Moderator Action: To provide voters with more choices, I have split the "make unit promotions weaker" proposals into two categories: weakening units / promotions and making upgrades more expensive. The two votes will be tallied separately.
Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" for every proposal you'd be okay with if it were implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if these proposals weren't implemented. You can vote for any number of options.
All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51
Discussion Thread: (2-51) Proposal: Units lose XP on upgrade
Proposer: @ilteroi
Sponsor: @Recursive
Proposal Details
Just what it says in the title. Inspired by the "immortal human units vs endless AI unit spam" discussion.
When a unit is upgraded, it loses half of its XP. But it does keep all the promotions. Just needs a longer time to reach the next level.
Obviously the percentage is debatable. But it would make it so that new units can compete with older ones and create an interesting choice where upgrading immediately is not always better.
Edit: typo
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51a
Discussion Thread: (2-51a) Counterproposal: Nerf overpowered promotions
Proposer: @Voremonger
Sponsor: @axatin
Proposal Details
Proposal: No change to XP accumulation but instead nerf those promotions that are overpowered and thus make XP accumulation so strong in the first place. Specifically I propose:
The reason why I think the range and logistics promotions should reduce damage instead of combat strength is because large negative modifiers to CS lead to wildly different results depending on other CS modifiers. At for example -80% CS a change of just +-10% base CS would change the effective combat strength by +-50%. So depending on other factors a large reduction in combat strength could either make an attack useless or barely impact it at all. If instead the final damage is reduced by some fixed percentage then the effect is much more consistent. The revised range and logistics promotions should further be implemented as options: there is no malus if the unit is used as per usual but if the extra range/attack is used there is some penalty to damage. The penalty on range should be more severe than on logistics because attacking with +1 range is extremely safe.
March is less overpowered than range and logistics but only because it's more limited in terms of where you can use it effectively. March in owned territory where you get +15 HP per turn is overpowered, otherwise it's fine. In addition to the nerf to regular healing I propose increasing the heal on pillaging because I think healing promotions are most at risk of becoming overpowered in owned territory but I find them to be relatively weak in enemy territory.
NOT PART OF THE PROPOSAL:
Other promotions that I considered:
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51b
Discussion Thread: (2-51b) Counterproposal: Add column in Units table to increase XP thresholds for leveling up units (+ Gunsmith building)
Proposer: @azum4roll
Sponsor: @Recursive
Proposal Details
Supplements https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2-85-proposal-era-scaling-free-exp-for-ai-units.680857/
Problem: humans are too good at keeping early units alive and upgrading them to be super units with lots of high tier promotions, which necessitates the AI to keep up with more unit spam. However, losing XP on upgrade feels bad for unique units and easily makes early veteran units worse than newly made units. It also discourages making near-obsolete units until you reach the upgrade tech.
Proposal:
Add a new column in the Units table to increase XP thresholds for level up.
e.g. a Warrior needs 10, 30, 60, 100, 150 XP to level up, but a Fusilier would need 35, 55, 85, 125, 175 XP instead.
This should solve the problem of upgraded units being too strong, since you have limited time to grind your units to get new promotions before they need to be upgraded.
All free XP sources from military buildings are increased to make newly trained units have similar number of starting promotions as they currently have. Military Academy is moved back to Replaceable Parts as the latest building to give XP for the last 3 eras. The Gunsmith building (taken from Enlightenment Era mod) will patch the large XP gap between Armory and Military Academy.
In this model, a Warrior with 65 XP upgraded to Fusilier will still have 3 promotions, but will take an extra 60 XP to reach the next level up. On the other hand, a newly trained Fusilier also starts with 65 XP, but only takes 20 more XP to reach the next level up and be on par with the veteran unit.
New building: Gunsmith
Unlocks at Metallurgy
600
Never Capture
Maintenance: 4
+2 Science
+25 XP for all Units
Increases the Military Unit Supply Cap by 1
-1 Unhappiness from and Distress
Armory change:
+25 XP for all Units instead of +20
Military Academy change:
Unlocks at Replaceable Parts
1800
+40 XP for all Units instead of +25
Colonialism change:
Also boosts Gunsmith
Units will have level up threshold increased based on their unlock tech tier.
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51c
Discussion Thread: (2-51c) Counterproposal: Increase the gold cost of upgrading units by 50%
Proposer: @Siddorm
Sponsor: @axatin
Proposal Details
In my opinion, the gold cost of upgrading units is much too low in relation to the benefits (since upgrades are instantaneous and promotions are inherited). Upgrading currently almost always feels like a no-brainer; hence my proposal.
Amended on December 13th: Originally this proposal was "double the gold cost of upgrading units". However, after careful consideration of the comments related to this proposal, and in light of the possibility that various other proposals might pass, I have decided to amend this proposal to an gold cost increase of 50% instead. This thread title has been amended accordingly.
