Bringing Balance to... (series of Articles)

[MadDjinn]

I would say definitely remove all "lump sum for per turn" deals. Resources/GPT should only be traded for resources/GPT.

Solving this problem on the top level is not only easier, but works well. To me this solution is just as obvious as not allowing ROP-rape.

A human player never pays lump sum for per turn items, so why should the AI?

getting there.

it'll make more sense once the Diplo article is out.

making 'friends' will take more than them being on another landmass.

 

[MadDjinn]

Moving on to some Diplomacy, War and City States.

 

[Ianwill93]

What if they had some sort of International Stock Exchange/Commodities?
That would make trades alot easier. Then you'd perhaps have to prioritize getting your Resources bought and sold rather than trading with AIs.
That would probably add alot more depth to the trading system as well. It may add alot more than a fix though and would probably be too large a change for a patch.
Then RAs would sort of be a seperate thing handled between 2 players

 

[Ianwill93]

Maybe a World Bank as well so that we can choose from where we'd get loans?

 

[MadDjinn]

I finally got around to the next part.

Promotions, Upgrades, Combat and Units are next on the agenda.

 

[Rinnero]

Very good. I agree with almost everything. Maybe due to the fact that I've never thought about some of discussed issues. And I didnt even know about some of them: for example about UUs having no penalty against cities, or AAs having usual melee promotions.


But I dont see any reason for not converting ranged->melee->ranged promotions. I also still feel a gap in unit roles (anti-melee ranged) and melee >> mount.

Problem is not only about cavalry, its about all mounts.

All mounted units are worse than melees. They are harder to get, they all require strat res, they are weaker against cities, they have counter unit, and the worst is that they do not recieve rough terrain bonus and cant be fortified. What we get in exchange? +1-2 move and ability to move after attack... Not that cool actually, compared to outstanding +75%CS of fortified in hills melee... Its HUGE advantage. Sophisticated combat plans are harder in MP because of double turn and click fest (you need to click fast to retreat after attack, and you need to be careful watching over your mounts, because they are less reliable in defence)

If melees were 10-20% weaker than now, and if they had a counter unit, than melees and mounts would have been perfectly balanced.
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?108061-Unit-types-and-their-roles

 

[MadDjinn]

Very good. I agree with almost everything. Maybe due to the fact that I've never thought about some of discussed issues. And I didnt even know about some of them: for example about UUs having no penalty against cities, or AAs having usual melee promotions.


But I dont see any reason for not converting ranged->melee->ranged promotions. I also still feel a gap in unit roles (anti-melee ranged) and melee >> mount.

Problem is not only about cavalry, its about all mounts.

All mounted units are worse than melees. They are harder to get, they all require strat res, they are weaker against cities, they have counter unit, and the worst is that they do not recieve rough terrain bonus and cant be fortified. What we get in exchange? +1-2 move and ability to move after attack... Not that cool actually, compared to outstanding +75%CS of fortified in hills melee... Its HUGE advantage. Sophisticated combat plans are harder in MP because of double turn and click fest (you need to click fast to retreat after attack, and you need to be careful watching over your mounts, because they are less reliable in defence)

If melees were 10-20% weaker than now, and if they had a counter unit, than melees and mounts would have been perfectly balanced.
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?108061-Unit-types-and-their-roles

Ranged units are counters to melee units, especially after logistics. Crossbows (especially Longbows) do quite a bit of damage as they are upgraded. One shotting a Longsword is possible. If it's fortified (Ie, someone is very solidly set there) you can take promotions to cut into that bonus.

Mounted units counter ranged units and with charge can do decent damage to fortified melee units while others clean it up. If the +100% vs. mounted promotion gets dropped, Cavalry have the same CS as Rifles, and will clean them up quite well with the right promotions.

Granted, their best promotion is charge and it's currently too far into the promotion tree, hence why I want it brought down a level.

Move/attack/Move is the bonus mounted units have. I also want to bring the extra movement point promotion down one level, to help out mounted units.

As well, the fact that you can just go around the close units and pillage/trash an enemies territory.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

Just read the latest part, great read. Thank you very much.

