in that era.

Are you going to do small development steps or patches to LoR after version 1.0?
 
Actually I disagree with this one Roland.

Ok, but for this time only. ;)

Your arguement is based on no city defense (cultural or walls) bonus to defenders.
I feel that If you manage to get a stack over to a city, stand outside for several turns to destroy the fortifications down to 0%, then you are justified to have advantage over the defenders. You have just smashed up all of their defenses, how are archers going to counter you now they dont have any walls to shoot off?

That's true for all ages. You can smash the defences and then the defenders have to face you without a bonus (other than fortification bonus). The difference is that this is the only age that after bombarding the defences, the attackers are at an advantage against the main city defence unit. How are you going to justify longbowmen in the medieval era then?

By this time the defenders should have brought over a counter force and knocked out some of your stack.

That is also available in every age of the game. There's nothing special about this argument to justify a disadvantage for the defender in the ancient age. It takes even less time to remove city defences in the ancient and classical ages than in the medieval and renaissance era so there's less reaction time.

Secondly, there is a new counter for the swordsman, the axeman - str 4 +75% = 7. You can no longer rely on building a bunch of archer only defenders and thinking yourself safe.

The axeman was also a part of BTS at strength 7.5 vs swordsmen. But it can't get the city garrison promotion.

My main problem is that the main city defender, the only unit in the two starting ages that can get a city garrison promotion is obsolete before it can be replaced. Players might not even want to build it when axes are available for city defence. Spearmen plus axemen works better. However, you don't want to sit these units in a city where they'll have to face swordsmen as a big disadvantage because of the city raider promotion.

However this does not address my biggest problem. Collateral damage from siege renders most defenders totally useless, regardless of the attacker.

We agree on that point. Thanks for the (not quoted) compliment.
 
the attackers are at an advantage against the main city defence unit. How are you going to justify longbowmen in the medieval era then?

City raider/ defender cancels itself out.

NOT ON HILLS! (think about how many ancient & medival towns were set on hills for defense, more than in civ4, I bet)

Swordsman = str 6
Archer = str 3 + 50% = 4.5 (+ 1FS)

Footman = str 8
Longbow = str 6 + 25% = 7.5 (+1FS)

6 vs 4.5
8 vs 7.5

The attackers have the advantage in both eras, in side by side attacks with no other bonuses, but the differences are much bigger in real terms, so yes I take your point.

How about giving axemen access to city defense promotions?

My view is that in areas of low safety, players (&AI) should be forced to build on hills, and build walls, as in reality - this totally changes the %. Hills were the natural defenses in the ancient eras, think Mycenae and other ancient strogholds. Walls and castles were the advances in the classical & medieval eras.

Therefore, in the ancient eras, cities built on the lowland without proper city defenses deserve to be taken easily. This rewards players who actually use mixed stacks and build the other wise useless rams. Defensive units and technology improves in later eras, making warfare more difficult and strategic.
Cities were attacked and raised much more often in the ancient era than in other eras, Troy was raised and rebuilt nine times before the 1st century BC. The units in the ancient era represents this.



We agree on that point. Thanks for the (not quoted) compliment.

I quoted you at the end by saying that reducing the max damage, and increasing the chance to win.
I think that is a great idea, and will definately try it in my next game.

I've been enjoying your posts, they are very well written and thought out. You have a very good (in my opinion) viewpoint of the game and excellent knowledge.
 
City raider/ defender cancels itself out.

NOT ON HILLS! (think about how many ancient & medival towns were set on hills for defense, more than in civ4, I bet)

Yes, there is an additional defence bonus due to hills. It's a bit unrelated to city raider and city garrison promotions though. It works everywhere where there are hills. Still, you're right that it is sometimes a good idea to build a city on hills if you expect it to be a contested area.

The attackers have the advantage in both eras, in side by side attacks with no other bonuses, but the differences are much bigger in real terms, so yes I take your point.

In your examples, you're leaving out the fortification bonus of +25% which you'd expect the defenders of cities to have.

It changes things to 6 vs 5.25 and 8 vs 9 both with 1 first strike (odds 65%: 2 out of 3 wins, or 25%: 1 out of 4 wins).

