Unit Balance Suggestions?

[AveiMil]

Hey there!

This Unit Change List is no longer used, refer to the latest changes updated in post #23.

I’m slightly modifying my BTS to suit my own sense of unit balance as I felt some of the units (at least unique units) are either a bit too weak or powerful.

Here’s the unit changes I’ve made so far:

Jaguar:
• Power increased to 6 instead of 5.
• Cost increased to 40 from 35 (matches Swordsman)
• Retains Woodsman I

This is basically a Swordsman with Woodsman I now; however it also has the advantage of not requiring Iron or Copper which is not insignificant.

Quechua:
• 100% versus Archers removed
• Starts with Combat I, Shock and Cover promotions

Praetorian:
• Power decreased to 7 instead of 8
• Gains 15% City Attack

This means the unit still attack at 8 versus cities but operate on 7 out in the field.

Gallic Warrior:
• Starts with Guerilla II instead of I.

Holkan:
• Gains free promotion Shock.

Impi:
• Gains free promotion Shock.

Carrack:
• Movement increased by 1.

East Indiaman:
• Movement increased by 1.

What do you think of these changes?

Are there any other units (or even buildings) that could benefit from some minor tweaking? Suggestions?

I’ve attached the CIV4UnitInfos.xml with the changes.

Note that this file was originally from the BUG MOD 3.6 (I load the changes via BUG MOD (by editing their original)). Not certain why this .XML file was included in the BUG MOD, but I’m guessing they’ve made some changes to the units to accommodate the interface changes.

Thanks for reading,
AveiMil

 

[CivMcNut]

Those look like some solid change suggestions. The game itself would be better balanced if they had changes like that. You're giving boosts to the weak units and taking away a tad from the strong ones. It'd be a good addition to the game IMO.

 

[Phrossack]

These are pretty nice!

Today, in my first successful attempt to change something in the XML, I made Keshiks replace Knights, as they were a medieval unit. They differ from Knights in that they aren't immune to first strikes, have a movement of 3 and a 20% withdrawal chance, and start with Drill 1.

 

[Atranox]

Your changes look very solid. I don't have experience with all of the civs, so I may be off on a few of these suggestions. On paper, these look a bit underpowered in comparison to other UU's/UB's:

Ballista Elephant - It's bonus currently is that it prioritizes attacks to mounted units in it's attacks. This is extremely powerful, but it doesn't work in city attacks. Stack vs stack combat generally doesn't occur very often outside of city attacks, so this bonus often can go unused. However, it would probably be too powerful to gain the bonus for city attacks. IMO, it could use some other very minor bonus.

Panzer - It currently gets +50% vs Tanks. It's a good bonus, but Tanks don't generally last in the game very long before they're upgraded to Modern Armor. Plus the AI doesn't seem to build many tanks. I've used Panzers quite a few times, in both games I'm winning and losing, and I very rarely run into AI armies with many Tanks.

Oromo Warriors - These are pretty damn powerful. You might want to consider a minor nerf.

Ziggurat - The only bonus is that it's cheaper to build. Not terrible, but IMO it should decrease maintenance costs by 55 or 60% instead of 50%.

Sacrificial Altar - It decreases the unhappiness duration from sacrificing population using Slavery. It's completely useless unless you actively use Slavery.

 

[phungus420]

The most important change is to make Axeman strength 4. That single change actually balances out the ancient era armies, and makes the ancient era far more interesting. Try it if you don't believe me, the strength 5 axeman just pigeon holes armies into massed axed forces.

 

[Phrossack]

The most important change is to make Axeman strength 4. That single change actually balances out the ancient era armies, and makes the ancient era far more interesting. Try it if you don't believe me, the strength 5 axeman just pigeon holes armies into massed axed forces.

But that army would be crushed under the wheels of chariots, especially War Chariots.

 

[theskibum]

If memory serves, currently Quecha is 2 STR with combat 1 promo and 100% vs archery

If that is the case, then your change of giving them cover and shock and removing 100% vs. archery is excellent. This makes them a slightly better warrior rather than a super archer buster, which I like

 

[phungus420]

But that army would be crushed under the wheels of chariots, especially War Chariots.

