Late Game War Tedium Discussion

[Stalker0]

One of the issues with the late game that makes people want to finish early is the "tedium" of late game warfare. Lets dig in to talk through why its tedious, and what can be done.

Pause between Actions
I notice two distinctive areas where the game noticeably "pauses" actions. compounded turn after turn it slows the game down.

• Aircraft Attacks: Even with no animations, there is a noticeable delay between when a plane attack and the game shifts to the next attacking unit.
• Paradrops: There is a weird delay between when a unit starts the paradrop and it shows up on the screen.

Large Unit Counts
Everything is bigger in the late game, including armies. More units means more attacks. Is there a way to reasonable curb the amount of units in the late game but still allow for the feeling of "world wars" and the like.

Dinky Attacks
Its not hard to have a lot of attacks in the late game that do very little actual damage. A few examples:

• Dauntless Melee Ships: It is quite possible to do 5 or even less damage to these ships in some circumstances.
• Machine Guns: The gap between machine guns and bazookas it quite large in many games, and I find their damage often doesn't keep up, especially when used against naval ships. Its common for a machine gun to do 10 or less damage to a unit.
• Artillery vs Infantry: While they can do splash damage, they do very little actual damage, so a large artillery mass just feels like a click fest.
• City Attacks: Again a large gap between arsenal and military bases, and I find that city attack damage just doesn't keep up. I will often just ignore the city attacks because they do so little damage.

Army Movement
@vern squad mod does a lot to help this issue (its a must have for me at this point), but even that is not a perfect solution, as I find its not the best to use when your army is near danger (the motions are too random to trust). So moving around armies or large navies can be a big time sink.

 

[CppMaster]

Pause between Actions
I notice two distinctive areas where the game noticeably "pauses" actions. compounded turn after turn it slows the game down.

• Aircraft Attacks: Even with no animations, there is a noticeable delay between when a plane attack and the game shifts to the next attacking unit.
• Paradrops: There is a weird delay between when a unit starts the paradrop and it shows up on the screen.

It's so strange I consider it as a bug.

 

[MIS]

I notice AI's declare on me when I'm winning even if they have a smaller army (by "Military Power" score). This makes no sense irl and contributes to late-game war.

 

[azum4roll]

Large Unit Counts
Everything is bigger in the late game, including armies. More units means more attacks. Is there a way to reasonable curb the amount of units in the late game but still allow for the feeling of "world wars" and the like.

Changes to the supply formula should hopefully fix that, by keeping late game supply roughly the same as pre-Industrial.

Dinky Attacks
Its not hard to have a lot of attacks in the late game that do very little actual damage. A few examples:

• Dauntless Melee Ships: It is quite possible to do 5 or even less damage to these ships in some circumstances.
• Machine Guns: The gap between machine guns and bazookas it quite large in many games, and I find their damage often doesn't keep up, especially when used against naval ships. Its common for a machine gun to do 10 or less damage to a unit.
• Artillery vs Infantry: While they can do splash damage, they do very little actual damage, so a large artillery mass just feels like a click fest.
• City Attacks: Again a large gap between arsenal and military bases, and I find that city attack damage just doesn't keep up. I will often just ignore the city attacks because they do so little damage.

When more units can hit a single unit (everything has higher range and more movement), the only reasonable balance is lowering the damage OR raising the HP.

 

[stii]

Changing supply seems ideal. there is no reason for it to just keep going up and up. If you only have 40 units it is much less of an issue.

 

[msw1]

I agree supply count is too high late in the game. It's not fun to manage hundreds of units, but there's no choice if the other civs all have hundreds of units themselves. Reducing this would probably also help a lot with turn lag in the late game from all the civs moving their hundreds of units.

Not sure if it's possible, but something like this modmod should really be incorporated into the base mod eventually: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/qol-squads-group-movement-rts-style-control-groups.682627/. Having to move every single unit individually is incredibly tedious.

 

[Anarcomu]

I think a combination of the following could do the trick for the late game :

• Reduce supply,
• Increase unit costs and upkeep,
• Increase strategics cost for units (double it ?)
• Reduce cities strength/increase overall units strength

The idea is to make individual units worth more -maybe two time- than they do now. This way you have the same force projection with less units on the map. It also makes military CS more valuable in the late game as a side effect.

There were complains that CS differences from upgrade in the late game is less noticeable, increasing CS gradually could solve this if it is indeed considered a problem.

 

[alchx]

Reduce population growth rate from food bonuses, CSs quests rewards, caravans, culture influence over trade partner and religion. This will affect both the %% supply from the city and the speed of construction of buildings or production of units, generation of gold, science, and culture.