How about giving axemen access to city defense promotions?

The available promotions are set by unit type and melee units don't get the promotion.

It would also still leave the archer obsolete when swordsmen arrives which will mean that experienced players won't build it except for garrison duty deep inside their empire where it is not actually needed for city defence.

My view is that in areas of low safety, players (&AI) should be forced to build on hills, and build walls, as in reality - this totally changes the %. Hills were the natural defenses in the ancient eras, think Mycenae and other ancient strogholds. Walls and castles were the advances in the classical & medieval eras.

Natural defences have historically always been important and are actually a bit underestimated in civilization IV. However, it's a strategic game and thus the tactical elements of war tend to be a bit weaker as the scale of warfare is different. Actually, when two armies in civ4 terms meet in a large 100km times 100km area which happens to be hilly (a hill tile), then which army will benefit more from the hills? The game pretends to become tactical here and gives the advantage to the army that was there first. It works for gameplay, but is actually a bit weird when you look at the scale of warfare that the game tries to represent.

Therefore, in the ancient eras, cities built on the lowland without proper city defenses deserve to be taken easily. This rewards players who actually use mixed stacks and build the other wise useless rams. Defensive units and technology improves in later eras, making warfare more difficult and strategic.
Cities were attacked and raised much more often in the ancient era than in other eras, Troy was raised and rebuilt nine times before the 1st century BC. The units in the ancient era represents this.

As far as gameplay goes, I don't think we need to encourage rushing as a tactic. It's pretty popular as it is. In that sense, I think the weakening of the axeman was a good move.

I didn't know that Troy was raised 9 times before the 1st century BC. Thanks for the information. I do know that in ancient times, there were no professional standing armies as in the game, making city defence difficult. Armies were often raised for a certain military campaign but weren't maintained indefinitely. Rome at some point had a professional standing army but that was not the standard and then we're already deep in the classical era and we're talking about the best organized civilisation of the classical era (at least in western civilisation).

In LoR, the issue of the obsoletion of the only city defender of the ancient and classical era actually occurs in the classical age with the appearance of the swordsman, not during the ancient age.

I quoted you at the end by saying that reducing the max damage, and increasing the chance to win.
I think that is a great idea, and will definately try it in my next game.

I've been enjoying your posts, they are very well written and thought out. You have a very good (in my opinion) viewpoint of the game and excellent knowledge.

With 'unquoted' I meant to say that I didn't quote your compliment (I already create such long posts and quoting takes a lot of space). And thanks again.

I think that Phungus wish for LoR to function as a basis for other mods will come true.
If you're really planning on creating such a mod, then I would advice you to allow the later siege units to do a little bit more damage as the city attackers in the later ages don't have access to the city raider promotion.
 
The available promotions are set by unit type and melee units don't get the promotion.

Fair enough. Thats no good then.

It would also still leave the archer obsolete when swordsmen arrives which will mean that experienced players won't build it except for garrison duty deep inside their empire where it is not actually needed for city defence.

I wouldnt leave my cities defended just by axes, I could see a nice chariot attack coming on.
I understand your point, and that there is an opening for a classical archer. However, I think your use of the word "obsolete" is too strong - less powerful and a weakpoint - but not obsolete.


I do know that in ancient times, there were no professional standing armies as in the game, making city defence difficult. Armies were often raised for a certain military campaign but weren't maintained indefinitely.

Wow, im not even going to imagine ways of representing that in the game. Far too difficult.


If you're really planning on creating such a mod, then I would advice you to allow the later siege units to do a little bit more damage as the city attackers in the later ages don't have access to the city raider promotion.

I'm not up to creating a mod, I meant I will change the unit stats to make it more like I imagine it should be.
I'm sure that there is a new gunpowder promotion that gives equivalent to the CR promotions, but I take your point.
 
I'm sure that there is a new gunpowder promotion that gives equivalent to the CR promotions, but I take your point.

It's only a single promotion instead of the city raider 1 till 3, so it's a lot weaker. I think that's nice as it allows the siege units to become a bit more effective at reducing the hitpoints of city defenders without the main city attackers getting really better odds.
 