Regarding doing 0 damage, and taking 0 damage. Who would get xp?
I could immagine farming xp, and exploiting the system.

A little in the same direction, xp for AA units. At the moment they do not get xp for succesfull interceptions, so how do you expect them to be promoted?

Finally, remove indirect fire on subs, it allows them to torpedo over land.

 

[MadDjinn]

Just read the latest part, great read. Thank you very much.

Regarding doing 0 damage, and taking 0 damage. Who would get xp?
I could immagine farming xp, and exploiting the system.

A little in the same direction, xp for AA units. At the moment they do not get xp for succesfull interceptions, so how do you expect them to be promoted?

Finally, remove indirect fire on subs, it allows them to torpedo over land.

ah thanks!

I knew I was forgetting a piece of the puzzle. XP!

The zero XP question is a puzzle to consider:

for ranged attacks, if you attack something and do 0 damage, then you're at ~1:3 combat strength ratio (26% chance for 0 damage) or higher, approaching 100% 'miss chance' at higher CS ratios. That is, the thing you're shooting can do 10+ damage to you if it attacks you. If you're only at 2 range, then it's plausible the unit would just stomp you at it's leisure. If attacking a city, the city can eventually choose to attack back.

So... Do we just consider it 'experience in the field' or do we worry about the high CS unit/city never attacking you back?

I can likely see this as an issue for 3 ranged units if we give XP. They can attack a high CS city and never break it down, all the while gaining XP for higher strengths/etc. But at what point does it matter? A highly promoted Crossbow gets dropped in as a Rifleman, so that XP is partially useless. (some promotions transfer properly) If my alternative upgrade path is used, then we could see some OP cannons. Though, unless in a marathon game, I'm not sure you'd have the time to farm/upgrade OP units like that.

Artillery are strong enough to damage GDRs, so any '0 damage' they do will just be random misses. Not giving XP in that case (assumption is a hit will occur more often than not) breaks the 'experience' side of things.

But giving XP to Longbows who sit outside of an 80 defence city doing no damage is little odd. (assumption is no damage likely)

Melee units wouldn't be a problem, as they'll likely just die on impact.

Naval units wouldn't matter, as their ranged strength damage vs. cities is pretty pathetic. (no bombardment or siege +% given) So even if they had logistics, the worst they could do is level up to be a threat to other naval vessels. That's a minor issues as other ships should have been used to kill the first one earlier. Unless of course Frigates were upgrading to Battleships. At which point (during early Industrial Era) there could be a window of 0 damage likely out of those Frigates, but gaining the XP would be great for the upgrade to Bships.

Air units seem to take damage all the time, and come right at the end, so I'm not sure lacking experience is a good thing for them. It's only really Fighters doing ranged attacks (-50% RA strength = ~20ish RA) that might do 0 damage. Even then, it'd have to be a GDR or high defence city. All other air units have sufficiently high Combat strength that they can hit anything and do damage.

For taking 0 damage, I'd still give XP, just due to the fact that you're getting attacked.

So...

On one side there's the unit that 'missed' but had a chance to do damage, and on the other side there's a unit that had no chance to do damage, but if the other unit sneezes they'll die.

I'm not sure which way I'd go on this one, yet. Thoughts on the subject are appreciated.

For AA, I'd definitely give XP for interceptions and when they get airswept. They'd also get XP if melee or ranged attacked. I should pay a bit more attention next time, but I think Fighters/Jets don't get XP right now performing Air sweeps. They should, since they get damaged.

Subs + Indirect fire: yeah, it's a very silly promotion for them to have, same for the whole bombardment line.

It's the same for Carriers. Why would they need promotions? Targeting and the extra movement/Supply make sense, but nothing else does. Logistics/Range/Indirect Fire would be a big waste there.

I'll have to work some of that in, or make a 'part 5' for XP.

Similarly, I've recently noticed that you get 0 gold if you kill Air units, but have Honour filled out. That's not right.

 

[Rinnero]

I dont think exp deserves a separate part. My first thought was:
1) if both sides didnt take any damage, no exp is gained to anyone.(ranged attack dealing 0 damage). In all other cases exp is gained as usually
2) add additional ways to get exp for AA-units, air-sweep and so on.