This is not true. The AI never builds counter stacks. The ancient era is nothing but axe spam in default BtS.

Try Legends of Revolution, and see the difference 4 strength axes make. You actually have a reason to build other units. Also with Start as minors on you're under constant threat from AI mixed stacks, which makes things even more dynamic.

Anyway in unmodded BtS the optimal strategy is either a) Axe Rush, or b)Wonder Whore, at least on Monarch and above (below Monarch you can just warrior rush). If you simply make it so axes aren't insanely overpowering to all contemporary units (make them strength 4), suddenly building armies in the ancient era becomes more then just MAOR AXES LOL (with the occasional catapult). Further if you set up something like Start as Minors where civs are locked into war until they discover writing the begging game completely changes. The old Wonder Whoring strategy becomes far more difficult to pull off, plus the AI actually protects itself from worker stealing. Things are just far more dynamic. BtS has been out for a couple of years now, significant advances have been made in the game in that amount of time.

I also pretty much disagree with the OP's findings. For instance Quechua's are one of the stronger UUs in the game, they don't buffing. And Jags and Gallics can be better balanced by just cutting their cost. And the list is missing 2 of the most important changes, Preats need to be named Leagonaire's and nerfed, and Immortals need to be made into an infantry derivative instead of a mounted unit.

 

[Ghpstage]

I think you need to look at all the possible repurcussions of changes like these, considering things like leader traits, AI stupidities and especially with regards to promotions!

Jaguar:
• Power increased to 6 instead of 5.
• Cost increased to 40 from 35 (matches Swordsman)
• Retains Woodsman I

This is basically a Swordsman with Woodsman I now; however it also has the advantage of not requiring Iron or Copper which is not insignificant.

Agg swords that can move very quickly and safely through the very common forests and are available reliably and quickly as they don't need resources to connect up? Ouch. This may make them too strong.

They were a decent UU anyway, cheap and available quickly and reliably, an okayish fast attack with W2, excels at choking, and requiring the least XP to get M1, W3 of any unit (only 10XP) and with a little planning those medics *could* be built till Grenadiers or Rifles were available.

Quechua:
• 100% versus Archers removed
• Starts with Combat I, Shock and Cover promotions

This entirely changes the Quenchas use.... it was;

1. The rush unit
2. Cost effective stack filler for later wars
3. Excellent barb defense
4. Excellent Military Police unit as it is the cheapest military unit (warrior ) and doesn't obsolete till macemen!

With those changes;

1. Pointless for rushing... unless your on a difficulty below Monarch...
2. Generally rubbish unit for combat of any kind...
3. Still a cheap unit thats good as an MP
4. Upgrades to axes with THREE important promos... um yeah

Given these changes the actual Quencha unit is utterly worthless (just like warriors), its only benefit will be a cheap way to build a hell of a lot of free promos all through the classical and early medieval eras, and using HC's Financial trait to help upgrade them to insane axes/maces

Praetorian:
• Power decreased to 7 instead of 8
• Gains 15% City Attack

This means the unit still attack at 8 versus cities but operate on 7 out in the field.

Thats not how modifiers work. No problem with the change itself though.

Gallic Warrior:
• Starts with Guerilla II instead of I.

Gallics are already an above average UU, they are just very underrated

Right now they;

1. Are often buildable slightly earlier than regular swordsmen due to pre-existing copper mines,
2. Can get G3 with only 4 XP, remember both leaders have the Cha trait!
3. Are the only melee unit able to get the G line
4. Are the only pre-gunpowder combat unit able to take either G or W promo lines, this gives nice flexability as stack defenders or raiders, especially with Cha leaders.
5. Keep G line promos when upgrading to maces that can't usually have them

What I use them for;

1. Incredibly effective worker/settler stealers thanks to 2 moves over hills from G2, hill sght and defense bonuses
2. Swords that are able to attack with little or no support, G2 makes them fast and hard to counter, G3 reduces reliance on catapults! Remember, AIs suck at dealing with G2/W2 enemy units.
3. Choking due to speed and defense (combines with worker stealing!)
4. Upgrade to truly evil G3 maces
5. With 2 Cha leaders using the first 2 promos for W2 on some becomes more attractive (G2,W2 at 8 XP )

With your change;

1. They start capable of fast movement even without barracks , combined with earlier use with to copper mines this is potentially VERY painful!
2. 1XP after barracks to have G2+W2 means they become THE ultimate chokers and worker stealers
3. Getting G1 from Dun makes this even worse...
4. G3 with a barracks will likely make your Praets look feeble

You can reduce the ridicularity of G3 with a barracks by making G3 need both G2 and G1, this will at least require a larger investment to get Duns before a G3 sword assault. Similar to how Navigation 2 needs Flanking 1, probably due to the Viking UB

Holkan:
• Gains free promotion Shock.

