[Vote] (3-14) Assyria's UU No Longer Obsoletes

[Legen]

Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented.

You can vote for both options, which is equivalent to saying "I'm fine either way", but adds to the required quorum of 10 votes in favor.

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 3, Proposal 14

Spoiler Siege Tower details :

Cost: 100 or 200 (Veneration belief)
Prerequisite Tech: Military Strategy
Becomes Obsolete with: Gunpowder
"May only have 2 Siege Towers active at one time."

Medic
Medic II
Extra Sight (1)
Sapper ("When next to an enemy City, other units within 2 tiles get +40% Combat Strength when attacking the City.
If 2 tiles from an enemy City, other units within 2 tiles get +20% Combat Strength when attacking the City.
Bonuses do not stack.")

Proposal:

Assyria's Siege Tower UU no longer obsoletes.

Rationale:

A topic in the archived Assyria balance thread, the Siege Tower's obsolescence at Gunpowder (a.k.a. being unable to replenish a lost Siege Tower) is mentioned to be an extra thing for the AI to get wrong. Human players are usually capable to keep their Siege Towers alive throughout the whole game, making it a proper extension of Assyria's UA. The AI, however, isn't guaranteed to protect them nearly as well as a human player. Especially when facing a human, who is well capable of sniping Great Generals and Admirals, sniping a post-Medieval Assyria AI's Siege Towers and permanently crippling it is well feasible.

On the human side, it is nonetheless a desirable change to have. As far as I can tell, this civilization's power is not balanced around permanently losing its Siege Towers after Medieval Era. The obsolescence at Gunpowder just adds a major punishment if you misclick or makes a mistake with it in some way, without a clear reason for that. I think the reason for the Gunpowder obsolescence has to do with it being originally a Catapult replacement, in which it would obsolete when the Cannon unlocks, at Gunpowder; with it being reworked in VP to be a standalone unit, the obsolescence at Gunpowder loses its purpose and is a leftover from its original BNW design.

 

[Stalker0]

I can get behind this. If the siege tower literally stopped working at gunpowder I could respect it, but the fact that a human can milk it all game long if they are smart is silly design, so might as well let the AI get in on the action.

 

[pineappledan]

I could sign onto this if we had a unit model on era change for post-renaissance.

Also the production cost should scale with era.

 

[CppMaster]

Yeah, production cost scaling with era makes sense. I don't care about a different model, though.

 

[Dimmy]

Give "Medic, Medic II, Extra Sight (1) & Sappe" to all Assyria's siege units instead?

 

[Revolutionist_8]

I like the idea. Synergizes well with Assyrian conquest-focus as well.

But yeaaah, as PDan points out, having wooden siege towers in the late-game feels weird

Give "Medic, Medic II, Extra Sight (1) & Sappe" to all Assyria's siege units instead?

That's also a great idea.

 

[Legen]

But yeaaah, as PDan points out, having wooden siege towers in the late-game feels weird

I like to imagine they are just history enthusiasts bringing legendary ancient stuff for "morale"

I don't plan to rework the whole unit, nor I am an artist for new animations. I'd like to see a new model for later eras nonetheless, if someone is willing to do it in a future proposal.

 

[azum4roll]

But yeaaah, as PDan points out, having wooden siege towers in the late-game feels weird

Year 2000 AD...
"Oh hey we have a wooden tower with us. Now our guns and rockets are magically stronger when attacking that city, and our units heal more because they love wooden towers!"

 

[Anarcomu]

heal more because they love wooden towers

The tower is actually filled with history-lovers who follow it wherever it goes. They can make for quick whilst inefficient replacement in your military...

 

[Legen]

The tower is actually filled with history-lovers who follow it wherever it goes. They can make for quick whilst inefficient replacement in your military...

...or write history in the making. Your soldier Robin doesn't want to be recorded as the one who bravely turned about and gallantly chickened out.

 

[DeAnno]

While not having a lategame model is bad, the situation we have now still uses old Siege Tower models in the lategame anyway, so I don't see that as a reason to vote it down. It's even sillier that somehow on researching gunpowder the ancient secrets of building a mobile wooden tower are lost.

