Unit design theory.

The point of all this is to demonstrate that Panzers are under-powered in relation to other UUs, BUT if they were to be adjusted to be comparably powerfult they could risk unbalancing the game...

Although Mod Armor, which WOULD balance the game is right around the corner...

One of the problems with more advanced UUs is that the ratio of unit improvement needs to be around 40% to be competitive with other nations UUs. 40% is about average...

I measured this by estimating the shield cost for all units based on their statistics, then comparing their cost against their estimated value.

E.g. Swordsman = A3, D2, M1/Cost 30s.
Basic value (A1.D1.M1) = 10s.
+ 2A + 1D = 3 units = 30s.
10s + 30s = 40s.
Resource requirement Iron = -10s.
Total value = 30s.
V30s = C30s, so Swordsman are worth 100% of their cost.

E.g. Knight = A4, D3, M1/Cost 70s.
Basic value = (A1.D1.M1) = 10s.
Movement 2 = + 20s (retreat bonus makes move =2 much more valuable than it appears -- otherwise all attribute gains = 1 unit/10s.)
+3A + 2D = 5 units = 50s.
10s + 20s + 50s = 80s.
Resource requirement Iron + Horse = -20s
Total value = 60s.
V60s < C70s, so Knights actually cost a little more than they are worth... They are worth 86% of their cost.

For the most part, Firaxis gave the basic units 100% of their value, but there are a few exceptions.

With Cavalry, the value of units in relation to their cost increases dramatically. Cavalry are worth about 120 shields (compared to, for example, a Swordsman) but only cost 80.

Musketmen are particularly weak, and much too expensive compared to their value. Pikemen are also weak.

Defensive units gains are not cost effective -- until Infantry (which are worth about 140 but cost 90.)

Then the mechanized units blow the top off of the value to cost equation... All of them are a steal.

This makes sense -- with Gunpowder the effectiveness of weapons Vs their cost SHOULD dramatically increase.

I think that pre-Gunpowder units should be valued consistantly at approximately 100% of their cost; Middle-Ages post-Gunpowder units should be valued at 150%, Industrial Age units at 200% and Modern units at 300%.

This is a GREAT find!

Can you help me out with the two mods I'm doing to help find their approiate cost? I'm never good at that.

Thanks.


Also, can you do this with improvements and stuff?

Thanks!

cd113 -

Thanks!

I could try -- I would feel more comfortable working out the stats for units than city improvements, but I could probably estimate something playing and satisfying.

PM me with what you have in mind. I would need the era of the units (Real-World dates,) weapons used, and some idea of what you want it to do...

Unfortunately i can't read xls documents, but it sounds very interesting. One thing you might want to consider is to not value the attack and defense on all units equally. For example, it's not quite as important what the musketman's attack value is compared to it's defense value. I build them for the defense of 4, and could care less what their attack value is.

But panzers can blitz 3 times in one turn, that's regular to elite if you're lucky. So you need to edit that into the cost, which is really intangible.

I see where you are coming from, but you also have to compare the unit vs. others in their era. Knights for example. Knights can defend like Pikemen, AND they have the best attack value (till Cavalry) AND they have 2 movement. 70 cost seems about right, considering this fact. The idea is to make other units which aren't as good, more likely to be built. If Knights were 60, then AI and human alike would only build knights for attack and defense and mobility, until better units came to replace them (Musketmen for example).

I think overall Firaxis has done a fine job on unit cost, and the UU's as well. There are a few UU's which aren't very good (like the Americans), but overall, I see no problems. The 40% improvement theory I don't see either...most units go up 1 or 2 at most in stats over the regular unit.

You can't base it just on raw numbers, you also have to look at what other units are available, too.

I agree with neomega about the panzers, I don't see how they are underpowered. That 1 extra movement point is valuable, and the extra attack per turn can make a BIG difference.

Quote: Musketmen are particularly weak, and much too expensive compared to their value. Pikemen are also weak.

Musketmen also are the most powerful defenders of their era, they can withstand even Cavalry assaults if entrenched. You have to factor these type of things in too.

Infantry are lower in cost, because Armor also has good defense. Later in the game, units should be able to be built for not much higher cost, as at some point you're going to hit a production wall.

Good ideas Mojotronica.
But I also understand and largely agree with Procifica.

I like to use a different approach when deciding the costs of different unit types....
....I start by looking at what that particular nation used most often IN REALITY, then arrange the costs so that unit type is cheaper, irrespective of it's actual stats, so that (hopefully) more of that type will be built.
(I'm a bit of a history nut I'm afraid. )

As we all know, almost every army in history (with the exception of the Byzantines and the many horse archer armies of the east Asian steppes such as the Huns/Mongols/Seljuk Turks etc), was composed of mainly foot troops with the mounted arm being a small minority.

Seeing huge armies of Cavalry in the Napoleonic times, or massive stacks of Immortals (when only 10,000 existed in reality....less than 5% of the total Persian army), is to me as unrealistic as having the Americans, English and French building Samurai!

very cool idea, and even if not perfect is a great barameter for determining appropriate unit costs.