Can't think of any problems this may immediately cause, handing out free promos everywhere can have unexpected effects as I have explained though .

Impi:
• Gains free promotion Shock.

These things are already excellent for choking, this may make them unstoppable!

Carrack:
• Movement increased by 1.

East Indiaman:
• Movement increased by 1.

These 2 are actually good UUs.... at least if the map allows them to be. Any other changes will have little impact on land heavy maps and make them even stronger on navy friendly ones

Are there any other units (or even buildings) that could benefit from some minor tweaking? Suggestions?

Ballista Elephants, a somewhat rare resource requirement and a dubious at best bonus? A very weak UU indeed.
Panzer, the nerfs tanks got in BTS (Anti Tanks added, no collateral in later patches) really hurt this UU

Ziggurat - The only bonus is that it's cheaper to build. Not terrible, but IMO it should decrease maintenance costs by 55 or 60% instead of 50%.

It also comes earlier, with priesthood instead of CoL. Coming early has great synergy with a very good UU for maintenance and espionage purposes.

Sacrificial Altar - It decreases the unhappiness duration from sacrificing population using Slavery. It's completely useless unless you actively use Slavery.

It is probably the best UB in the game. It is the most powerful production boost in the late classical through medival eras by a vast margin. It is also cheaper than normal courthouses 90 instead of 120 (same as Ziggurat).
Also has impressive synergy with Monty, Agg for extra benefit in whipping a large army, cheap for whipping it in captured cities quickly (which halves its own !), Spiritual to run Caste at almost the same time as Slavery.

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

I will never understand why ppl want all uniques to pretty much be exactly the same as other units. It defeats the whole purpose of having uniques. Just my opinion.

Kaytie

 

[champ82]

Holkan is too powerful - it's now kind of like a super spearman dog soilder. the rush potential is imense, where as right now it's kind of OK. I actually think the Holkan is a decently balanced UU - it's resouceless and comes early. On an island with Cyrus a Holkan would be the best thing.

Impi - Movement of 2 + shock is way too powerful. I see Impi's as a movement raider unit who can defend against contemperary movement 2 units (chariots). Ah shucks, I'm not doing a good job explaining it but I think it's way too powerful.

 

[AveiMil]

These are pretty nice!

Today, in my first successful attempt to change something in the XML, I made Keshiks replace Knights, as they were a medieval unit. They differ from Knights in that they aren't immune to first strikes, have a movement of 3 and a 20% withdrawal chance, and start with Drill 1.

I’ll look into implementing that change as well. It sounds good, but on the flip side I want to try to limit the changes as much as possible so I’m not sure, hehe.

Your changes look very solid. I don't have experience with all of the civs, so I may be off on a few of these suggestions. On paper, these look a bit underpowered in comparison to other UU's/UB's:

Ballista Elephant - It's bonus currently is that it prioritizes attacks to mounted units in it's attacks. This is extremely powerful, but it doesn't work in city attacks. Stack vs stack combat generally doesn't occur very often outside of city attacks, so this bonus often can go unused. However, it would probably be too powerful to gain the bonus for city attacks. IMO, it could use some other very minor bonus.

Hmm, I’ll look into this unit, I don’t think I noticed that the bonus did not apply for city attacks. I thought that the unit was quite powerful as is.

Panzer - It currently gets +50% vs Tanks. It's a good bonus, but Tanks don't generally last in the game very long before they're upgraded to Modern Armor. Plus the AI doesn't seem to build many tanks. I've used Panzers quite a few times, in both games I'm winning and losing, and I very rarely run into AI armies with many Tanks.

