3rd and 4th Unique Components for VP - Official thread 88.10

[Agiwan]

Nope
Will test later

So you are on 4.16.2 that is right ?

 

[statusquo]

So you are on 4.16.2 that is right ?

I was using 4.17.8 Beta, but with 4uu downloaded from initial post, which i believe is 88.10.
But im doing new game now, so i will test if all my problems are gone

This is probably the right topic, but if i recall correctly, Zulu unique GG spawn a cattle, but i wondered for ever, if
there was like uncovered Coal or Uranium under, would it replace it?
I mean that could be more generic question, any resource spawning, can it replace not researched strategics?

EDIT: I used your 4.17 folder, and Induna can spawn Unique Citadel, which is nice.
But i tested also Greek for the emissary promotion, and its still the old one, without the new one
And it works as the old one, which was perma add 2 gold for each emisary use

Spoiler screenshots :

EDIT: Tested the induna, expanding it on some random luxury resource, and cattle spawned, just near it, i want to believe, that
if the resource was hidden it would still spawn near by. I was always afraid it can eat some future coal or uranium

 

[ElliotS]

Wow this mod is kick-ass! Back for now after a long Hiatus and the extra components are really breathing a ton of life into the game! I think my favorite new add has to be the Tadodaho. They're extremely powerful and make me feel like Iroquois can really do anything. Extra votes in the WC from extra embassy, extra yields in capital, etc. It did catch me off guard that you seem to get the yields from the tile AFTER the embassy is built, so if you want yields of some specific tile, you need to use the regular spread action. Not the biggest deal though, and most of the time that's favorable.

I do feel like civs who get a 2nd extremely early game UU get a real kick in the pants. Early UUs already tend to have a problem in the sense that by the time you're ready to go ham, they're obsolete, and they need to compete with so many essential early game buildings. Taking towns with walls is extremely hard until trebuches, by which point they all tend to be getting swapped out. Even when they have kick-ass promotions you want to upgrade forward, it feels like you can't amass enough of them in the ancient and classical eras.

Like for the Celts the Scythed Chariot feels useless. The Sabum Kibitum is another you want, but have a hard time fitting. Rome's UU is the worst off IMO. It's not even good enough to replace the catapult. I'm not sure if that's intended balance in the sense that those civs are all still extremely powerful and most of them get extremely powerful UBs, but they feel pretty bad for me.

I don't know how much of this has been discussed in the 164 pages of this thread lol, but if it was up to me no civ would have both UUs before medieval. My skills have deteriorated a bit in my abencse, so let me know if I'm straight wrong too lol.

 

[pineappledan]

Rome's UU is the worst off IMO. It's not even good enough to replace the catapult.

The ballista is meant to be a strict upgrade from the catapult with no tradeoffs. This makes me think something has gone wrong and the siege promotion has been dropped or something.

 

[ElliotS]

The ballista is meant to be a strict upgrade from the catapult with no tradeoffs. This makes me think something has gone wrong and the siege promotion has been dropped or something.

Looking at it in-game setup I'm thinking I misremembered. It does appear to be a straight upgrade, not sure why i remember seeing Rome have regular catapults and/or them not getting a bonus versus cities. Must have mixed that up with the field gun UU that does that.

That said I stand by that outside of niche scenarios or playing on epic, multiple ancient/classical UUs feels pretty hard to use well. Is that intentional?

 

[pineappledan]

Not so much intentional as an unavoidable downstream effect of some cultures not existing beyond certain eras. What would a medieval Babylonian UU even look like, for example? The empire was wiped out in the 6th century BC and the culture was lost/replaced by the 1st century AD.

Rome has a similar problem, but different, in that the post-antiquity empire has its own civ — Byzantium — and the post antiquity Italic people have their own civ too: Venice. Firaxis’ choice to chop up the Italian culture into 3 separate civs means we can’t do much to stretch each one of them outside their own particular political and historical institutions like we could with the Greeks.

I will say that the following re: your specific civs you mentioned:
- the problem with Babylon in particular was made more accute by base VP’s decision to make the bowman an earlier archer replacement. It didn’t used to be as bad as it is now.
- re: the celts, the Pictish warrior’s unit type is a major impediment, because the most notable post-classical Celtic military units are infantry. A Kern (Swordsman), Gallowglass (longsword), and Schiltron (pike&shot) have all been considered at some point, but the issue of being awash in too many infantry units was weighed against the scythed chariot and ultimately that seemed “less bad”
- re: Rome, everyone is an armchair Roman historian and will have opinions about whatever is chosen, so why bother? the ballista is a firaxis unit, so it was Firaxis’ original idea to overload Rome’s military into classical, we just restored that decision. FWIW I find the issue isn’t really felt in my own test runs with Rome, because the Legion is restricted more by iron than it is by production. The ballista ensures that Rome still has a military power spike in classical even without a lot of iron.