Phungus doesn't seem to react to this thread as much as you do. You are closer to Phungus, so do you know whether he might add stuff after version 1.0? Many mod developers keep developing their mods and that can also happen with a mod that doesn't want to become bloated. Even official expansion packs are patched where some patches are quite big. I do understand his desire to get a stable version 1.0 out there which defines the concept and scale of the mod.

I actually have no idea what he plans to do after v1.0. I know he wants other modders to improve upon it with new mod-comps. I fervently hope that it continues on with new updates after 1.0, although they will probably be less than what were used to so far. WolfRev seemed to get updates so one might assume that LoR would too, maybe.

You want to create an unofficial expansion for the unofficial expansion but keep close to the original unofficial expansion concept... right? ;)

Exactly:crazyeye:. Also I have little experience with that type of stuff, so I would want to keep it simple.

I didn't know that Troy was raised 9 times before the 1st century BC.

9 times over 3,000 years. Still thats one every 300 years or so. But there is little evidence to why some of them were abandoned and then built on top of. A couple seem to be because they were destroyed by earthquake. TroyVII seems to be destoyed by warfare, so they think that it would be the one from the Trojan War. also it closely fits the date.
 
9 times over 3,000 years. Still thats one every 300 years or so. But there is little evidence to why some of them were abandoned and then built on top of. A couple seem to be because they were destroyed by earthquake. TroyVII seems to be destoyed by warfare, so they think that it would be the one from the Trojan War. also it closely fits the date.

I actually expected the nine Troys to have existed over a long period in time. And of course this one city doesn't set the typical standard for its time. Still, it was a remarkable historical fact and you've expanded further on that fact. Thanks for that.

Also thanks for the rest of your posts. I now have an idea of your vision of the perfect LoR. It sounds interesting.
 
I have a few little things that I think could be adjusted. To flesh out my comments earlier regarding the transition to the industrial era, I came up with two possible small changes, plus some thoughts on the modern age. Sorry that it's long winded.

The first is to permit steam power without requiring chemistry. There isn't a solid tie in the real world (you don't need chemistry to know that heated water boils, for example), and keeps a few options available to the player rather than jumping through the hoops for those chained techs.

That change alone may be enough, but I am also interested in a change to military science, possibly removing it as a prereq to chemistry. I'm not sold on it from a gameplay or real world standpoint but would take input (possibly make it follow military tradition or something along that train.

On to a bigger problem in the modern era, which is that the Motorized Infantry stats don't fit the role. It shows up too weak and too late in comparison to other units.

The Motorized infantry is on par with armor, but isn't available until people already have Heavy Tank, SAM and AT and are close to Paratroopers and Marines. The only advantage is the two movement, but the Heavy Tank is actually a better build - the MI only has a slight advantage fortified in a city on a hill (assuming the city defenses have been lowered).

After that the Mechanized Infantry appears far too late to be viable; the Main Battle Tank is in full force by that point.

I actually think that having near total domination by Heavy Tanks for a period of time is historically reasonable, but the MI should be beefed up to start providing a reasonable match by the time it appears - and better than the other build options.

I'm not good at balance, but here's a first shot...
Recommendation:
Motorized Infantry strength increased to 22 and cost lowered to 225, and movement reduced to 1.

This gives it a slight advantage against an unpromoted Heavy Tank when defending a city, disadvantage in the field, and leaves the player with the choice of fast moving tanks or a slower stack with additional defense options.

Change the order of techs in the modern/future era to:
Computer -> Robotics -> Quantum Mechanics -> AI
(move the Air Cav and Lab to Computer)

This moves the Mech Infantry up close enough to show up against the Main Battle Tank, moves the free tech plus cottage bonuses back, and makes more real world sense. The problems to be resolved are QM (no unit or building benefits) - maybe leave the lab on QM.