Do you think these two simple changes are not enough?

The most significant problem with exp is instant heal. If ranged attack deals less than 3 damage (and that happens often), it will probably be harmful for you. That is strange paradox that you shouldnt damage enemy units sometimes.

But that problem is most easily solved by just removing instant heal.

Actually, if you want to get to other microproblems like farming exp by having fortified melee near CS that can get these 2exp/turn as long as you want... I dont see simple solution for this.

Complete rework of exp system could've been like this:
1) xp for fight is reduced by half (1xp/shot, 2xp/fight)
2) for kill you get 10 xp (even by ranged), for capturing a city you get 20 xp
3) if killed unit is one era behind of killer, xp gained is halfed (5xp). 20xp if it's one era ahead.
This can encourage real fighting, and reward you for killing more advanced units.
Or we can make xp-system even more thoughtful/complicated, so that you receive more xp by dealing more damage, or by attacking stronger units.

But do we need it? I'm not sure.

Ranged units are counters to melee units, especially after logistics. Crossbows (especially Longbows) do quite a bit of damage as they are upgraded. One shotting a Longsword is possible. If it's fortified (Ie, someone is very solidly set there) you can take promotions to cut into that bonus.

Mounted units counter ranged units and with charge can do decent damage to fortified melee units while others clean it up. If the +100% vs. mounted promotion gets dropped, Cavalry have the same CS as Rifles, and will clean them up quite well with the right promotions.

Granted, their best promotion is charge and it's currently too far into the promotion tree, hence why I want it brought down a level.

Move/attack/Move is the bonus mounted units have. I also want to bring the extra movement point promotion down one level, to help out mounted units.

As well, the fact that you can just go around the close units and pillage/trash an enemies territory.

First, it clearly shows you lack MP experience. I'm not saying that everything you said is wrong, nor I'm saying that i'm mega pro. It's just things you described work only theoretically. Things dont go as smoothly as you described. But I think that you can still understand and analyze what I'll explain now.


In MP its really very hard to have so promoted units. Enemy will try to actually kill your units. You cant have few warriors going through ages to mech infantry. Units will die, its inevitable.

So, you need xp buildings to have promoted army. But that takes time to build and you have to pay maintenance. For example, you can have 3 units lvl2 or 4units lvl1. In game such two armies lead to stalemate, because one side will be defending, and when you defend you can successfully do it having less totalCS/firepower. But overall four lvl1 units will be more effective than three lvl2 units (against, for example, two lvl1 units being in defence). That is mostly because of instant heals. That means that lvl1 units are not that worse, or even better than lvl2 units, because of instant heals. lvl3 units are a little better than lvl1. But that means that you need 2 additional buildings in each your city. You cant build units only in one city. In case of military activity you need all your cities produce units. The conclusion is that you need to spend hammers, you could have spent for new units or other buildings, but the benefit of this is not that big. I assure you, instant heal is very strong thing.

About promotions. Logistics is extremely great promotion. Basically it doubles your attack and xp. Lvl5 (100xp) is too low requirements for it. Really, compare it with charge, that you say is great. Its only 25%CS added. The same goes for "if target is fortified" promotion. BUT, you forget about "the usual choice", +20% in rough terrain. That means that if you choose charge instead of +20% in rough terrain, you will be only 5% stronger. It wont solve a problem breaking through fortified melee at hill. Leave alone +1 movement promo, that you get instead of +20-25%CS. And with movement 3, mounts cant move-attack-move. Melees usually move through rough terrain, thats why if you dont stand at adjascent tile at the beginning of turn, you will only move one tile to get closer, than spend 2 move points to attack. Just like any 2move point melee. If you stand near enemy you want to attack, its too dangerous for mount, cause it doesnt have rough terrain or fortifying bonuses, and its unlikely that you will be able to make 2 actions (attack and retreat) without being attacked at least once. (if ping is equal)

