Armies

[Txurce]

I included a nerf to chariot archers in the latest round of updates, they're now back to the attack strength of Warriors.

Is that yesterday's update (1.07)? If so, they still have value!

 

[Tomice]

What I'm experimenting with is 150% more nodes with 50% resources per node (-25% fewer overall).

3 questions:

- Do you think there are also too many of the lategame ressources?
- Instead of half amounts per node, would it be better to reduce the difference between big and small nodes?
- would too many ressource tiles make improvement choices too automated (since you somewhat have to build the "right" improvement to maximize yield)?

 

[Twahn]

@Twahn
Ooo I didn't notice the node distribution was controlled by that lua file... thought it was in the c++. I'll play around with it a bit, thank you for the tip... I'm trying out what maps can look like with some alterations...

The reason for making nodes more frequent is I'm going for an overall 25% reduction in total resources available, and to do this involves a combination of smaller changes (since you can't reduce 1 or 2 by 25%).

Don't forget you've got two numbers to play with to reduce the total resource yield by 25%. Every resource has major and minor nodes, so if you can figure out how many of each are placed as a ratio to the other you can most likely achieve (at least an approximate) 25% reduction without changing the number of nodes.

(eg. if the ratio between minors and majors is 2:1 and you have a resource that gives 1 for a minor node and 2 for a major, reducing the major node to 1 only and leaving the minor as is would be a 25% reduction (ie. 3 resources from 3 nodes instead of 4 resources from 3 nodes)).

Might be an easier and cleaner option than messing with the distribution itself?

 

[Ahriman]

What I'm experimenting with is 150% more nodes with 50% resources per node (-25% fewer overall).

- Do you think there are also too many of the lategame ressources?
- Instead of half amounts per node, would it be better to reduce the difference between big and small nodes?
- would too many ressource tiles make improvement choices too automated (since you somewhat have to build the "right" improvement to maximize yield)?

I think this is a great discussion to have.
I think the main problems with late-game resources are:
i) Late-game techs go too fast (in vanilla), so there aren't enough turns in for example the ww2 era. I haven't done enough playtest with the Balance - Technologies changes to have a feel for how this has changed.
ii) Resource-requiring units aren't sufficiently more valuable than their resourceless counterparts.
Destroyers are still generally as useful as battleships, particularly with the tweaked combat values that make getting the the first shot in what determines the outcome of naval action.
Tanks are still not much better than Mech Inf (I wonder if mech-inf should reduce to strength 45, or to 3 movement?), and Mech Inf are still far too accessible (making their tech require Combustion would be great).
Modern armor comes so late that the game is determined by then, so I don't think Aluminium is ever going to matter much. The focus should be on trying to get oil right.
And aircraft seem to kinda suck, particularly since siege units take no damage when bombarding, but aircraft do.
And the AI never seems to build aircraft for me to want fighters. (Zero officially worst UU in the game.)
iii) Not enough important stuff to spend resources on. Coal is entirely economic (Destroyers come shortly after ironclads, which still aren't that great), and oil is entirely military.
Maybe if there were Superhighways, a big gold booster building that required oil, or if instead of Ironclads we had Dreadnoughts, which as basically proto-battleships? But I realize new units is beyond the scope of this mod.

Still, I think more nodes and fewer resources per node is a good way to go.

 

[Txurce]

I think this is a great discussion to have.
I think the main problems with late-game resources are:
i) Late-game techs go too fast (in vanilla), so there aren't enough turns in for example the ww2 era. I haven't done enough playtest with the Balance - Technologies changes to have a feel for how this has changed.
ii) Resource-requiring units aren't sufficiently more valuable than their resourceless counterparts.
Destroyers are still generally as useful as battleships, particularly with the tweaked combat values that make getting the the first shot in what determines the outcome of naval action.
Tanks are still not much better than Mech Inf (I wonder if mech-inf should reduce to strength 45, or to 3 movement?), and Mech Inf are still far too accessible (making their tech require Combustion would be great).
Modern armor comes so late that the game is determined by then, so I don't think Aluminium is ever going to matter much. The focus should be on trying to get oil right.
And aircraft seem to kinda suck, particularly since siege units take no damage when bombarding, but aircraft do.
And the AI never seems to build aircraft for me to want fighters. (Zero officially worst UU in the game.)
iii) Not enough important stuff to spend resources on. Coal is entirely economic (Destroyers come shortly after ironclads, which still aren't that great), and oil is entirely military.
Maybe if there were Superhighways, a big gold booster building that required oil, or if instead of Ironclads we had Dreadnoughts, which as basically proto-battleships? But I realize new units is beyond the scope of this mod.