Machine Gun (195:hammers: 18:strength: 1:move: +50% vs mounted and gunpowder, immune to collateral
Squad Infantry (195:hammers: 18:strength 1:move: +25% vs mounted and gunpowder
Anti-Tank (225:hammers: 18:strength: 1:move: +75% vs armored
SAM Infantry (225:hammers: 18:strength: 1:move: +75% vs helicopters, +50% vs air
Motorized Infantry (240:hammers: 20:strength: 2:move: +20% city defense, +20% vs gunpowder
Paratrooper (160:hammers: 24:strength 1:move: can paradrop 7)
Marine (240:hammers: 24:strength: 1:move: +50% attack vs machine gun/artillery, amphib
Heavy Tank (270:hammers: 26:strength: 2:move:)
 
I will make Motorized inf :strength: 24 and 2 :move: and remove all other bonuses from them. Probably make them cost the same as Marines/Paratroopers.

As for Chemistry and Steam Power, I'll see what I can do. The industrial age does seem sort of bottlenecked.
 
Something slightly unrelated but...

Playing as Brennus (Celts) tonight; unique unit & building clash!

Unique unit, Swordsman (str 5, not 6) doesnt need iron but starts with Guerilla.

Unique building, Dun (walls) unit start with Guerilla.

So there isn't really any bonus to your unique unit if you already have the building. I just wondered if the free promomotion could be changed to something else, so it doesnt over lap.

PS. intersting game, I dont think i've ever used a Pro leader before, but he is proving to be very useful so far, particularly since one of my cities has been in constant revolution for over 3000 years! A fantastic addition to the strategic layer of the game!
 
Something slightly unrelated but...

Playing as Brennus (Celts) tonight; unique unit & building clash!

Unique unit, Swordsman (str 5, not 6) doesnt need iron but starts with Guerilla.

Unique building, Dun (walls) unit start with Guerilla.

So there isn't really any bonus to your unique unit if you already have the building. I just wondered if the free promomotion could be changed to something else, so it doesnt over lap.

Melee units like swordsmen and their unique versions normally can't get the guerilla promotion. So if the guerilla promotion weren't given to the Gallic Warrior expressly, then they wouldn't get it. Axemen, spearmen, pikemen and heavy footmen build by Brennus won't get the free guerilla promotion from the Dun (the heavy footman can get it if it is an upgraded gallic warrior).

By the way, I've seen this remark regularly in the forums as it works the same in unmodded BTS. Many players don't realise that the free guerilla promotion from the Dun wouldn't affect the gallic warrior.
 
I'm going to bump back up the woodsman promo. It's just ******ed to me that a woody2 unit fights worse then a default unit in woods when attacking. I heard the previous arguments, but that's the thing, under the old system woodsman was a worthwhile promo, now not so much, so its going back to how it was. +90% at woody3.
 
I'm going to bump back up the woodsman promo. It's just ******ed to me that a woody2 unit fights worse then a default unit in woods when attacking. I heard the previous arguments, but that's the thing, under the old system woodsman was a worthwhile promo, now not so much, so its going back to how it was. +90% at woody3.

It was the guerilla promotion that was the biggest problem as it allowed much better bonuses against hill based cities than city raider promotions, so I can live with a better woodsman than guerilla promotion. Although, I don't think these promotions work very elegant now and never worked well in standard BTS.

The core of the problem actually is the huge defence bonus that forests offer and that has been that way since vanilla civ4. A bad design decision by Firaxis if you ask me. +25% would have been more than enough to give woodland defenders very good odds.

When I read your posts, then it seems that you actually want the various woodsman and guerilla promotions to work in a way that they defeat units with lesser promotions in this area. So woodsman I axeman has good odds against unpromoted axeman in the woods, woodsman II axeman has good odds against woodsman I axeman in the woods, woodsman III axeman had good odds against woodsman II axeman in the woods. Similar for guerilla units attacking hill based units.

Both with the standard BTS bonuses and with the LoR bonuses this is not the case. A woodsman I axeman will lose attacking an unpromoted axeman in the woods, a woodsman II axeman will lose attacking a woodsman I axeman in the woods and a woodsman III axeman will lose attacking a woodsman II axeman in the woods.

It is easily possible to give the higher promoted woodsman units good odds against lower promoted woodsman units without needing huge bonuses.
 
Top Bottom