About mounts being counter for ranged and good for pilaging. Mounts really can attack ranged units before being shot. But such situation is almost nonexistent if both players are decent. Melees always move in front of. Melee:Ranged ratio is usually higher than 2:1 and its very hard to attack such army from undefended side. Even if you will be able to do this, this is a suicide mission. Enemy will kill that mount without losing anyone: two attacks with same-era melee is enough. And you need 2,5:1 CS ratio to kill that ranged in one hit, but usually mount:ranged CS ratio is only 2:1. And also, such maneuvaring means that this unit have to spend more turns going to battlefield around. That is why pillaging is also bad idea unless you can destroy strategic res: your mount spent 10 turns going around to pillage something, but enemy had just build a unit and it is ready to fight your mount. This factor might seem not important, but it is. And you dont need high tech mount to pillage, even horseman or scout will do. I agree, such pillaging may be a nuisance, but the result of such raid is not always more beneficial than having additional unit at real battlefield (where most units are).

And the last one: calculations.
To "one shot" longswordsman with longbowman with logistics, you need at least 1.5:1 ratio. That means LBM with +60%CS=3promos. Against LSM lvl1 standing on plains. And actually that is with two shots.
Now, lets get real. At 1:1 ratio ranged deals 3 damage. LS has 16*0.75+16=28CS at lvl1, simply by fortifying in hills. Crossbow will deal only 2 damage. It'll be 2damage even with one fortifying. How come this is counter? At the other hand, ranged kill everything else...
Cavalry lvl3 with rought terrain bonus and charge = 36CS. Rifleman lvl1 fortifying in hills= 44CS. Where is "do decent damage to fortified melee units"?

If you call ranged a melee-counter, than its rather ranged is good against everything. And melee is perfect in defence and good in attack. Just build melees and ranged and win. Kill everything and be unvulnerable. Right? Check link in my previous post and you'll see that with those changes such strategy wont work anymore.

Not saying everything I wrote is right. But at least it's things to think about and consider.

 

[MadDjinn]

One obvious problem I see with your argument is that you keep assuming Fortified melee units.

Don't you move your units, ever?

If their army is fortified, stay out of range and range kill them. it'll take a few more turns, but if they never move, then they're targets, not enemies.

Once they move, then you can trash them.

Oh, and I do have some MP experience. I've effectively used Lancers in MP (strangely) to do things I couldn't do in SP, like go around silly fortified positions and pillage/harass behind them.

 

[Rinnero]

Yes, I agree that you wont always have +50% fortify bonus. But being automatically +25% in most cases just by standing at rough terrain is already good bonus if you compare it with mounts. Also, good mp player always fortifies his melees right at the beginning of turn. That means that the only best chance to attack melee is when it had just moved, and therefore has "only" +25% due to rough terrain. By the way, these +75%CS of melee is the main reason why being in defence is better.

Also, comparing melee and ranged is not right thing to do. I never did it, or said that melees are better than ranged. Look at this:
"Just build melees and ranged and win. Kill everything and be unvulnerable. Right?"

Melees alone are very versatile: they are perfect in defence, can capture cities or attack, they dont have any weaknesses due to which they wouldve died very fast.

Ranged are great, because they shoot from far away and do not receive counter-damage, they also can concentrate fire more easily. They kill both cities and any units. If you say that dealing 2hp to fortified melee is ok and that it is "counter" to them, than imagine what happens with mounts or anti-mounts/tanks. They die twice faster.

Melees can withstand damage better than anyone else, and ranged's only weakness is that they are vulnerable in close combat. Combine these two types of units and you get perfect army that can fight against anyone. You can "trash" melees when they move, and you can "trash" anyone else even if they didnt. Right? Melees shouldnt even do anything but being targets and capturing cities.

The only way to fight such army is to have the same army. That is the worst what can happen when balancing anything. So the fights are: melees stand in front of ranged, ranged shoot to enemy's melees.


I know that you play MP. I watched those streams . Unfortunately they (enemies) were noobs. Instead of playing with random people, play against someone you know, ManofDoom for example. That would be much more competetive, when each your move should be carefully analyzed.