Clarification: Current base cost for unit upgrades is equal to the Production cost difference between the upgraded unit and the current unit. So, if the current unit costs 20 Production and the upgrade costs 60 Production, the current upgrade cost will be 40 Gold, and the increased upgrade cost would be 60 Gold.
Clarification (December 21st): This (counter)-proposal is different to the original proposal and all of the other counter-proposals because it focuses solely on the gold cost of upgrading units. Nothing would change except that the gold cost of upgrading each unit would be 50% higher than it currently is.
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51d
Discussion Thread: (2-51d) Counterproposal: Make gold cost of upgrading units based on level
Proposer: @ma_kuh
Sponsor: @axatin
Proposal Details
Rationale:
The original proposal aims to curb high powered units from earlier eras overshadowing new units from later eras. It does so by applying a broad 50% multiplier to all unit upgrades. This proposal seeks to target the problem group with these cost adjustments: highly promoted units.
Proposal:
Increase gold cost of upgrading a unit by 10% per level. (This increase stacks additively with other modifiers, e.g. Imperialism.)
Clarification: Each level above level 1. Level 2 = 10%, level 3 = 20%, etc.
Consideration:
Pathfinders level up really fast. This change would make it more expensive to upgrade them to scouts, further increasing the divide between getting an Ancient Ruins weapon upgraded Scout or not.
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51e
Discussion Thread: (2-51e) Counterproposal: Units get -10% CS for each upgrade
Proposer: @axatin
Sponsor: @axatin
Proposal Details
Proposal: Each time a unit is upgraded, it gets a 10% CS malus.
Rationale: The problem of "immortal" human units needs to be addressed, but I think the OP would just lead to the players waiting with upgrading their units until logistics/range is reached, which is a gamey behavior. Following an idea by @balparmak , this proposal would prevent this and it would make it necessary to constantly build new units because the old ones would get weaker over time.
Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" for every proposal you'd be okay with if it were implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if these proposals weren't implemented. You can vote for any number of options.
All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51
Discussion Thread: (2-51) Proposal: Units lose XP on upgrade
Proposer: @ilteroi
Sponsor: @Recursive
Proposal Details
Just what it says in the title. Inspired by the "immortal human units vs endless AI unit spam" discussion.
When a unit is upgraded, it loses half of its XP. But it does keep all the promotions. Just needs a longer time to reach the next level.
Obviously the percentage is debatable. But it would make it so that new units can compete with older ones and create an interesting choice where upgrading immediately is not always better.
Edit: typo
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51a
Discussion Thread: (2-51a) Counterproposal: Nerf overpowered promotions
Proposer: @Voremonger
Sponsor: @axatin
Proposal Details
Proposal: No change to XP accumulation but instead nerf those promotions that are overpowered and thus make XP accumulation so strong in the first place. Specifically I propose:
- Range: +1 range, -20% CS -> +1 range but -70% damage when attacking at maximum range.
- Logistics: +1 attack, -30% CS -> +1 attack, second attack deals -50% damage.
- March: Always heal when taking an action -> Always heal at least 5 HP when taking an action (can be increased by medic promotions)
, heal when pillaging increased from 25 HP to 50 HP. This proposal was amended to no longer increase healing from pillaging.
The reason why I think the range and logistics promotions should reduce damage instead of combat strength is because large negative modifiers to CS lead to wildly different results depending on other CS modifiers. At for example -80% CS a change of just +-10% base CS would change the effective combat strength by +-50%. So depending on other factors a large reduction in combat strength could either make an attack useless or barely impact it at all. If instead the final damage is reduced by some fixed percentage then the effect is much more consistent. The revised range and logistics promotions should further be implemented as options: there is no malus if the unit is used as per usual but if the extra range/attack is used there is some penalty to damage. The penalty on range should be more severe than on logistics because attacking with +1 range is extremely safe.
March is less overpowered than range and logistics but only because it's more limited in terms of where you can use it effectively. March in owned territory where you get +15 HP per turn is overpowered, otherwise it's fine. In addition to the nerf to regular healing I propose increasing the heal on pillaging because I think healing promotions are most at risk of becoming overpowered in owned territory but I find them to be relatively weak in enemy territory.
NOT PART OF THE PROPOSAL:
Other promotions that I considered:
- Survivalism 3: Recon units are not that strong in terms of combat so I don't think this is a problem. Only exception would be getting a scout from ancient ruins, but I think that's more of an issue of ancient ruins.
- Stalwart: +35% CS when defending is very strong but it's not enough to win you the game. Even at high CS your units will eventually die if they keep eating attacks.
- Air logistics, air repair: I'm fine with air units being strong since there is a hard limit to how many you can deploy at once.