 

[Stalker0]

While not having a lategame model is bad, the situation we have now still uses old Siege Tower models in the lategame anyway, so I don't see that as a reason to vote it down. It's even sillier that somehow on researching gunpowder the ancient secrets of building a mobile wooden tower are lost.

I agree. I am all for someone adding the art to the siege tower at some point, but that shouldn't be the foundation for this proposal to succeed or not.

 

[DImensiondog]

I’ll sponsor this

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by DImensiondog.

 

[pineappledan]

Voting no. As it is, I can't support this proposal; It needs more work.

If you find an appropriate unit model and add production scaling per era then it will have my support. As is, this is adding half-finished, unpolished stuff into the mod.

 

[rkkn]

This holds true for any civ with a UU that has strong/unique promotions that carry over through upgrading. If you can hold onto the units you will retain that advantage forever, but if it gets killed then you lose it after it obsoletes. I don't see why Assyria should get special treatment in this regard. So I gotta go with Nay on this.

 

[CppMaster]

Voting no. As it is, I can't support this proposal; It needs more work.

If you find an appropriate unit model and add production scaling per era then it will have my support. As is, this is adding half-finished, unpolished stuff into the mod.

Nah, different models are totally optional. Production scaling is also not necessary, because I doubt that it would make Assyria OP. If it does, though, then a proposal to add production scaling can be made.

 

[jpaolini]

This holds true for any civ with a UU that has strong/unique promotions that carry over through upgrading. If you can hold onto the units you will retain that advantage forever, but if it gets killed then you lose it after it obsoletes. I don't see why Assyria should get special treatment in this regard. So I gotta go with Nay on this.

@rkkn makes a good point: obsolescence hits all unique Units equally, why does Assyria deserve an exception?

Both yea & nay camps are representing their positions well, so I am eager to hear a good counterpoint/rebuttal on this.

 

[Legen]

This holds true for any civ with a UU that has strong/unique promotions that carry over through upgrading. If you can hold onto the units you will retain that advantage forever, but if it gets killed then you lose it after it obsoletes. I don't see why Assyria should get special treatment in this regard. So I gotta go with Nay on this.

@rkkn makes a good point: obsolescence hits all unique Units equally, why does Assyria deserve an exception?

The reason is simple: Assyria's UU was originally discussed to be reworked as an unique Great General, just like the Khan, but, at the same time, people wanted each civilization's UU to cover a different unit (i.e. no two unique GGs). The solution was to make it a standalone unit that acts as a pseudo GG instead; it wouldn't be a Great General in name, but it would behave like one.

This means that the best unit comparison for the Siege Tower isn't a standard military UU, like the Hoplite or the Bowman, but the Khan, who behaves completely different from the rest. It never obsoletes; the Mongols don't have a technology obsoleting the Khan and forcing them to start generating normal Great Generals instead. And it can always be replaced by a new one (albeit in a different way) regardless of how many you lost or spent before, or which era you are in. That's why Assyria deserves an exception to the obsolescence rule with its UU, it is meant to replicate an unique GG in all but name, and obsolescence doesn't make sense for Great Generals.

At the moment, the Khan also doesn't have a model change upon reaching Modern Era (when the standard Great General buys a jeep), it uses the same unique model and portrait from Ancient to Information. We can discuss whether the standards shouldn't be improved next session and add new models based on the era for both UUs, but the current standard for both is the same, and not the main topic of the proposal. Regardless of whether this one passes or not, the standards won't change this session, nor it will prevent new standards from being proposed next session.

 

[jpaolini]

@Legen - thanks for filling me in on the history of Vox Populi's Assyrian Unique Unit and the compromise to bring it to fruition. I am so genuinely impressed with all the fair-minded work everyone contributes to create consensus/agreement.

With your helpful backstory, it feels like this proposal (no obsolescence) is an unintentional erosion of the principle of 'no two unique GG' by becoming a lot more like a GG.

Considering the backstory of a back-and-forth around this unit, perhaps offering a nerf to the UU's bonuses would be a fair trade for buff of non-obsolescence?

Unfortunately, I'm late to the party to float such an idea as we are currently in the voting phase, so it is too late to modify the proposal so our options are yes/no.