(2R) Ratification Option: Reduce healing from Medic I

[ma_kuh]

Proposal: Reduce healing of Medic I to +3 hp (from +5 hp).

Rationale: During the debate for this proposal last session, balance concerns over removing the CS malus were mentioned. Reducing the healing I think cuts directly to the main concerns over removing the CS malus. I think Medic II should remain a high-value specialization option, retaining its full +5 healing.

This proposal is an amendment for a change that will be up for ratification in the upcoming congress:
Original proposal: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/09-proposal-remove-malus-from-healing-promotion.679956/
Original discussion: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...l-remove-malus-from-healing-promotion.679095/

 

[axatin]

I sponsor this

 

[Stalker0]

I think it’s nuts that we strengthened medic in a way it didn’t need, and now our thinking of nerfing the actual thing medic is supposed to do. Just nuts

 

[ma_kuh]

Medic making a unit immortal is a problem. Fixing that by making the unit fragile didn't feel fun; it just leads to situations where the unit is immortal until it's not. Scouts have this problem too.

I'll grant you that this nerfs the intended use case of Medic in addition to solving the problem case; one of my alternatives was to remove the self-healing on Medic I, so that you pick it for healing the group, but the source of the healing doesn't get any of that benefit until Medic II.

No one offered other counters to this buff, or really even interacted with this change during this session. I'm happy to have a discussion, although at this point it's a little late for this phase.

I think I've been clear, the -10% penalty was a feels-bad way to balance the promotion, just like with Infiltrators. There are ways to finesse the language and design so that the net outcome is still a balanced promotion, without the bad taste.

 

[pineappledan]

Why not debuff a medic unit's attack instead of debuffing its defense?

 

[ma_kuh]

I think the opportunity cost of taking the Medic promotions to begin with are attack debuffs. They are already -20% CS relative to picking a second level of Accuracy, for instance. And that includes being net -10% RCS for defense purposes.

I'm curious, of those who swear by (the previous) Medic's efficacy, did you pick Medic II after Medic I most of the time, or did you go back to "main" promotions for a few levels (to get Range, for example)? Part of my reasoning was that by making Medic I slower trickle healing, you incentivize spending the third level on Medic II, which again increases the opportunity cost of Medic as a line/role, which reduces the need for direct number debuffs to make a difference in Archer (Acc.) v. Archer (Med.) head-to-head comparisons.

 

[Legen]

The previous -10% defense Medic was pointless on ranged units, but crippling on melee units.

Melee already have to deal with taking revenge damage when they attack, having a defense penalty for the opponent's turn was just a bad idea. Compared to picking Shock or Drill, the unit was effectively at a -20% defense. This was especially dangerous before the skirmisher rework, when the AI could just rotate 4 skirmishers to a single tile and focus fire your melee unit to death. Since the AI was heavy on focus fire, defense mattered more than healing for melees, so Medic was most often a downgrade.

Meanwhile, a ranged medic would just see the melee units in front of it taking the attacks instead of him. And in the relatively few cases where the ranged unit gets attacked, it would likely have taken a lot of damage regardless of medic anyways and retreat to heal.

I'm curious, of those who swear by (the previous) Medic's efficacy, did you pick Medic II after Medic I most of the time, or did you go back to "main" promotions for a few levels (to get Range, for example)? Part of my reasoning was that by making Medic I slower trickle healing, you incentivize spending the third level on Medic II, which again increases the opportunity cost of Medic as a line/role, which reduces the need for direct number debuffs to make a difference in Archer (Acc.) v. Archer (Med.) head-to-head comparisons.

My archers would be either specialized towards Medic II or damage/range, and none of the proposals so far give me a reason to change that. Medic's nature is that it can benefit up to 6 other units, some of which won't be in actual fighting, so you don't need it on that many units in the first place. Excluding dedicated garrison units, I'd say about half of my non-siege ranged units were damage focused and didn't touch Medic. More if including skirmishers.

 

[rkkn]

give medic -RCS instead. The whole reason it got buffed was it was bad on melee. It's good on ranged, and easier to get on ranged. only needs to be nerfed for ranged

 

[ma_kuh]

Hmm, maybe I withdraw this counter and we try and hash out some of these other ideas during ratification? That was my original intent anyway, there's not a strong reason to make this change separate from the ratification process.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the opportunity cost of taking the Medic promotions to begin with are attack debuffs. They are already -20% CS relative to picking a second level of Accuracy, for instance. And that includes being net -10% RCS for defense purposes.

I'm curious, of those who swear by (the previous) Medic's efficacy, did you pick Medic II after Medic I most of the time, or did you go back to "main" promotions for a few levels (to get Range, for example)? Part of my reasoning was that by making Medic I slower trickle healing, you incentivize spending the third level on Medic II, which again increases the opportunity cost of Medic as a line/role, which reduces the need for direct number debuffs to make a difference in Archer (Acc.) v. Archer (Med.) head-to-head comparisons.

I never take medic wit out going medic 2. If I’m making a medic, I want the strongest medic I can get

 

[Legen]

The original issue with Medic was its interaction with March. You could have a frontline of March melee units backed up by Medic II archers, which gave a major advantage vs your opponent's melee units. Your melee units would attack and recover back most of the health lost, if no more, practically as if your melee units were performing a ranged attack. An opponent without the melee March + ranged Medic II combo would essentially keep his melee units fortified at all times in order to have enough health against your healed melees.

The -15% defense on March broke the combo. Picking March was dangerous for melees with this penalty, sometimes enough to lose the highly promoted unit. The -10% defense on Medic didn't change things much, since the ones picking it were ranged units; the only case when the penalty on Medic mattered was on Japan, since their melee units have a chance to get the Benevolence promotion (+5 heal to adjacent units, stacks with Medic if it is on the unit with Benevolence) and it made sense to aim for a Benevolence + Medic II melee unit to support the March melee ones.

I'm thinking of a March version that heals a fixed value (e.g. 10) if the unit takes an action, meaning no benefit from Medic or other modifiers. That should still be a solid tier IV promotion by itself and may be enough to break the original issue of the March + Medic combo. Not for this congress's round, of course.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by axatin.