Well, guess that depends a lot on the game speed and type of game being played. I’ve warred for a fairly long period of time with tanks my self so not sure I totally agree. Even assuming this is completely accurate I don’t want to change the unit on this basis alone.

Oromo Warriors - These are pretty damn powerful. You might want to consider a minor nerf.

I’ll look into it, thanks.

Ziggurat - The only bonus is that it's cheaper to build. Not terrible, but IMO it should decrease maintenance costs by 55 or 60% instead of 50%.

I’ll look into it, thanks.

Sacrificial Altar - It decreases the unhappiness duration from sacrificing population using Slavery. It's completely useless unless you actively use Slavery.

I disagree. Whipping (slavery) is so powerful, this bonus was really nice in my opinion.

The most important change is to make Axeman strength 4. That single change actually balances out the ancient era armies, and makes the ancient era far more interesting. Try it if you don't believe me, the strength 5 axeman just pigeon holes armies into massed axed forces.

I’ll consider this, thanks for the input.

Are you certain this won’t make the unit too weak, though? Does it mess up balance with other units? On the top of my mind the Dog Soldier becomes very powerful if you nerf the Axemen to 4. It’ll attack at 8 versus Melee while the Axeman is left at 6.

If memory serves, currently Quecha is 2 STR with combat 1 promo and 100% vs archery

If that is the case, then your change of giving them cover and shock and removing 100% vs. archery is excellent. This makes them a slightly better warrior rather than a super archer buster, which I like

On paper, I like it too

Lots of great feedback everyone, thanks for posting.

 

[AveiMil]

This is not true. The AI never builds counter stacks. The ancient era is nothing but axe spam in default BtS.

Try Legends of Revolution, and see the difference 4 strength axes make. You actually have a reason to build other units. Also with Start as minors on you're under constant threat from AI mixed stacks, which makes things even more dynamic.

Anyway in unmodded BtS the optimal strategy is either a) Axe Rush, or b)Wonder Whore, at least on Monarch and above (below Monarch you can just warrior rush). If you simply make it so axes aren't insanely overpowering to all contemporary units (make them strength 4), suddenly building armies in the ancient era becomes more then just MAOR AXES LOL (with the occasional catapult). Further if you set up something like Start as Minors where civs are locked into war until they discover writing the begging game completely changes. The old Wonder Whoring strategy becomes far more difficult to pull off, plus the AI actually protects itself from worker stealing. Things are just far more dynamic. BtS has been out for a couple of years now, significant advances have been made in the game in that amount of time.

Thanks for the input. Not sure if I agree or not, I need more data

I also pretty much disagree with the OP's findings. For instance *1 Quechua's are one of the stronger UUs in the game, they don't buffing. *2 And Jags and Gallics can be better balanced by just cutting their cost. And the list is missing 2 of the most important changes, *3 Preats need to be named Leagonaire's and nerfed, and *4 Immortals need to be made into an infantry derivative instead of a mounted unit.

*1 I don't understand, Quechua is not buffed with these changes, it's nerfed preventing early rush abuse.
*2 Will take this into account. Thanks.
*3 Praets are nerfed. Will consider the name change, but don't want to change things too much around.
*4 Will consider this, thanks.

 

[AveiMil]

I think you need to look at all the possible repurcussions of changes like these, considering things like leader traits, AI stupidities and especially with regards to promotions!

Agg swords that can move very quickly and safely through the very common forests and are available reliably and quickly as they don't need resources to connect up? Ouch. This may make them too strong.

They were a decent UU anyway, cheap and available quickly and reliably, an okayish fast attack with W2, excels at choking, and requiring the least XP to get M1, W3 of any unit (only 10XP) and with a little planning those medics *could* be built till Grenadiers or Rifles were available.

Good point, I’ll consider reverting back to its original configuration.

This entirely changes the Quenchas use.... it was;

1. The rush unit
2. Cost effective stack filler for later wars
3. Excellent barb defense
4. Excellent Military Police unit as it is the cheapest military unit (warrior ) and doesn't obsolete till macemen!

