Archers and bandit riders balance

[Raledon]

I find that archers are generally relatively weak, while bandit riders too strong.
Archers: are meant to be defensive units, mostly city protectors. In terms of power, while in city, they are about as strong as similar melee units. But generally, they appear a lot weaker due to levels.
Taking the bronze tier units for example, a composite bowman is 5*1.5 in a city, while a bronze axeman is 7. The axeman might have a slightly weaker base, but tends to get more XP as a melee unit, stronger from each level, and cost less production to create. It also have the option to go out of the city to attack.
I'm not sure what makes archers worthwhile at the moment.

Bandit riders seem to have a problem of being exceptionally strong (size matters). For a 12 power unit, they are very cheap (225, as opposed to 285 from using a combined elephant) and very fast. The biggest issue is that beside causing havoc using hidden nationality, they are extremely valuable as army logistics support. The 300 cargo space allows to move numerous siege units and otherwise slow moving units extremely fast. In practice, a few bandits can carry the army, for an effective 1 city capture/turn per army.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I find that archers are generally relatively weak, while bandit riders too strong.
Archers: are meant to be defensive units, mostly city protectors. In terms of power, while in city, they are about as strong as similar melee units. But generally, they appear a lot weaker due to levels.
Taking the bronze tier units for example, a composite bowman is 5*1.5 in a city, while a bronze axeman is 7. The axeman might have a slightly weaker base, but tends to get more XP as a melee unit, stronger from each level, and cost less production to create. It also have the option to go out of the city to attack.
I'm not sure what makes archers worthwhile at the moment.

The full unit charting review for land combatants hasn't been done yet so some overview imbalances still exist I believe. And this, I think, is one of them. It'll get more deeply evaluated at some point fairly soon as it is a priority but that project has been knocked back significantly by a lot of very urgent other, more fundamental game architectural matters. Like fixing overflow problems and such.

However, consider that archers have such an enormous power to defend cities that they are still very capable of repelling axemen and swordsmen there even though appearing weaker. And try building a stack of them for use for Distance Assault, with as much promoting towards that purpose as you can. Then they get much more useful, even for an attack army.

Bandit riders seem to have a problem of being exceptionally strong (size matters). For a 12 power unit, they are very cheap (225, as opposed to 285 from using a combined elephant) and very fast. The biggest issue is that beside causing havoc using hidden nationality, they are extremely valuable as army logistics support. The 300 cargo space allows to move numerous siege units and otherwise slow moving units extremely fast. In practice, a few bandits can carry the army, for an effective 1 city capture/turn per army.

hmm... that's interesting that they can carry normal troop units. They should only be able to carry captives. I knew there was a bug there somewhere but that's not a part of what I expected. I'll have to take another look at that very soon.

As for their power, they cannot merge or split. And they are stuck at just under the merge level of a true military force unit capability for that era. Thus, they CAN be easily trumped by a fully merged spearmen unit. The AI does still have to learn some things about how to identify when and how to build a specific counter to the units plaguing them though. Eventually I hope to teach them this without disrupting all their other lessons.

 

[Rmi]

Arsonists in particular are unstoppable when attacking cities as well. They can go from 8 to 6 power and still be viable.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Arsonists in particular are unstoppable when attacking cities as well. They can go from 8 to 6 power and still be viable.

Maybe. If archers take a step up then they might need to stay as they are. Again... all imbalances are revealed when the charting is completed.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Arsonists in particular are unstoppable when attacking cities as well. They can go from 8 to 6 power and still be viable.

Totally disagree. Been thru this before, no need to do it again. For Non SM games.

SM throws everything out the window, even the baby...........

 

[Thunderbrd]

Totally disagree. Been thru this before, no need to do it again. For Non SM games.

SM throws everything out the window, even the baby...........

On non SM games, I do not disagree at all. They can bombard city defenses if patient enough, get the city attack bonuses of swords, collateral damage when they attack, likely to withdraw when they do and also have greater power than any of the units that may defend in the era they begin. How would they not step all over any city they come across? Particularly once promoted up a bit? They just take a long time to bombard down the defenses is all so trap buildings can make them have to take a few rounds to get the city into a vulnerable position and they may have to pause to heal. Otherwise they are a bit deus exmachina at the moment with a power as high as a few pts higher than the standard archery unit for that age.

 

[JosEPh_II]

On non SM games, I do not disagree at all. They can bombard city defenses if patient enough, get the city attack bonuses of swords, collateral damage when they attack, likely to withdraw when they do and also have greater power than any of the units that may defend in the era they begin. How would they not step all over any city they come across? Particularly once promoted up a bit? They just take a long time to bombard down the defenses is all so trap buildings can make them have to take a few rounds to get the city into a vulnerable position and they may have to pause to heal. Otherwise they are a bit deus exmachina at the moment with a power as high as a few pts higher than the standard archery unit for that age.

1st you say you agree about Non SM games. But then in the same paragraph say they are OP? Which is it??? You made this Overly complicated situation.

 

[Rmi]

It's not just the base power, it's the cumulative bonuses on it.
An arsonist starts with 8 power and a inherent bonus of +25% city attack.
Then you should have at least 2 promotions from barracks etc. for +50% city attack.
The kicker comes with poison and bamboo armor, and maybe even pankration.

My experience is: they are unstoppable against the AI. When the AI uses them itself, they can't be stopped either by other AI.
I have also seen them being used as the standard defense unit by AI. That seemed just wrong. You don't garrison a city with people who's frikkin job it is to set cities on fire!


