[DLL] (8-NS) 4UC Rome - Ballista replaced by Millenarius

[Hinin]

Current : See pineappledan's original proposal for 4UC Rome here.

UMU2 - Ballista (replaces Catapult)
Unlocked at Mathematics
100 Production cost / 200 Faith cost

8 CS / 14 RCS / 2 Range (+3 / +1 / 0)
2 MP / 2 Vision

Legatus Legionis - +1 Movement Point if the Unit start its turn with an owned Great General within 2 tiles

Siege Inaccuracy
Limited Visibility
Moves at Half-Speed in Enemy Territory

Proposal : Ballista replaced with Millenarius

UMU2 - Millenarius (replaces Crossbowman) => art by janboruta from this mod by TarcisioCM

Unlocked at Physics (instead of Machinery)
130 Production cost / 300 Faith cost (- 30 / - 50)

17 CS / 19 RCS / 2 Range (+1 / 0 / 0)
2 MP / 2 Vision

Cannot Melee Attack
Attack Malus against Naval Units
Foedus - Gain +2% CS and RCS per conquered City in the Empire.
Limes - Grants +3 Culture when garrisonned into a Fort (instant yield). Lost upon upgrade.

UA - Glory of Rome

Kept as is

UMU1 - Legion

Kept as is

UNW - Carnix

Kept as is, as long as it works as intended

UI - Villa

Same Villa as the one proposed by azum4roll

Rationale : The main problem of the current Roman kit is that its power-spike is concentrated within one tech tier, with 2 land units unlocked. The Roman Legion is both emblematic and interesting, and while the Ballista is unique in its own right, I do think it takes a bit too much from the Russian Licorne in term of identity as a "fast anti-unit artillery". Thus, between the two, this is the one I would choose to remove.

Instead, I chose to propose a unit that taps the late Roman empire / Gothic War period and synergizes with the Roman ability to easily conquer city-states and its focus on military infrastructure.

As usual, thanks for reading.

Edit 1 : Added other components for the Roman kit.

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

Swapping out a very cool and thematically perfect unit for a roman archer just feels wrong. I am not against changing something about the ballista, but I really dont think it should be replaced. Rome should have a huge power spike in ancient/classical because that is when they were peaking hard.

 

[azum4roll]

Ultimately Ballista as a Catapult is a bad design choice though, similar to the Hwach'a.

Making Ballista an actual Composite Bowman replacement with early unlock and maybe a siege bonus is more preferable to the current version. Especially with Atlatlist pushed back.

 

[Rekk]

You can't say "any other proposal is fine". You need to pick another kit and commit.

 

[Hinin]

Ultimately Ballista as a Catapult is a bad design choice though, similar to the Hwach'a.

Making Ballista an actual Composite Bowman replacement with early unlock and maybe a siege bonus is more preferable to the current version. Especially with Atlatlist pushed back.

Even in this case, it would still end up with a kit that contains unique units for the two most powerful unitclasses of the same era. To me, that's too much. At least the Millenarius has the Knight in the same tech tier if you want to bash some Romans.

Swapping out a very cool and thematically perfect unit for a roman archer just feels wrong. I am not against changing something about the ballista, but I really dont think it should be replaced. Rome should have a huge power spike in ancient/classical because that is when they were peaking hard.

Theme doesn't justify making a civ oppressive, especially now that Rome has a UA that is about scaling and not about all-or-nothing conquest. Too much power just creates situations where you don't want to interact with a civ during its op window, plus I do think there is no interest playing as a civ that can just roll over the opposition. At least, the Zulus must compensate with a lack of economic bonus.

You can't say "any other proposal is fine". You need to pick another kit and commit.

I didn't say "any other proposal is fine", I said "any other proposal that doesn't impact the UU2 is fine". I have nothing to add to that.

 

[Rustonreddit]

He is right. You should choose the other stuff for the proposal. "Frankenstein style assembly of civs' components would be bad for the game"

Counterproposals Opened for VP Congress (Special) Session #8

Literally last session Polynesia was split up into three different proposal threads. Aside from that, we had a bunch of mix and match proposals like Mongolia and Policy trees. I agree it is novel, but I stand by the decision for this Special Session. A couple civs, fine; all 43, especially...

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[Rekk]

said "any other proposal that doesn't impact the UU2 is fine". I have nothing to add to that.

This will get your proposal vetoed. Pick the rest of the kit.

 

[pineappledan]

while the Ballista is unique in its own right, I do think it takes a bit too much from the Russian Licorne in term of identity as a "fast anti-unit artillery".

Except the Licorne is completely OP and should be dealt with; that is not Ballista's problem.

regardless, even on their own merits, the licorne can move normally in enemy land and move after attacking while the ballista has +1 moves while near a GGeneral. They are substantially different in how they move, and have no overlapping bonuses.

 

[Hinin]

Edit 1 : Added other components for the Roman kit.

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

Even in this case, it would still end up with a kit that contains unique units for the two most powerful unitclasses of the same era. To me, that's too much. At least the Millenarius has the Knight in the same tech tier if you want to bash some Romans.

Theme doesn't justify making a civ oppressive, especially now that Rome has a UA that is about scaling and not about all-or-nothing conquest. Too much power just creates situations where you don't want to interact with a civ during its op window, plus I do think there is no interest playing as a civ that can just roll over the opposition. At least, the Zulus must compensate with a lack of economic bonus.

Well if we think Rome is too strong and oppressive we could nerf their components. I dont think we should prohibit components from the same era for civs that peaked during one or two eras in civ ways of measuring time, but lately I have had two games where Rome were absolutely rolling everyone. I have had games where they are mediocre too though.

 

[azum4roll]

A comp bow-based ballista would be a massive buff for Rome (purely because they can upgrade into it, and comp bows have higher base melee defense), but it's not like they're currently performing that well.

 

[hokath]

MAGI:
Same Villa as base but the Ballista promotion change is not needed, instead a UnitPromotion column for strength per conquered city (don't think this exists atm).
Yields in fortification table already exists (but unused)

 

[pineappledan]

Need AI support so that AI knows that it specifically wants these units in garrisons. Yield in fortification works right now but it is unsupported. I think it assumes you have this ability via a trait or something, so it doesn’t matter what unit you garrison.

 

[Hinin]

DLL requirements : CombatPercentPerConqueredCity column in the UnitPromotions table or something of the sort

Need AI support so that AI knows that it specifically wants these units in garrisons. Yield in fortification works right now but it is unsupported. I think it assumes you have this ability via a trait or something, so it doesn’t matter what unit you garrison.

UnitPromotions_FortificationYield doesn't work correctly ?

 

[pineappledan]

It works, but the AI won’t prioritize making those units garrisons.

 

[Gizmoman]

A comp bow-based ballista would be a massive buff for Rome (purely because they can upgrade into it, and comp bows have higher base melee defense), but it's not like they're currently performing that well.

And it would create the exact same problem with two uus in the same era.

 

[azum4roll]

That's not a problem for me, as long as one of the units can be upgraded into.

 

[Recursive]

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