 

[ElliotS]

I hear you, and it is a hard problem to fix. I know I'm also part of a controversial group who desires perfect gameplay over basically everything else. I like things being lore-friendly and historical when they can, but will trade a bit of a-historicalness for what I consider a better experience any time. Despite all that I'll give my thoughts on each case I find objectionable:

Babylon: I see 2 options. Either go a bit a-historical for balance and change the spearmen to pikemen, or change them out for a unique great scientist. The 2nd seems like a much more exciting option as it ties in with everything else they do extremely well. The only problem is that they're objectively fine despite the crappy double ancient UU situation and a decent great scientist replacement might make them the best civ in the game with no other levers being touched. Also with all the changes made to rome I don't see why you can't make the base bowmen whatever you want.

Celts: Honestly I LOVE when one UU can eventually upgrade into another. Any bonuses that carry-over tend to leave you with some amazing super-soldiers when you stack them, which feels extremely fun. I'd trade scythed chariots for Schiltron (assuming tercio replacement) any day of the week in a heartbeat. If that's totally impossible, I'd consider moving the chariots to heavy skirmishers and maybe a slight buff, because they're extremely boring.

Huns: I have not tested them yet, but their new UU seems to totally eclipse their original UU. They even both require horses IIRC! The original one is a bit baffling with how it's almost anti-synergy with their UA, and I don't think I'd want to change this one at all. It makes me consider bringing up their original UU in the main thread though. But once again this one is really good and fun.

Inca: Another one I don't really have a problem with. Their base UU has a niche and isn't nearly as bad as the Huns, and the Inca have always been a tricky civ to balance with how unassailable their cities can be. Their new UU is a bit boring, but different enough I don't mind.

Mongolia: It's not the same prooblem as the rest, but can someone enlighten me on why a civ with an insanely powerful UA that gives big bonuses to the skirmisher line has a UU that's from the mounted melee line? Why would you EVER use your horses for that? Have not tested, so might be wrong, but seems insane.

Rome: Rome has an awesome UA, and the Fornix might be one of the most OP items added in this mod, so the balistia can basically not exist and it hardly matters. Still feels lazy. I'd change it to a trebuche at least.To be clear about the Fornix: I've found that you can hit a point where you take over 5-6 city states mid-late game and suddenly get a full policy tree ahead of the rest of the AI because you get 5-6 free great writers and use them for culture. If poland is considered one of the the best civs in the base game for having that as their UA, Rome getting it for free later is enough to overcome any other shortcomings they have. Does it need to be nerfed? I don't know. Is it their secret powerhouse? Absolutely.

Thoughts?

 

[Anarcomu]

Looking at Rome vs Poland comparison : although I'm not 100% sure, I think Poland's free policy does not count toward future policy costs. Which mean it is always stronger than any culture gain (except if you seek to shield against a cultural victory).

Mongolia : When I play them, I tend to like to have a big skirmishers army to kill units and wear cities down, and one cavalry to take them. Although a scout could very well replace the cavalry here. Anyway, mounted melees usually specialize in flanking, and skirmishers gives double bonus, so not a loss.

Babylon : replacing a military unit with a unique GS would break the rule of "1 military component, 1 economic component" that VP have set.There can be hybrid, like units that gives yields or building that improve units, but the general rule is 1 military units, 1 improvement/building/civilian unit (2 of each with 4UC).

Celts : Another rule which I'm not sure who put it in place is that no UU upgrade into another UU (for the same player). It is to avoid stacking promos like crazy ; players are better than AIs when it comes to keep their units alive, and thus that would turn the advantage too strongly toward the player.

 

[ElliotS]

Looking at Rome vs Poland comparison : although I'm not 100% sure, I think Poland's free policy does not count toward future policy costs. Which mean it is always stronger than any culture gain (except if you seek to shield against a cultural victory).

Mongolia : When I play them, I tend to like to have a big skirmishers army to kill units and wear cities down, and one cavalry to take them. Although a scout could very well replace the cavalry here. Anyway, mounted melees usually specialize in flanking, and skirmishers gives double bonus, so not a loss.

