(2-51a) Counterproposal: Nerf overpowered promotions

[nekokon]

Would be better to just make some of the best promotions non-stackable (keep the full effect but after you pick one of them you can't pick any other).
Nerfing them would rob players the fun of actually making good use of them. It's not like we don't want uber promotions, we just don't want them stackable (thus making units too powerful and encourage xp farm)

 

[azum4roll]

-70% damage at max range is too much of a nerf. I suggest -50% instead.

 

[Voremonger]

-70% damage at max range is too much of a nerf. I suggest -50% instead.

-70% damage is appropriate considering that attacking with extra range is extremely safe and allows players to field more units than geography would otherwise allow.

 

[ma_kuh]

Doesn't that just mean that combat takes x3 as long? Which is x3 the opportunity to replace the unit that's being attacked with a new one? I don't think these changes will hit the main problem expressed here. Also, this nerf will hit siege units, which I don't think anyone is saying need the nerf. This seems like an overly broad solution.

 

[Voremonger]

Doesn't that just mean that combat takes x3 as long? Which is x3 the opportunity to replace the unit that's being attacked with a new one? I don't think these changes will hit the main problem expressed here.

I really can't follow your logic here. What exactly are you trying to say?

Also, this nerf will hit siege units, which I don't think anyone is saying need the nerf. This seems like an overly broad solution.

Siege units and regular ranged units are largely interchangeable for the purpose of this discussion. At least I say that both types of units become overpowered given enough XP. With siege units in particular the Range and Logistics promotion are ridiculously strong when attacking cities since -20%/-30% CS is irrelevant if you get +100% CS for free anyways. And with extra range you can almost always negate their weaknesses: melee attacks and slow movement in enemy territory.

 

[nekokon]

Again, I would like to repeat that those high level units are only too powerful because they can stack multiple powerful promotions, and not because of one single promotion. Something with only range or logistic or indirect fire is balanced while still make it fun to have specialized units which can do something better than others (and not get an equal trade off, despite calling it a promotion).

 

[Voremonger]

Again, I would like to repeat that those high level units are only too powerful because they can stack multiple powerful promotions, and not because of one single promotion. Something with only range or logistic or indirect fire is balanced while still make it fun to have specialized units which can do something better than others (and not get an equal trade off, despite calling it a promotion).

Sorry, but I think that's just wrong. As soon as you get Range or Logistics you can effectively squeeze one more unit onto the battlefield. Even without stacking more promotions on top that is game-changing.

 

[nekokon]

Certainly a good boost in power, but just enough to not cause imbalance, compared to stacking a bunch of them.
Completely removing their bonuses (and make it an equal trade off) would just make that unit a fancy "win more" condition, where you're already winning enough you don't need the boost from tier 4 promotion to fight (thus ok with sacrifice 70% of your dmg to tickle enemies, since you don't even need those dmg in the first place to win)

 

[Stalker0]

Sorry, but I think that's just wrong. As soon as you get Range or Logistics you can effectively squeeze one more unit onto the battlefield. Even without stacking more promotions on top that is game-changing.

I have to agree with voremonger. The big spike in power is right when you hit that first key promotion. It takes a long time to be able to stack logistics and range together and honestly the boost is not that important.

 

[nekokon]

I don't think there's anything wrong with having only 1 key promotion, as you can easily get it for newly trained unit late game and there's no reason to farm xp from early game to get a bunch of those promotion late game.
I gave an example somewhere among those promotion related topic, an unit with range or logistic can only hit the enemy one extra attack before both side can attack each other every turn, an unit with both range and logistic can forever hit and run from another unit, that's where the imbalance came from. 1 extra attack won't make or break the tide.
Even in the example voremonger used to demonstrate how strong siege unit with range is when attacking cities, if you can line up that many siege units with range to make a difference, you already dominated their land units. It's just a win more situation.

 

[AndreyK]

I don't know, in my current game AI got those promos much, much faster than me, so it seems like a big nerf to AI. They are not overly strong in warfare.

