Armies

[truetom]

I have more mods activated, can send you details if wanted.

 

[clearbeard]

Hi Thal!

SUMMARY:
I'd say the chariot's mobilty bonus is often more worthy than the better defense of archers. IMHO, the cheaper cost of chariots is not justified. I'd make archers cheaper or even switch the costs.

Oh, and thx for making chariots so awesome and fun to play with!

Having recently played through the Mongol scenario with their vicious Keshiks, I'd say chariots are way more useful than archers. The value of tactical mobility cannot be overstated. The ability to move up, strike from range, and then retreat means chariot archers will continue to have a place on the battlefield as long as they can even do 1 point of damage per shot to their target.

 

[Tomice]

Having recently played through the Mongol scenario with their vicious Keshiks, I'd say chariots are way more useful than archers. The value of tactical mobility cannot be overstated. The ability to move up, strike from range, and then retreat means chariot archers will continue to have a place on the battlefield as long as they can even do 1 point of damage per shot to their target.

I've yet to field Keshiks in a meaningful conflict, but the AI really sucks about using horsemen or even knights to crush chariots. Swordmen are totally helpless, except in some very special terrain situations.

It's weird they have all this awesome early units and then a very boring, 3-4 unit midgame. Then again, chariots sucked before Thal turned them into mini-Keshiks. Also, realism would hardly allow for other unit types during renaissance.

 

[Thalassicus]

I figured out the problem with the promotion swapping. I was using an "else if" instead of "elseif", thus the file wasn't loading. Both are syntactically correct but the first version requires an extra "end" statement.

You have a point about relative costs of archers and chariot archers Tomice. I'll increase chariot archer cost to 70 (from 60) to match Archers. This should retain their fun value while keeping them balanced.

 

[Tomice]

You have a point about relative costs of archers and chariot archers Tomice. I'll increase chariot archer cost to 70 (from 60) to match Archers. This should retain their fun value while keeping them balanced.

Thx for your consideration. I think 70 is more than justified for chariots, but I guess making archers even a bit cheaper (70->60) could be discussed. Swordmen and Horsemen are 80; at least for me they seem like a better choice in many situations. I also have a feeling that chariots are still better than archers most of the time, even for the same price.

Also compared to Warriors with 40 prod cost and Spearmen with 45 (50 in vanilla), archers seem expensive. I might just underestimate them, though.

BTW, I like how spearmen are so cheap that you have no reason to use warriors later (except to upgrade them to swordmen).

 

[Thalassicus]

That's certainly a viable alternative, I've always felt archers are a little overpriced. I think I like that idea better, I'll reduce archer costs from 70 to 60 and leave chariot costs alone. Do you think I should leave Bowmen at 70 or reduce them as well?

 

[Tomice]

Hmm, I don't have the DLC. They are +2 ranged and +2 defensive strenght, right?

That'd be quite an edge over regular archers. but since they have always been the same price as regular archers and they don't seem to make other units pointless (spearmen are still stronger on defense, better vs. horses and cheaper) I'd keep them in line with archers, except if you want to nerf Babylon a bit.

So my suggestion:

Warrior 40
Spearmen 45
Archer 60
Bowmen 60-65
Chariot 70
Horsemen 80
Swordmen 80

I'll make up my mind if the problem persists in the next era (crossbows) when I reach it next time during a gaming session.

What I'm not sure about is whether it makes a noteworthy difference if you garrison archers or chariots?

 

[truetom]

Glad you found the error, Thal. Will you make the new version of the mod then?

 

[Txurce]

That's certainly a viable alternative, I've always felt archers are a little overpriced. I think I like that idea better, I'll reduce archer costs from 70 to 60 and leave chariot costs alone. Do you think I should leave Bowmen at 70 or reduce them as well?

I like this approach, and have no opinion on the Bowman. The vanilla game tends to go both ways on UU pricing.

 

[Tomice]

I agree with what you said in the other thread, Txurce: We should not overestimate the relevance of small price differences. I'm not entirely sure if the upkeep is the same for every unit (I guess so?), but budget concerns are often a bigger question than a turn more or less production time.

This might mean we might have to think about 7->6 for chariots, but I'd try it through the price first. From the SC2 beta I know that nerfing everything that appears as viable/strong strategy is often a mistake. They tend to say "everything should appear overpowered". If I understand them right, it's better to buff the weaker unit than to nerf the stronger unit.

 

[Thalassicus]

@truetom
I've put out a testing version with the problem fixed (first post here, at the bottom), will be putting it out for a full release sometime in the next few days.

"everything should appear overpowered"

That was actually a driving motivation for a dungeon crawl game I made. The most thrilling day was when I was playing a match of eight or so and everyone started commenting about how their character felt overpowered, yet all their scores were even! And they were struggling in some of the boss fights, which meant their power was well-matched to the encounters despite the fact they felt overpowered. It took eight years to get it to that point though.

 

[Txurce]

I agree with what you said in the other thread, Txurce: We should not overestimate the relevance of small price differences. I'm not entirely sure if the upkeep is the same for every unit (I guess so?), but budget concerns are often a bigger question than a turn more or less production time.

This might mean we might have to think about 7->6 for chariots, but I'd try it through the price first. From the SC2 beta I know that nerfing everything that appears as viable/strong strategy is often a mistake. They tend to say "everything should appear overpowered". If I understand them right, it's better to buff the weaker unit than to nerf the stronger unit.

To follow your reasoning, we should consider buffing archers, which are now definitely neglected. But I would think that a chariot archer wouldn't be as effective as a regular archer, so nerfing the chariot at least makes common sense.

 

[Thalassicus]

One question to consider if they're fighting in the chariot or if it's simply archer infantry using chariots as transport. In the case of the latter, from a realism perspective they'd be relatively equal in combat effectiveness. This is why I focus more on gameplay "feel" than realworld accuracy, as just about anything can be rationalized from some historical analogy or another.

 

[Tomice]

To follow your reasoning, we should consider buffing archers, which are now definitely neglected. But I would think that a chariot archer wouldn't be as effective as a regular archer, so nerfing the chariot at least makes common sense.

making archers cheaper IS buffing them, and I think the above price list is quite realistic and intuitive.

I agree 8 seems much, or I'd have to get used to.

 

[Txurce]

One question to consider if they're fighting in the chariot or if it's simply archer infantry using chariots as transport.

Aren't they archers, not infantry, in every case?

 

[Thalassicus]

Infantry in the general sense, of soldiers fighting on foot.

 

[Txurce]

Infantry in the general sense, soldiers and such.

I misunderstood you earlier reply, but get it now.

Presumably slingers will also cost less.

A second factor for someone like me thinking chariots are OP is that the patch nerfed them vs cities. I have definitely noticed this.

 

[Shoryn]

I figured out the problem with the promotion swapping. I was using an "else if" instead of "elseif", thus the file wasn't loading. Both are syntactically correct but the first version requires an extra "end" statement.

Glad you found the error This was in which file ? I can't find it in my files

 

[Thalassicus]

BC - General.lua, line 33. I also discovered I was missing the pUnit parameter from my checkReplacePromotion() function calls on lines 21, 29, and 41. I've attached a copy that should work, if you're trying to fix it manually.

 

[Shoryn]

Many thanks Thal I asked this as I wanted to fix this on the v16 to play without the latest patch to finish my current games (playing as the mongols you can imagine your promotion swap is a must )