Babylon : replacing a military unit with a unique GS would break the rule of "1 military component, 1 economic component" that VP have set.There can be hybrid, like units that gives yields or building that improve units, but the general rule is 1 military units, 1 improvement/building/civilian unit (2 of each with 4UC).

Celts : Another rule which I'm not sure who put it in place is that no UU upgrade into another UU (for the same player). It is to avoid stacking promos like crazy ; players are better than AIs when it comes to keep their units alive, and thus that would turn the advantage too strongly toward the player.

Rome: Yeah, Poland's UA is still better probably (It's nerfed in VP IIRC tho) Still an amazing source of hidden power.

Mongolia: I feel like you've clearly demonstrated my point. You're building 1 or 2 mounted melee units, that could very well be scouts, and otherwise ignoring their UU. That's probably correct.

Babylon: Yeah I misremembered that the Iroquois get their GD replacement instead of a building. Maybe the approach should be more of a hybrid? I hesitate to suggest more unique great generals, but having one that gives bonuses to cities they're stationed in could work very well with the gameplan of the civ.

Celts: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Arabia and Ethiopia both have UUs that upgrade into each other. I found it a strong draw for Ethiopia especially, getting the ability to maim with Mehal Sefari's is really cool, though camel archers keep more promotions when getting turned into cavalry and eventually Hashemite Raiders.

 

[Anarcomu]

Well, you are right about Arabia and Ethiopia, I never noticed it before (well, I don't play them with VP - though I love the free faith Ethiopia gives when I play unmodded).

Maybe they should be changed ? Or maybe, since they are not build for warmongering, they could be left as is, I dunno.

 

[pineappledan]

Ethiopia and Inca’s UUs are set to be changed in the next version. Ethiopia’s UUs will no longer upgrade into each other. Eliminating these overlaps has indeed been a design goal, but it’s hard to stop them in all 43 cases.

A non-obsoleting support unit for Babylon would force even more direct comparisons with Assyria. If the Babylon bowman and Maya atlatl swapped places then I would consider that good enough for spacing without playing too much historical Calvinball.

Re Mongolia it’s mostly because giving them a skirmisher that is further augmented by that UA would be busted AF. But also, nothing else exists in the historical record or the asset library re: non-mounted mongols. Their entire army was mounted; that was kind of the key to their success. But also I am content with it, because the Mongols employed lancers and heavy cavalry quite a lot, and the way the UA disincentives mounted melee as a troop type is a grave distortion.

I would recommend you take another look at the Hun base VP kit. It has been reworked significantly

 

[ElliotS]

Ethiopia and Inca’s UUs are set to be changed in the next version. Ethiopia’s UUs will no longer upgrade into each other. Eliminating these overlaps has indeed been a design goal, but it’s hard to stop them in all 43 cases.

A non-obsoleting support unit for Babylon would force even more direct comparisons with Assyria. If the Babylon bowman and Maya atlatl swapped places then I would consider that good enough for spacing without playing too much historical Calvinball.

Re Mongolia it’s mostly because giving them a skirmisher that is further augmented by that UA would be busted AF. But also, nothing else exists in the historical record or the asset library re: non-mounted mongols. Their entire army was mounted; that was kind of the key to their success. But also I am content with it, because the Mongols employed lancers and heavy cavalry quite a lot, and the way the UA disincentives mounted melee as a troop type is a grave distortion.

I would recommend you take another look at the Hun base VP kit. It has been reworked significantly

Ah, where can I find upcoming changes? I looked back a few pages and couldn't find them. Also fair enough on that front.

Good point. Assyria and Babylon already have a ton of overlap. I agree about swapping the bowmen to later, but then we're left with a case of Maya having 2 ancient UUs. I think it matters less when one is a pathfinder at least.

Re Mongolia: I mean the problem is I don't think it really makes sense to build them. Given that all of their skirmisher line units get logistics for free, why would you waste horses on a unit that overall performs worse? They barely have a 2nd UU. I feel like this should be brainstormed.

Huns: Oh, I was relying on the OP a bit too much. Just checked in game and now I can say for sure that while both units work just fine with their UU, I don't understand why both exist. I feel like you could remove one and the civ loses no power at all. I fully believe a player will often build a bit of both, but they don't need to. I don't think moving 1 back an era works either, given that they're competing for the same resource. (horses)

So Mongolia and the Huns are the "3rd" in "3rd and 4th unique components."

 

[pineappledan]

Re Mongolia: I mean the problem is I don't think it really makes sense to build them. Given that all of their skirmisher line units get logistics for free, why would you waste horses on a unit that overall performs worse? They barely have a 2nd UU. I feel like this should be brainstormed

I would encourage you to give their UU2 a try. They are really good.