Still, I think more nodes and fewer resources per node is a good way to go.

Hear, hear.

 

[Seek]

Horsemen still have 11 strength - is that intentional?

 

[Thalassicus]

i) Tech speed should be better with the Balance - Research mod.
ii) I agree completely. The changes made to strategic resources lately should hopefully help with this issue. A -25% reduction in strategic resource availability felt about right in the games I've played.

Reducing mech infantry movement speed is something that's been brought up before and is certainly a good option. I haven't had enough games last to the modern age (and still be challenging then) to really get a good feel for things. Likewise with modern armor. And I totally agree aircraft are questionable... it shocked me to discover they take damage even if there's no anti-air defenders. Aircraft feel very unfinished. They had bugs with stacking, their combat cards and range don't show, the AI doesn't build them, etc etc, all sorts of issues.

iii) I'm very careful about adding new things to the game... more is not always better. That said, perhaps an oil power plant might be appropriate... there's issues with late-game production I've been discussing elsewhere that could be addressed.

There was a long discussion about ironclads somewhere, I think earlier in this thread. Basically, what's called the "ironclad" in the game is an amalgam of hundreds of types of ships that spanned 1859 (the La Gloire) to 1915 (WW1). It combines types of ships such as iron-plated wooden ships, with or without sail and/or steam power, coal or oil fuelled. Naval design and strategy was progressing so rapidly there wasn't any consistency till 1890's introduction of dreadnaughts, and even then it took decades to phase in new more-universal ship designs. Earlier ship types were still in heavy use in WW1 (just like how old carpet bombers were still in use in Desert Storm). To sum it up... there's not really much point picking a particular class of ships from this period.

About horsemen... yeah. I feel the 1.135 nerfs were too much in the wrong place. Reducing strength from 12 was important, dropping it all the way to 10 didn't really address the issues of the weak Siege promotion, ranged unit ineffectiveness, or the late point of iron's reveal. Buffing these three things (as done pre-patch) improves alternatives to horsemen while leaving their strength equal to swordsmen.

 

[Ahriman]

I think 10 makes more sense, personally.
There is really no reason why swords should be 1:1 vs horses, when horses get to choose the terms of engagement *every* time, are pillage-monsters, expert worker thieves, and can be a rapid response force, in addition to superiority for attacking ranged units and siege.

The only things that swords are better at are attacking cities and defending on rough terrain. And attacking spearmen, I suppose.

 

[Thalassicus]

Horses have a hard-counter (which are buffed in this mod), and I'd estimate fighting against cities is about half the important combat I have in any given game.

It's important to consider context and the overall gameplay experience in addition to direct numerical comparisons. Horses have been nerfed through:

• Siege promo
• Techs
• Open terrain modifier
• Counter unit
• Vs city penalty
• -10% strength

On top of all this, they have a narrow window of opportunity between horseback riding and CS. Hard-difficulty AIs beeline to that very quickly. Swordsmen still fight effectively at 11v10; they take much longer to obsolete.

Any more is just overkill on a very beaten horse.

 

[Ahriman]

The hard-counter ends up only really being defensive, no player is ever going to leave their horse next to a spearman.

Anyway, its not game-breaking at 11, as long as the city attack penalty is still there, so this isn't a high priority issue.

I don't understand how horses have been nerfed through techs, I don't understand what siege promo you mean when you're counting the city penalty separately.
And I don't think CS obsoletes them, because you're not attacking the spearmen anyway, you're killing the other stuff and pillaging.

Besides, if horses end up rare enough, I might even favor a buff; I'd like horses to be powerful but rare.
I guess I need to get a feel for how common horses are now. I'm ok with them being awesome as long as its hard to get more than a couple early game and more than ~4 midgame.

 

[SlightlyMad]

The hard-counter ends up only really being defensive, no player is ever going to leave their horse next to a spearman.