With those changes;

1. Pointless for rushing... unless your on a difficulty below Monarch...
2. Generally rubbish unit for combat of any kind...
3. Still a cheap unit thats good as an MP
4. Upgrades to axes with THREE important promos... um yeah

Given these changes the actual Quencha unit is utterly worthless (just like warriors), its only benefit will be a cheap way to build a hell of a lot of free promos all through the classical and early medieval eras, and using HC's Financial trait to help upgrade them to insane axes/maces

My intent behind changing them was to remove their ability to early rush, in my opinion this was easily abused versus the AI.

I don’t agree with your pro/con list. The first pro item is of course correct for the original version (the rush unit), however the other items apply for the edited version as well. Granted, after the edit they are now slightly better against Barbarian Warriors and slightly (or a fair bit) worse versus Barbarian Archers but they are still pretty good as sentry’s or city defenders.

Warriors serve an important purpose early game and the promotions the edited Quechua gains are useful. Even if these changes means that the unit is somewhat underpowered or not as useful as other UU’s, I think that’s better than having a UU that can easily be abused with insanely powerful early rushes.

Thats not how modifiers work. No problem with the change itself though.

Oh, thanks, I did not know that

Gallics are already an above average UU, they are just very underrated

Right now they;

1. Are often buildable slightly earlier than regular swordsmen due to pre-existing copper mines,
2. Can get G3 with only 4 XP, remember both leaders have the Cha trait!
3. Are the only melee unit able to get the G line
4. Are the only pre-gunpowder combat unit able to take either G or W promo lines, this gives nice flexability as stack defenders or raiders, especially with Cha leaders.
5. Keep G line promos when upgrading to maces that can't usually have them

What I use them for;

1. Incredibly effective worker/settler stealers thanks to 2 moves over hills from G2, hill sght and defense bonuses
2. Swords that are able to attack with little or no support, G2 makes them fast and hard to counter, G3 reduces reliance on catapults! Remember, AIs suck at dealing with G2/W2 enemy units.
3. Choking due to speed and defense (combines with worker stealing!)
4. Upgrade to truly evil G3 maces
5. With 2 Cha leaders using the first 2 promos for W2 on some becomes more attractive (G2,W2 at 8 XP )

With your change;

1. They start capable of fast movement even without barracks , combined with earlier use with to copper mines this is potentially VERY painful!
2. 1XP after barracks to have G2+W2 means they become THE ultimate chokers and worker stealers
3. Getting G1 from Dun makes this even worse...
4. G3 with a barracks will likely make your Praets look feeble

You can reduce the ridicularity of G3 with a barracks by making G3 need both G2 and G1, this will at least require a larger investment to get Duns before a G3 sword assault. Similar to how Navigation 2 needs Flanking 1, probably due to the Viking UB

Thanks for the input, I’ll have to reconsider this more carefully wit this data in mind.

These things are already excellent for choking, this may make them unstoppable!

Are they? I considered their movement speed increase rather useless as they are so easily picked off by Axemen or other units unless they move in unison with units that only has one movement point. Maybe I’m wrong, but perhaps you can explain in more detail why this would make them too strong?

These 2 are actually good UUs.... at least if the map allows them to be. Any other changes will have little impact on land heavy maps and make them even stronger on navy friendly ones

I just felt that having a UU on water is not as beneficial as having one on land so they really should have a significant edge over other sea units. Maybe just remove the movement increase and reduce their cost slightly instead?

Ballista Elephants, a somewhat rare resource requirement and a dubious at best bonus? A very weak UU indeed.
Panzer, the nerfs tanks got in BTS (Anti Tanks added, no collateral in later patches) really hurt this UU

I’ll definitely take a closer look at this later (at work).

The Panzer, wasn’t this simply overpowered in earlier patches though?

Thanks for your great reply!

 

[AveiMil]

Hi

I will never understand why ppl want all uniques to pretty much be exactly the same as other units. It defeats the whole purpose of having uniques. Just my opinion.

Kaytie

I don’t understand the relevance of this criticism. What people want to make the UU’s the same as normal units?

 

[AveiMil]

Holkan is too powerful - it's now kind of like a super spearman dog soilder. the rush potential is imense, where as right now it's kind of OK. I actually think the Holkan is a decently balanced UU - it's resouceless and comes early. On an island with Cyrus a Holkan would be the best thing.