I don't think moving 1 back an era works either, given that they're competing for the same resource. (horses)

1 of them doesn’t cost horses.

 

[ElliotS]

I would encourage you to give their UU2 a try. They are really good.

1 of them doesn’t cost horses.

I will give it a try. A friend I'm playing with a lot suggested plague trebuchets given the Golden Horde's famous use of them in the siege of Caffa as an alternative. I will get back on this.

Oh. That does help. I might still like to see the one that does cost horses moved back one era, but it does fix my some of my issues with it.

 

[pineappledan]

Another thing that the mod focused on is overall distribution of units. We made an effort to prevent a single base unit type from being replaced by more than 4 UUs. The medieval era already has the highest concentration of UUs.

 

[ElliotS]

Another thing that the mod focused on is overall distribution of units. We made an effort to prevent a single base unit type from being replaced by more than 4 UUs. The medieval era already has the highest concentration of UUs.

Yeah, and I get that. As mentioned my primary concern is gameplay, but the issues are not lost on me. I'd also guess that most UUs have an extremely low impact on winrate, and it's just about feelsgood/feelsbads. It seems to me shrine/monument replacements have the biggest impact on winrate.

I just had an idea: What if the bonuses that don't get lost on upgrade were automatically added to the later tier units until the unit become obsolete, and the ancient/classical era units got an extra unit before becoming obsolete? That might help AI more than humans, and would make all early units feel better. This would obviously be a change to the base game, so maybe I should post it in the main thread instead. Not sure if it would require new code.

Especially if that's done, and even if it's not, I think the biggest upgrade fail is probably the scythed chariot. Was it wildly OP carrying over it's signature promotion?

 

[hokath]

I just had an idea: What if the bonuses that don't get lost on upgrade were automatically added to the later tier units until the unit become obsolete, and the ancient/classical era units got an extra unit before becoming obsolete?

First bit sounds janky and weird.
Second bit would be slightly irregular but I can see the argument, it is also trivial to implement. But this seems a bit much? Slinger replacement would obsolete at Musketman, is that right?

why would you waste horses on a unit that overall performs worse? They barely have a 2nd UU. I feel like this should be brainstormed.

Black Tug are quite scary. Can you think of a Mongolian UU that wouldn't be on horseback?
Huns are not thrilling, agree.

 

[pineappledan]

There is a mod for unique unit lines

 

[ElliotS]

First bit sounds janky and weird.
Second bit would be slightly irregular but I can see the argument, it is also trivial to implement. But this seems a bit much? Slinger replacement would obsolete at Musketman, is that right?

Inca's slingers currently become obsolete at currency, AKA composite bowmen. That's extremely early and means you often end up with an extremely small pool of them to ration for the rest of the game. My suggestion would make them obsolete at Crossbowmen, which would give you time to make a lot more units with the unique promotion.

The other part would basically mean that when Inca builds bowmen or composite bowmen, they would start with concussive hits, the same as if you made the slingers and upgraded them. This is mostly so the AI doesn't screw up, because I know that making the AI able to use all features is a key goal. I don't know if the AI is already trained to always make the UU and then upgrade it, but either way this seems more efficient and a nice QoL upgrade.

Black Tug are quite scary. Can you think of a Mongolian UU that wouldn't be on horseback?
Huns are not thrilling, agree.

My suggested Mongolian UU would be a plague catapult that adds a plague effect that prevents unit and city healing for a few turns. Given how Civ works the Golden Horde would be counted as Mongolian and their use of plague warfare in the siege of Caffa is pretty famous.

There is a mod for unique unit lines

I wouldn't want the whole line unique. The game's devs clearly already want you to be able to make your UU and upgrade it, given that they all expire 1 unit later than normal. This would just extend it by one to avoid feelsbads, and remove the need to produce the old one and upgrade it for QoL and AI ease of use.

 

[Legen]

Can you think of a Mongolian UU that wouldn't be on horseback?

Maybe a siege unit. The Mongols surprised many defenders with the siege devices they brought, something normally unexpected from a nomadic army. We have Muslim scholars reporting that the Mongol siege of Baghdad (1258) included siege crossbows, and there are artifacts in Japanese museums showing that the Mongols brought explosives in their two invasions (1274 and 1281), which were fired from catapults.

The Yassa also has a production modifier to siege units, so there is some synergy in their kit for a siege UU.