I would make arsonists 6 power with standard city attack 1 and 2 and NO defense bonus. Setting stuff on fire isn't good defense if you are hiding in a forest.

That would keep them very strong against cities and forts but make them much much weaker in the field. Unsupported they will be caught by chariots and horsemen.

Offcourse experience may vary, but this is the unit i have noticed most in my games.

 

[Thunderbrd]

1st you say you agree about Non SM games. But then in the same paragraph say they are OP? Which is it??? You made this Overly complicated situation.

My disagreement statement was to say "On non SM games, I do not disagree at all." that I completely agree with Rmi and that I do disagree with your assertion that the unit is not OP on nonSM games.

I dont' think it's a big deal enough to do anything about until reviewing all units and putting them in balance with each other. Again, however, this is because I'm not wanting to just look at tweaking one unit. This is also because archers are under strength. But if I then change archers without looking at the chart, something else will come up insufficient. You said I created this but before the stone axemen was upped from str 3 to 4 because you didn't know that it was gaining a +25% bonus vs melee that you couldn't see because you'd never used the alternative help panels, everything has been a matter of a falling dominoes experience of other units becoming out of whack.

That said, I've come to like that adjustment anyhow, have adjusted barbarian spawns to adapt (though still have some important work there to make them spawn by tech of the leader rather than date) and I just know that there's currently units that are out of whack until it gets more thoroughly reviewed. The arsonists have almost always been OP though, and a lot of that is due to MY adjustments to expectations when I charted out throwing unit progressions. Arsonists were actually nerfed a hell of a lot and were still OP because before me they had changed the positioning of their prereq tech so dramatically and had not adapted the unit at all and they were REALLY glaringly powerful then, which some thought was fine because they were limited units.

It's all a process of improvement and we're closer now than ever to the review process I'm hoping to have done by v38. At least v39.

Yes, we could depower the arsonist, but I think it's probably appropriate for its era and its other units that aren't powerful enough that is the problem and that's going to take some analysis to show.

Hmm... no defense bonus would be an interesting weakness for fire throwing units. Not good at all for non-fire throwing units as they are intended to have a secondary role of city defense. The problem may be that they really perhaps should be defensive too... the grenadier is in the same categorical chain.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Archers are not under strength at all. The Only possible problem is the pacing of the upgrade chain. I disagree with Rmi and your assertions completely.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Archers are not under strength at all. The Only possible problem is the pacing of the upgrade chain. I disagree with Rmi and your assertions completely.

Let me ask you this. Can you see how a city can honestly keep from losing any defenders when an invading army comes up to attack it? We have situations where the attacking army can lose no attackers, so shouldn't a well prepared defending army be just as capable of a complete repelling?

 

[JosEPh_II]

We already have both situations in the mod. Why are we fiddling with it again? It's very hard to take a city in this mod unless you do it Before you get Walls. City defenders rarely get wiped out by any attacking army except your Monster SOD. And why is that because you know every promotion and how they interact better than anyone else that plays C2C. Players should be losing some cities to the AI and the higher the difficulty level the more they should suffer losses.

So you and Rmi want no defender losses like you had it back in v 35? Or the Seige units SODs stacked on every tile around a city? Again? Really?

 

[Thunderbrd]

So you and Rmi want no defender losses like you had it back in v 35? Or the Seige units SODs stacked on every tile around a city? Again? Really?

No. Just saying that the arsonists are imbalanced is all. It's a matter of # comparisons. Siege units stacked on every tile around the city was a whole different problem.

It's nothing to react to immediately. It's better now than when Arsonists, in the same tech slot with similar unit strengths around them on other contemporary units, were coming in at 13 or 15 strength iirc. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a bit too much power on them now. Take them out and you wouldn't have much greater difficulty in taking a city either so a little reduction in their power to put them into better balance wouldn't hurt. But again, it's not really just them I don't think. If I recall correctly, some of the other units around that time still aren't strong enough to match them.

Don't stress bro. Just stating opinions.

 

[JosEPh_II]

take them out and you wouldn't have much greater difficulty in taking a city either

Balderdash! Plain and simple balderdash.

T-brd you have got to stop with thinking everyone is at your level of play for this Mod. Realize you have to plan for the avg player as well as the vocal deity group.

Edit: And yes I'm being demonstrative. Seems I have to be this way anymore.

 

[Thunderbrd]

We don't have to give players kid gloves to give them a game they can enjoy. In fact, the more you do, the less enjoyable it becomes.

Case in point, in our main MP game I forgot to train arsonists at all. No big deal. Lost a few troops in the process of taking a city. A few. Like 3 rams and 2 swords. I'm not of any significant tech advantage either. Wasn't a hugely defended city but I was also crossing a river because I felt time was worth more than maximizing advantage and I didn't bother to attempt to surround first for the same reason.

 

[Rmi]

We all play with realistic siege ON right?

 

[JosEPh_II]

We all play with realistic siege ON right?

No!

 

[Rmi]

I agree about the promotions.
We have so many choices but why would i ever pick anything but the most efficient.
Civilization is a long stream of continued specialization after all.

We didn't discuss city counterdefenses.

Joseph - are you used to enemy cities having those 'area hurt' buildings like those thorn bushes on fire and their later ilk?
Also some coutersiege parked in a city to soften your stacks?

I must say, the AI doesn't really bother with those. They are annoying to fight against but can certainly be effective.