A Holkan with shock is only slightly stronger than one without, versus an Axeman it'll fight at 5 power instead of 4 versus the Axeman's 7.5. In what situations would you consider the Holkan to be too powerfull with shock?

Impi - Movement of 2 + shock is way too powerful. I see Impi's as a movement raider unit who can defend against contemperary movement 2 units (chariots). Ah shucks, I'm not doing a good job explaining it but I think it's way too powerful.

Maybe you are correct, but I'm not convinced yet

 

[KaytieKat]

I don’t understand the relevance of this criticism. What people want to make the UU’s the same as normal units?

Hi

When people usually talk about "balancing" a unit it is because they feel like say a jaguar is "underpowered" because they dont attack cities as well as swords and need to be buffed. Or that prats are "overpowered" because they attack better than swords and need to be nerfed.

I just think over powered and underpowered and balancing are thrown around to much. By definition if were are going to have unique units then some are going to be stronger than others. Which means some unit HAS to be the strongest and one HAS to be the weakest. But hats the whole point I think. Different civs because of their leaders and UU and UB's will play differently. Even different maps can determine how things turn out.

And yeah monty cant mount a typical sword attack thats as strong as say Rags could and julius can do a better one than rags. And I think that is the point of having uniques some will do certain strategies or handle certain situations better than others. And thats the whole point I think. To make them different. And if that means HC has an advantage on a map with a neighbor within warrior rushing distance and you dont want to have that advantage. The simplest solution is dont warrior rush with HC use a different strategy with HC or use a different civ for warrior rushing.

Pluss sometimes in efforts to "rebalance" can have unforseen consequences. I mean the first thing I thought when I saw the nerfed quecha was wow a financial leader who can spam combat 1, shock, cover (an CR with a barracks) warrior units while getting BW then mass upgrading them to axes?? Something like that would kill off more neighbors than any quecha rush I am betting.

So for me it just seems that best suggestion for rebalancing is that by and large pretty much all the UU's dont need a rebalnce since they are all pretty ok as is.

Kaytie

 

[phungus420]

Individual items can be entirely different, with very disparate levels of power but taken as a whole balance can still be achieved. Witness Starcraft, probably the most balanced game ever created with entirely differently functioning races. However in Civ there are obvious balance issues, such as the Praet which is just rediculously overpowered, or the axeman which completely dominates the early game.

 

[champ82]

A Holkan with shock is only slightly stronger than one without, versus an Axeman it'll fight at 5 power instead of 4 versus the Axeman's 7.5. In what situations would you consider the Holkan to be too powerfull with shock?



Maybe you are correct, but I'm not convinced yet

I think the Holkan and Impi are decent as is. Not requiring resources and / or mobility are pretty big bonuses. I am just now thinking of a chariot rush supported by impis...oh man. Maybe not outstanding for capturing cities, but they could not be stopped in the field.

Considering that the Zulu's have, if not the best, one of the best UBs in the game, and that an impi should have at least a 4.4 strength (due to AGG) plus another promotion, my gut just tells me they shouldn't be improved.

Pacal's traits and UB make him a powerhouse for cottage economy. I think his UU is decent and IMO it might be unbalanced if it was made stronger (it would double as mounted unit and swordmen defense.) The way I see it monster UUs are more deserving for IMO "worse" civs like Japan or Mongolia.

 

[Dragonxander PR]

The way I see it monster UUs are more deserving for IMO "worse" civs like Japan or Mongolia.

Talking about Japan & Mongolia, how about the following?:

- I read about Keshisks being proposed as the knight replacement. How about a 7 strenght horse archer substitute, with all of its current traits. That would make a Mongol conquest historically more accurate & also benefitial for the AI Genghis.

-About samurais, I'm not sure if the following adjustment would be overpowering. Let's say replacing Drill I with a 25% bonus against archery units (inherent, not from Cover).

-How about making the longbow's base strenght to 5 instead of 6, while keeping its other traits? This way, they will remain only useful during the Mid era & make early gunpowder units more worthwile.

-About cannons, how about making them dependant on Gunpowder & Metal Casting, instead of Steel; make them buildable with either coppper or iron; & reduce their base strenght from 12 to 10? This would be historically more accurate, since cannons were already in use by the late Mid era, not by the late Rennaissance/early Industrial era.