[Complex] (7-NS) unit upgrades applies temp debuff

[Tekamthi]

This is counter to the proposals that seek to reduce hp on upgrade.

Many will interpret a unit's hp to be a measure of its healthy personnel and equipment -- when we are reducing hp on upgrade we're implying that the full complement of personnel or equipment has been reduced. While not completely misaligned thematically, it takes a second level of thought to imagine that an upgraded unit might cycle out some personnel, equipment may arrive in batches etc. It's not bad but it's not the intuitive perspective with respect to HP and upgrades.

The desired gameplay effect is to smooth out the instant power shift that unit upgrades provide. This can be done via other means, however.

Proposal:

HP is unaffected by upgrade. Instead, upon upgrade, unit receives promotion with 10 turn duration that applies -20% strength.

Implementation details:

There is currently a database flag for promotions, "notwithupgrade" or something like this. I'd suggest making a counterpart column "onlywithupgrade"; when a free promotion for a unit is defined, and that unit newly created, this column is checked and the promotion only applied if the unit was created via upgrade. (It's possible something like this exists and I am just unfamiliar -- I've never needed to use it before)

Feedback request:

It is possible to have other counter proposals with this debuff mechanism in mind, but while this is the only one, what's the best debuff attribute to apply here? Could do other things like -1 movement etc.; promotions have many possible attributes, and most can have + or - values applied

MAGI: Complex proposal, DLL and database changes, new icon for the promotion

 

[Stalker0]

I would recommend using that dazed promotion that the Incan slinger has. Since it aleady exists and does pretty much what you asked for (though I think its 5 rounds rather than 10), it would be very easy to sponsor and implement I would imagine.

 

[Tekamthi]

I think it's pretty trivial to do a new promo though, we may want some different text to represent "re-training" or something like this, and possibly a different icon. Also, if they have dazed then they can't be dazed again til it wears off ie Incan slinger less effective

 

[rkkn]

this looks a lot better than damage on upgrade
less jarring and less unintuitively unrealistic, and less feelsbad

 

[pineappledan]

the primary concern is that the AI will likely handly HP loss better than a debuff.

10 turns is an exceedingly long time. The proposal for HP is intended only to take a maximum of 8 turns, but with many ways to lower that. via medics, cities, etc.

Lastly, a CS % reduction disproportionally affects early game and elite units less than it affects low-XP units. a highly-promoted unit will have numerous % CS abilities that buffer a small malus. HP reduction has a fairly consistent effect throughout the game.

 

[Tekamthi]

10 turns is an exceedingly long time

True although -20% is not super steep penalty, or not intended to be. The intention is for the unit to be somewhere in between the old and the new for some period of time. In any case, turn timer is attribute I'm looking for feedback on. What should it be? 5 turns?

It's true that AI know how to heal units but maybe not how to predict this hp loss from upgrade? Up to -99 hp or -50 hp as is being proposed, that's a big chunk of hp to lose in a single action, its almost nuke level of hp loss in the former case. I'd imagine any amount of HP loss will be difficult to predict for AI.

On the other hand if we get debuff values right to make an "in-between" unit, it just smooths out the upgrade power cliff into more of a stair case. Would be even more interesting if we could have a debuff that varies from turn to turn but alas such does not exist

 

[pineappledan]

Oh, and Orders Follower + Honor Authority policy give a combined 20% to all units on empire. Neutralizing the malus.

 

[Tekamthi]

Oh, and Orders Follower + Honor Authority policy give a combined 20% to all units on empire. Neutralizing the malus.

Sure, this is like an accountant perspective, and is valid as such.

But there is still an economic cost of sorts here, the unit is gonna be 20% less powerful than it otherwise would be, across the board. Similarly some policies and beliefs etc have healing bonus that mitigate the hp loss proposals, but these do not upset the logic being applied.

 

[Stalker0]

Oh, and Orders Follower + Honor Authority policy give a combined 20% to all units on empire. Neutralizing the malus.

Neutralizing implies there is no longer a penalty. The penalty isn't gone, it's just that authority units will only be as strong as regular units after upgrading, as opposed to a good bit stronger.