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51b
Discussion Thread: (2-51b) Counterproposal: Add column in Units table to increase XP thresholds for leveling up units (+ Gunsmith building)
Proposer: @azum4roll
Sponsor: @Recursive
Proposal Details
Supplements https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2-85-proposal-era-scaling-free-exp-for-ai-units.680857/
Problem: humans are too good at keeping early units alive and upgrading them to be super units with lots of high tier promotions, which necessitates the AI to keep up with more unit spam. However, losing XP on upgrade feels bad for unique units and easily makes early veteran units worse than newly made units. It also discourages making near-obsolete units until you reach the upgrade tech.
Proposal:
Add a new column in the Units table to increase XP thresholds for level up.
e.g. a Warrior needs 10, 30, 60, 100, 150 XP to level up, but a Fusilier would need 35, 55, 85, 125, 175 XP instead.
This should solve the problem of upgraded units being too strong, since you have limited time to grind your units to get new promotions before they need to be upgraded.
All free XP sources from military buildings are increased to make newly trained units have similar number of starting promotions as they currently have. Military Academy is moved back to Replaceable Parts as the latest building to give XP for the last 3 eras. The Gunsmith building (taken from Enlightenment Era mod) will patch the large XP gap between Armory and Military Academy.
In this model, a Warrior with 65 XP upgraded to Fusilier will still have 3 promotions, but will take an extra 60 XP to reach the next level up. On the other hand, a newly trained Fusilier also starts with 65 XP, but only takes 20 more XP to reach the next level up and be on par with the veteran unit.
New building: Gunsmith
Unlocks at Metallurgy
600
Never Capture
Maintenance: 4
+2 Science
+25 XP for all Units
Increases the Military Unit Supply Cap by 1
-1 Unhappiness from and Distress
Armory change:
+25 XP for all Units instead of +20
Military Academy change:
Unlocks at Replaceable Parts
1800
+40 XP for all Units instead of +25
Colonialism change:
Also boosts Gunsmith
Units will have level up threshold increased based on their unlock tech tier.
Tech Tier | XP threshold increase | Free XP available | Free promotions available |
---|---|---|---|
Early Ancient | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Late Ancient - Classical | 0 | 15 | 1 |
Early Medieval | 5 | 40 | 2 |
Late Medieval | 5 | 40 | 2 |
Early Renaissance | 10 | 40 | 2 |
Late Renaissance | 20 | 65 | 2 |
Early Industrial | 25 | 65 | 2 |
Late Industrial | 30 | 65 | 2 |
Early Modern | 40 | 105 | 3 |
Late Modern - Information | 45 | 105 | 3 |
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51c
Discussion Thread: (2-51c) Counterproposal: Increase the gold cost of upgrading units by 50%
Proposer: @Siddorm
Sponsor: @axatin
Proposal Details
In my opinion, the gold cost of upgrading units is much too low in relation to the benefits (since upgrades are instantaneous and promotions are inherited). Upgrading currently almost always feels like a no-brainer; hence my proposal.
Amended on December 13th: Originally this proposal was "double the gold cost of upgrading units". However, after careful consideration of the comments related to this proposal, and in light of the possibility that various other proposals might pass, I have decided to amend this proposal to an gold cost increase of 50% instead. This thread title has been amended accordingly.
Clarification: Current base cost for unit upgrades is equal to the Production cost difference between the upgraded unit and the current unit. So, if the current unit costs 20 Production and the upgrade costs 60 Production, the current upgrade cost will be 40 Gold, and the increased upgrade cost would be 60 Gold.
Clarification (December 21st): This (counter)-proposal is different to the original proposal and all of the other counter-proposals because it focuses solely on the gold cost of upgrading units. Nothing would change except that the gold cost of upgrading each unit would be 50% higher than it currently is.
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51d
Discussion Thread: (2-51d) Counterproposal: Make gold cost of upgrading units based on level
Proposer: @ma_kuh
Sponsor: @axatin
Proposal Details
Rationale:
The original proposal aims to curb high powered units from earlier eras overshadowing new units from later eras. It does so by applying a broad 50% multiplier to all unit upgrades. This proposal seeks to target the problem group with these cost adjustments: highly promoted units.
Proposal:
Increase gold cost of upgrading a unit by 10% per level. (This increase stacks additively with other modifiers, e.g. Imperialism.)
Clarification: Each level above level 1. Level 2 = 10%, level 3 = 20%, etc.
Consideration:
Pathfinders level up really fast. This change would make it more expensive to upgrade them to scouts, further increasing the divide between getting an Ancient Ruins weapon upgraded Scout or not.
VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 51e
Discussion Thread: (2-51e) Counterproposal: Units get -10% CS for each upgrade
Proposer: @axatin
Sponsor: @axatin
Proposal Details
Proposal: Each time a unit is upgraded, it gets a 10% CS malus.
Rationale: The problem of "immortal" human units needs to be addressed, but I think the OP would just lead to the players waiting with upgrading their units until logistics/range is reached, which is a gamey behavior. Following an idea by @balparmak , this proposal would prevent this and it would make it necessary to constantly build new units because the old ones would get weaker over time.
Last edited: