(2-NS) limit maximum experience gained by units

[alchx]

Now it is possible to drag several warriors from the very beginning, who by the modern era will gain 250-300 experience and become the invincible backbone of the army, because. AI is not able to destroy such strong units or will not attack them, because these units have maximum damage resistance.

In general, the basis of the game is the competition of empires, their production facilities and armies must be regularly updated by rotating units, where dead units are replaced by new units trained in Barracks, Armory, Military Academy.

Why not add to the technologies that open these same Barracks. Armory, Military Academy modifier on the maximum possible experience for units? Those. at the beginning of the game, units will be limited to experience, conditionally, 90. Opening Barracks will increase this bar by +15, etc. The same goes for policies and ideologies.

 

[AndreyK]

I just don't like it. We would put on equal those who fought well and kept their units with anybody. Also this would give advantage not to military but techs and production and those already reward you.

 

[CppMaster]

It makes sense, but I don't like it, because it's less fun

 

[alchx]

New units will still have less experience than ancient ones. But the ancients will no longer have such a huge advantage as 250+ experience against recruits with 105 experience. There will be something like 150 (assuming +15 xp max per building) in the year around 1910 when the Military Academy is available.

It is somehow doubtful that the experience gained in 3500 BC. will be in demand in the 1900s. Over these 5k years, not only the armies have changed, but the wars themselves. And even the experience of the 1st World War was not very useful in the 2nd World War, due to the change in the type of war from the trench to the motorized coverage of the enemy, although only 40 years had passed between the wars.

 

[ma_kuh]

Might as well give 100% gold refund for dismissing obsolete units and force you to rebuild your army every era. After all, no amount of armor can turn a horse into a land ship. I think this is a place where gameplay takes precedence over accuracy.

There's been talk about promotion farming in the past, I think if the problem continues to be higher tier promotions being disproportionately impactful that is what should be changed. The experience-over-eras is intuitive, it shouldn't need to change.

 

[alchx]

There's been talk about promotion farming in the past, I think if the problem continues to be higher tier promotions being disproportionately impactful that is what should be changed. The experience-over-eras is intuitive, it shouldn't need to change.

Higher promotions really have a very strong effect on the balance of power. If you take units from tier 3 and tier 1, then the damage ratio will be something around 40-20. With equal promotions 30-30.

There is also a very strong weakening of the units of past eras against more modern ones.

Slinger deals 7-10 damage to a spearman (but dies in 1 hit), but an archer deals 20-25 damage
Skirmisher vs Armored Skirmisher also about 7-10 damage

This is logical, but at some points in the game, some units are literally useless. For example, there is no point in producing Slinger. After 30-40 turns, each opponent will have spearmen.

 

[ma_kuh]

The difference between Tier 3 and Tier 1 units isn't that much, it's the difference between +30% CS (+30% conditional CS) and +10% CS (+10% conditional CS).
1.3 / 1.1 = 1.18
1.45 / 1.15 = 1.26
1.6 / 1.2 = 1.33
relative CS

The advancement of unit power roughly follows x1.12% CS for every half-era, and x1.22% for every full-era step between a unit line's techs. So a T3 unit is between 1 and 3 techs-worth of CS "ahead" of a same-teched T1 unit (the average case: about 1.5).

I think the discussion should center on whether that amount of combat progress is fair for each promotion. If you start adding in T4 promos (things like Range, Logistics), the math gets more complicated (if anyone has a link to damage formulas or knows where I can find them, that would be appreciated!), but the idea stays the same. If +10-20% CS per promo (basically advancing half an era, in the optimal case) is too much, should it be lowered to +5-10%? You could scale XP by era, and inflate later-level XP pools. I think these sorts of approaches are better than adding a gamey cap to XP gain per era.

 

[Stalker0]

You need to be specific in your proposal, or it will get vetoed. How much do you want to drop the maximum xp by, how much do you want to increase it by era (or is it the buildings themselves that unlock that cap)

 

[pineappledan]

This seems like a suggestion squarely aimed at curbing fun.

 

[Legen]

(if anyone has a link to damage formulas or knows where I can find them, that would be appreciated!)

From an old post I wrote in Japan's balance thread:

For a detailed analysis of the UA, the game uses the following formula:

• Damage = 30 * ((((x+3)/4)^4)+1)/2

where x is the combat ratio between the combatants (stronger/weaker). For the weaker unit's damage, you invert after dividing by 2. So, in a 25 Samurai vs 21 Longswordman scenario, the damage of both is calculated as follows:

Samurai damage      = 30 * (((((25/21)+3)/4)^4)+1)/2 = 33.067
Longswordman damage = 30 * ((((((25/21)+3)/4)^4)+1)/2)^-1 = 27.217

, assuming no other combat modifiers or penalty from being wounded.

Also, the randomization of the damage is of 20%, up or down (e.g. a 30 dmg preview varies between 24 and 36 in actual combat).

 

[Recursive]

Proposal failed due to lack of sponsorship.