 

[ma_kuh]

I really can't follow your logic here. What exactly are you trying to say?

By reducing damage by 70%, it takes 3.33x as many attacks to strike for 100% damage. I'm making some generalizations, but if you're attacking from max range, it takes 3x as much time to contribute the same amount of damage. So to me this change is mostly saying "never attack from max range". Yes, you get a shaving of damage when your unit can't reach its normal targets, but I feel like that's not even close to the power of other T4 promos. You might as well remove the promotion if the pressure is to avoid using the promo (by attacking from range 2 instead).

Siege units and regular ranged units are largely interchangeable for the purpose of this discussion.

I would get behind archers losing Range or Indirect Fire before just nerfing the promotion. If Siege was the only line with access to Range, then they'd actually be differentiated. The fact that there's a lack of difference is, to me, part of the problem.

 

[CppMaster]

I feel like that's not even close to the power of other T4 promos.

Then the other T4 promotions should also be nerfed.

 

[Voremonger]

By reducing damage by 70%, it takes 3.33x as many attacks to strike for 100% damage. I'm making some generalizations, but if you're attacking from max range, it takes 3x as much time to contribute the same amount of damage.

That is assuming your unit can attack without ever receiving any damage in return. On the current version I would argue that the Range promotion increases not just the safety of an attack but also the average damage per turn because the unit with extra range essentially never has to be rotated out or healed. Without extra range your units will need to enter the attack range of enemy units and take damage in order to deal damage. Obviously your units then cannot attack every turn because they would eventually die. What percentage of turns your units without extra range actually spend attacking is highly situational but for units that do have extra range it's very close to 100%. So the average damage per turn when attacking with extra range would not be 70% lower but I'd estimate something like 30-60%.

Also consider that any excess damage on a target is wasted. It's not that rare for a unit to barely survive an attack with ~5 HP. And if an attack with -70% damage can finish that unit off it's just as good as a regular attack. I don't think it would be that hard to maximize situations like this since you can simply save your comparatively weaker attacks for after you've used your regular attacks to compensate for any potential bad damage rolls.

Yes, you get a shaving of damage when your unit can't reach its normal targets, but I feel like that's not even close to the power of other T4 promos.

I don't feel this way. In VP the jump from field guns to artillery isn't as extreme as the jump from cannons to artillery in vanilla but the increase in power from the extra range is still very high. By contrast the jump from cannons to field guns is not nearly as noticeable even though they get Indirect Fire for free. Other T4 Promotions like Firing Doctrine and Infiltrators only give situational bonuses to CS which translate to a modest damage increase. Logistics gives a noticeable increase in damage per turn but only if your unit doesn't move or pillage that turn (and since it requires either Barrage III or Field III I think you also have to take the worse promotion path for ranged/siege units first).

At -70% damage I would consider Range as one of the options since it would allow me to effectively field 0.3 additional units and minimize risk while something like Firing Doctrine would simply give me a straight damage increase but with comparatively greater risk to the unit and more downtime.

 

[youngsteve]

I don't support this as one of the fun part of the game is gaining promotions, which take an age to get in marathon mode, & now want to remove things like range or seriously dilute it.

 

[CppMaster]

I don't support this as one of the fun part of the game is gaining promotions, which take an age to get in marathon mode, & now want to remove things like range or seriously dilute it.

The proposal doesn't remove it. It tweaks it.

 

[rkkn]

Unlike the current promotions, the proposed ones are straight buffs. Range lets you do damage in situations where you otherwise would do zero damage. Don't want the reduced damage? just attack from the normal range. no such option with the current promo.

-70% damage on range is a little excessive though. I would have gone for -50%, but even -60% is a big improvement in damage.

 

[axatin]

I'm also not sure if this would really be a nerf. Without the CS reductions, the units will be even more likely to live long. Anyway, I sponsor this

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by axatin.