This is like saying the g gun aura doesn't apply to authority units that have orders.

 

[pineappledan]

If you have no bonus CS from promotions and take a -20% hit, your unit is at a net 80% CS. The 20% debuff is a 20% reduction in power
If you have +100% CS from promotions and take a -20% hit, you're still at net +180% CS. A 20% debuff is an actual 10% reduction in power

the unit is gonna be 20% less powerful than it otherwise would be, across the board.

I don't know how I can explain this more clearly. A % debuff will NOT have that effect. That's not how it works. They will have a smaller effect on late game, more experienced units, and on civs with combat bonuses on their abilities and policies.
The civs most affected by a % CS debuff on upgrade will be non-militaristic civs
In contrast, an HP reduction will not favour 1 group over another like this, except to favour civs that have invested in healing or have enhanced healing abilities (eg. Denmark).

If favouring militaristic civs and advantaging high-XP armies is an actual intended consequence of this counterproposal then say so.

 

[Tekamthi]

If you have no bonus CS from promotions and take a 20% hit, that's a 20% reduction in power
If you have +100% CS from promotions and take a 20% hit, you're still at 180% CS. A 20% debuff is an actual 10% reduction in power

It's quite clear, I just think this is not necessarily undesirable. A civ that specializes in war should have easier time doing the upgrade process. In the case of hp this is present as well with healing buffs conferred by some of the war specialization options.

In any case if 20% and 10 turns is not a desirable attribute mix, for the sake of crafting good proposal and having a rich set of voting options, what is the best mix for upgrade debuff? We could do something unconventional even, like an immobilizing promotion that is lost as soon as the unit as attacked, or otherwise lasts just a few turns... There are a lot of options

 

[pineappledan]

I'm mainly saying that you need to acknowledge that militaristic civs will have ways of mitigating this effect that non-militaristic playstyles don't. It is up to you to argue for why that is a good thing, and to post that rationale in the OP, up front.

Once this enters voting phase only the OP will be moved over to a new thread. You need to state your case in the OP.

 

[Tekamthi]

I suppose, but same can be said for hp & healing. The healing bonuses may lie in different places than the strength bonuses but it's not clear how either hp deduction or debuff comes out ahead on this point alone. Militaristic civs have the advantage in either model.

 

[pineappledan]

There are far more augments to %CS than there are for healing. I'm only aware of Mongolia, Assyria, and Denmark that have any healing bonuses, two of which are only up to the power of medic I/II and don't stack. And while there are numerous combat bonuses available via beliefs and policies, there is only 1 optional healing bonus: Goddess of Protection. The only other interaction is with fight better while injured (eg. Japan's Bushido promotion), and Fight Well Damaged (eg. Imperialism naval bonus)

While HP reduction is not perfectly agnostic, it's far more so than CS

Oh, and I forgot about Sweden, who could mass-upgrade and then buy a GGeneral for a global heal. That actually sounds dope tho.

 

[ma_kuh]

Can't the temporary promotion apply -15% damage dealt, instead of a CS change? (And +15% damage received if you want as well.)

As for duration, I think ~5 turns is fairer than 10. 5 turns means you can peace out, get home, upgrade your units, and start heading back into the field by the time the peace deal is over.

 

[Tekamthi]

Can't the temporary promotion apply -15% damage dealt, instead of a CS change? (And +15% damage received if you want as well.)

As for duration, I think ~5 turns is fairer than 10. 5 turns means you can peace out, get home, upgrade your units, and start heading back into the field by the time the peace deal is over.

As I reflect here, something like this is probably necessary.

The others are correct that hp is slightly more AI friendly than temp debuff, in that with debuff it may be advantageous just to wait out the debuff and use units at full strength rather than risk them too early -- AI won't know to do this, but it does consider hp amount when deciding whether to commit to attack or not.

If someone wants to second @ma_kuh's suggestion, will amend to it. Otherwise we need to remix the debuff attributes to mitigate the disparity in AI vs human knowledge re: waiting it out

Edit: there's also possibly of having different debuff for different unit line eg. archer gets range debuff temporarily, mounted gets movement debuff temporarily, etc.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.