 

[MadDjinn]

Yes, I agree that you wont always have +50% fortify bonus. But being automatically +25% in most cases just by standing at rough terrain is already good bonus if you compare it with mounts. Also, good mp player always fortifies his melees right at the beginning of turn. That means that the only best chance to attack melee is when it had just moved, and therefore has "only" +25% due to rough terrain. By the way, these +75%CS of melee is the main reason why being in defence is better.
[...]
The only way to fight such army is to have the same army. That is the worst what can happen when balancing anything. So the fights are: melees stand in front of ranged, ranged shoot to enemy's melees.

So if Melee are vulnerable when they move, don't you think that's a good time to attack them? Especially when they have no MP left to attack back against the mounted units. If they just sit there, then they're contained and you can go elsewhere.

I'm not saying it's always easy, but it's never as hard as you are trying to portray.

Anywhom, I did aim to give mounted units some adjustments to make them have a better utility. Plus cut down some of the ranged units OP'ness.

And for that melee unit, it's getting focus fired by ranged units. So 4-5 shots doing 2-3 damage each is just fine. (at least for an RA==CS attack)

I know that you play MP. I watched those streams . Unfortunately they (enemies) were noobs. Instead of playing with random people, play against someone you know, ManofDoom for example. That would be much more competetive, when each your move should be carefully analyzed.

the first one was clearly nooby. The teamer game was a bit less so. Otherwise, I do play with MoD and a few others every Sunday in ffa games. They inevitably come down to MoD and I fighting each other, mostly for no reason. (the last time was due to one of his warriors getting stuck behind my culture borders...)

 

[Rinnero]

Yes, I already said that its better to attack them after they move, and even in that case they will deal more counterdamage to attacking mounts.

I see only one way to effectively defend: line up mounts, when someone comes closer, you hit one unit by two mounts and retreat. If you are lucky (5damage. if you are unlucky you'll deal 4 damage) you kill one unit, but lose none. You can heal for 3 turns and get back to fight. That is good and you can do it almost regardless of ping (if enemy moves his units last second, you wont have time to think, react and click to attack and retreat twice).

But still it has disadvantages:
- you cant place ranged behind such line of mounts because they need some room to retreat and its dangerous to have ranged without someone in front of them (but remember how strong ranged are)
- enemy loses 1 unit permanently (it dies), but you lose 2 units for 3 turns (to heal). Of course first is worse, but enemy may gain huge strategic advantage due to such temporal unactivity of your mounts. Also, being in defence means you have less units and primary objective is to save as much time as you can to equal balance of forces (attacker on the other side needs to achieve some goal, usually capture a city, as quick as he can, even at cost of high loses).
- both in defence and in attack you need an ability to hold position at all costs for as long as you can. In defence you shouldnt allow enemy to place his ranged in a position to attack city. In attack you have to place few units near city to protect ranged and to be ready to capture city. Losing such key positions often brings a lot of problems...
- such strategy and mounts overall are surprisingly even worse in attack, cause enemy wont move units at all. Defender will place his units in front of his border city. If you try to go around, that harms you, lenghtening your way to battlefield. If you go around with few mounts, rush buying a wall or castle is all that is needed to stop you. If you concentrate significant forces for sneak attack, its possible for enemy to relocate most of his units by roads quite quickly. That is still good for attacker, but mounts' speed wont help you as you have to wait for ranged, and good player will see potential flaws in defence.

Ranged dealing 1damage werent that big problem in mp.

4-5shots means an instant heal promotion, and its impossible to place ranged to concentrate fire of more than 3 of you ranged before artillery.



Ok, maybe mounts are not THAT worse than melees. Lets assume they are (almost same). But they do have obvious counter units that have +100% CS! That is death to any mounts. Try to start in medieval or reneissance... Those 3 spears/pikes kill all incentive to build mounts. And nothing can stop you from building some at any era. On the other hand Im not afraid of building melees if enemy has a lot of ranged.

And I still think that melees are better (to some degree) than mounts even without building pikes.

 

[bc1]

I know this thread is kinda oldish... yet a lot of ideas are great and have not been adressed by Firaxis in G&K: is(are) there mod(s) that do ?
Thanks.