If the city provides 30% of the supplies from the population, then 20 citizens will provide 6 units. Plus various flat supplies from barracks, military, academies, lighthouse, seaport.

Cities with 20 citizens have existed since before 1800. That's quite a lot. Such massive population growth should begin after the adoption of the tenets of ideologies and technological progress, when there are various factories and hospitals.

Perhaps, at the time of adoption of the ideology, it will be necessary to increase flat supply +5 or +10, as something symbolizing the improvement of the logistics of the empire. Or you can add a +1 supply modifier to various technologies - the study of roads, railways, technologies that speed up movement on roads and lengthen caravan routes.

This will allow you to form several armies or fleets in different parts of the map by the late game, so that you can still have the opportunity to wage several parallel wars, or defend allied CSs or your colonies.

 

[ma_kuh]

For addressing Large Unit Counts, I like the idea of increasing the supply cost of "premium" units, like horses, tanks, boats (even aircraft, but they're special). As the game progresses, you can then start to field a high tech army with fewer individual units and clicks, or move towards more of a "swarm" army with lots of foot soldiers, as you prefer and are able.

So a starting point for talking about some numbers:
- Melee: 1 sup <--- maybe swords could be 2 sup to reflect their increased maintenance, and give them some HP as compensation (they're already very tanky though)
- Ranged: 1 sup
- Gunpowder: 1 sup
- Siege: 1 sup <--- could bump it to 2 supply at cannons or field guns, to reflect their increasing prevalence as ranged-replacements with better targeting options; compensate if needed
- Mounted (melee and ranged): 2 sup <--- could give them HP and a little CS to compensate for eating up more of your army space, also helps differentiate armies in the early game, and could be a space where UU only cost 1 sup as a boon (Hunnic horse archer, for example?)
- Light tank, helicopter: 2 sup
- Armor (melee): 3 sup <--- currently seen as the best unit to field, so a nerf isn't outlandish, give them significant HP boost but lesser CS boost to compensate for fewer slots in your army

I liked the idea that was thrown around for naval having its own supply cap, but absent that, I would say something like:
- Galley, liburna: 1 sup
- Trireme - Ironclad: 2 sup
- Galleass - Cruiser: 2 sup
- Destroyer+, Dreadnought+, Submarine+: 3 sup
- Carrier, Supercarrier: 4 sup

Is this granularity of supply costs something that's feasible to add? And is it a direction others think would be helpful?

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think upending the entire supply schema is a great idea. Now, could I maybe see a few adjustments for late game units....possibly. But I don't think we should completely change supply numbers across the board, that's a massive adjustment. Late game is where the supply problem is at, late game should be the focus.

I'm trying to remember what all gives supply in the later parts of the game? (aka industrial+)

• Arsenals
• Hospitals
• Military Base
• Motherland Calls wonder
• military academies

 

[MIS]

Maybe may Modern Era + Units stronger, but they cost 1.5 or 2 supply?

 

[azum4roll]

I don't think upending the entire supply schema is a great idea. Now, could I maybe see a few adjustments for late game units....possibly. But I don't think we should completely change supply numbers across the board, that's a massive adjustment. Late game is where the supply problem is at, late game should be the focus.

I'm trying to remember what all gives supply in the later parts of the game? (aka industrial+)

• Arsenals
• Hospitals
• Military Base
• Motherland Calls wonder
• military academies

I already listed all sources in the other thread.

 

[FinMc]

I think ~80 supply is about the ideal size for a late game warmonger. Perhaps a little larger if you're min/maxing Autocracy army size.

I think that tanks/battleships/other premier units should cost more, but I can't decide how. I think armies having a hi-low mix is fun and presents interesting choices: where should I commit my most advanced/best units?

There are essentially 3 different costs for a unit, gold, supply, resources. I have no idea which one to increase to limit the amount of tanks (for example). It's hard to think through the gameplay/balance impacts for each.

 

[L. Vern]

Considering the recent work being done with the strategic resource spawning numbers rebalance, I wonder how people would feel about making units that cost resources slightly to moderately stronger but double supply (and probably more )

with the idea being that deploying for example longswordsmen instead of pikemen would mean you're being significantly more tile efficient if you can support the supply cost. Would also mean less micro overall

Also I think this is something that would still need to be done alongside at least a small supply reduction, there's just way too many units sometimes

 

[alchx]

Considering the recent work being done with the strategic resource spawning numbers rebalance, I wonder how people would feel about making units that cost resources slightly to moderately stronger but double supply (and probably more )

with the idea being that deploying for example longswordsmen instead of pikemen would mean you're being significantly more tile efficient if you can support the supply cost. Would also mean less micro overall

Also I think this is something that would still need to be done alongside at least a small supply reduction, there's just way too many units sometimes

Units that require strategic resources do not need to be made stronger than they are. They initially have additional capabilities.