Don't underestimate a deterrent force, even if it's never used. A spearman placed inside a city or on a hill beside it will basically disable any effectiveness of their horsemen. You simply can't do the same with a swordsman, since as long as there's a forest or hill nearby, they can march up to your city pretty much invulnerable to attack.

 

[CBG68]

I have been thinking about something. I'm not sure if it is even possible, but thought I might ask and see if it was capable of being accomplished. I will do my best to try and explain my idea as best I can without loosing the principle behind my question.

IMO - it would make the game more interesting if we could go back and grab an idea from the past.
Have a new unit that could be upgraded through techs. That gave the ability to stack a limited number units inside the unit ( like what was possible with the old great general ). The deference with this unit from the old unit from the past is that you can only stack different unit types inside of it ( ie.. a warrior and archer, but not a warrior and warrior ). The number of units able to stack would improve over time with upgrades of the unit.

Here is my ideas for unit names, abilities, tech requirements. Which could be adjusted of course but it is just a base idea to maybe work with.
1. Captain - Ability 2 units able to stack - Unlocked with Bronze Working.
2. Colonel - Ability 3 units able to stack - Unlocked with Education.
3. General - Ability 4 units able to stack - Unlocked with Military Science.

By the time you can have the General unit all 4 unit types could possibly be able stack inside of it ( melee, ranged, mounted, siege ). I don't know if you would want the units to be capable of attacking individually or as one unit.

I will be looking forward to any comments on this topic. Thx.

 

[Tomice]

@CBG68:

I fear this is far outside the scope of this mod. Breaking the 1upt rule is very different from vanilla gameplay and a controversial topic, too. I think it is better done as seperate mod and not as part of a modcomp that aims to improve vanilla gameplay.

 

[Thalassicus]

The hard-counter ends up only really being defensive, no player is ever going to leave their horse next to a spearman.

I don't understand how horses have been nerfed through techs,

I don't understand what siege promo you mean when you're counting the city penalty separately.

And I don't think CS obsoletes them, because you're not attacking the spearmen anyway, you're killing the other stuff and pillaging.

1) As SlightlyMad pointed out, a single spear greatly reduces options for horses to operate in the vicinity. Rough terrain to slow movement + a spear basically makes horses useless in the area. A spear or two around a city also means you can't use horses to assist your attack on that city. Swords have none of these disadvantages. With the cost reduction, now that spears are slightly more cost-effective per strength point than warriors I see the AI spam spears even when I don't have any mounted units.
2) Iron working is revealed earlier and has a cost reduction.
3) There's only one promotion named "Siege," it gives bonus damage to cities.
4) The thing is, the AI really loves beelining to and spamming pikes. They're resourceless and relatively cheap. If the enemy force is even half pikes, sending horses anywhere nearby is suicide. In particular, the value of horses are greatly reduced if one your neighbors is Germany, which on a pangaea map is likely. Continents map reduces that chance, but the AI can't do amphibious assaults so it's easier there anyway.


@CBG68
While possible... the thing that bothered me about great generals in the past (stacking with one or more units) was I was always hesitant to use them in challenging battles for fear of losing them. Of course, the disadvantage of the new great general is the AI never uses it at all anyway.

 

[truetom]

Had a trebuchet with +1 range. Upgraded to cannon but the range is usual 3 for cannons. Why, the unit states to have +1 range still and it's upgraded, not newly built. Don't you think this should be fixed?

 

[Tomice]

Had a trebuchet with +1 range. Upgraded to cannon but the range is usual 3 for cannons. Why, the unit states to have +1 range still and it's upgraded, not newly built. Don't you think this should be fixed?

IIRC cannons have 2 base range, 3 is only standard for artillery/ mobile arty.

 

[truetom]

I'm such a n00b - was too late to delete my post. Of course you're right, sorry for the fuss. Hope I get Arty with 4 range then.

 

[Tomice]

Had a trebuchet with +1 range. Upgraded to cannon but the range is usual 3 for cannons. Why, the unit states to have +1 range still and it's upgraded, not newly built. Don't you think this should be fixed?

Cannon have 2 base range!

 

[truetom]

I understood the first time, but thanks anyway.

 

[Thalassicus]

You will indeed get artillery with a range of 4, which are quite powerful. I always go for logistics, then range.