Horse - units are able to move 4-5 tiles. This is twice as far as infantry. Able to retreat after an attack.
Iron - the first Swordsman unit has a free promo 'protection from ranged attacks' and +10 hp
Iron - artillery. Bonus attack against cities, AoE compared to galting or machine guns.
Coal - cruisers are long-range naval units that are very strong when advancing "against naval and land units". If we take “against cities”, then the cruiser becomes a glass cannon and sinks with one poke. When played carefully with ranged units, they have a very high 'damage dealt/received' efficiency.
Oil - tanks - 4 movements, +25% in defense. Airplanes. Aircraft carrier is the most versatile unit in the game - either 4 slots or maximum armor. Can be used as a defensive wall and hide the rest of the fleet behind it if you take full armor. Very strong. Able to intercept aircraft independently and can shoot remotely.
Aluminum - "new age skirmishers" light tanks and helicopters. Hit-and-run. 5 movements. Mechanized infantry can't do that.

In addition, there are monopoly bonuses.

 

[alchx]

Reducing the unit limit too much can cause the AI to start losing wars faster, since the AI's favorite tactic of 'lining up units' (to neutralize enemy's flank bonuses, neutralize hit-and-run tactics, get their own flank bonuses) will be fewer options.

 

[Stalker0]

Reducing the unit limit too much can cause the AI to start losing wars faster, since the AI's favorite tactic of 'lining up units' (to neutralize enemy's flank bonuses, neutralize hit-and-run tactics, get their own flank bonuses) will be fewer options.

And this has commonly been the counterpoint when this discussion has been had previously (and believe me, we have circled this a few times).

We haven't really come up with an answer other that:

1) Make the AI smarter....which has happened over time but its always a challenge.
2) Make the change and let the AI suffer

 

[CppMaster]

I wouldn't worry about AI. It would have the same rules. It can always be improved anyway. Also, with less units AI would need fewer simulations to find optimal actions.

 

[alchx]

By the way, about the influence of the city’s population on the size of the armies. Version 3.0.4, so policy trees are different.

As you can see in the screenshot, Satsuma has 29 Citizens on turn 314. Japan chose Authority, Artistry, Imperialism, Order.
Japan does not have a Fealty tree, which gives significant bonuses to internal caravans (food, hammers). However, the population is huge. And it's not even a capital city.

For comparison, there are two CSs nearby, which have 16 and 17 citizens. It seems to me that the non-capital cities of the empire should be in the same range (+30..+50% if a lot of caravans are used).

Japan has opened or will soon open Arsenals, that is, every resident of a non-coastal city automatically raises the unit limit by +0.3 (I don’t remember all the numbers, but I count +30% of the population). If Satsuma's population were 19 units, Japan's military limit would be lower by 3 units. With a population of 25 - lower by 1.2.

Japan has 6 cities. If we assume that the average surplus in each city is 5 citizens, then this is 30 extra citizens. 9 military units.

Only some Wonders of the World increase the limit by 10 units at once. But here it happened simply due to the excess population - after all, a city with 30 citizens in 1882 was incredibly overpopulated.

 

[azum4roll]

All units with a strategic resource cost are also additionally more expensive to build (minus lategame ships). We don't need a third disadvantage tacked onto them

By the way, about the influence of the city’s population on the size of the armies. Version 3.0.4, so policy trees are different.

As you can see in the screenshot, Satsuma has 29 Citizens on turn 314. Japan chose Authority, Artistry, Imperialism, Order.
Japan does not have a Fealty tree, which gives significant bonuses to internal caravans (food, hammers). However, the population is huge. And it's not even a capital city.

For comparison, there are two CSs nearby, which have 16 and 17 citizens. It seems to me that the non-capital cities of the empire should be in the same range (+30..+50% if a lot of caravans are used).

Japan has opened or will soon open Arsenals, that is, every resident of a non-coastal city automatically raises the unit limit by +0.3 (I don’t remember all the numbers, but I count +30% of the population). If Satsuma's population were 19 units, Japan's military limit would be lower by 3 units. With a population of 25 - lower by 1.2.

View attachment 677506

There's a huge tech divisor on supply from population.
.