Armies

[rhammer640]

Could you make it an either or? So that if you have iron in the boundries of that city it doesn't consume an iron but if not then it does.

That way you can pay to specialize but its not as productive as using the location based one

 

[truetom]

Could you make it an either or? So that if you have iron in the boundries of that city it doesn't consume an iron but if not then it does.

That way you can pay to specialize but its not as productive as using the location based one

Seems a good idea to me.

 

[Thalassicus]

I believe that's an option. I checked and found these functions in the lua api:

GetNumResource
SetNumResource
ChangeNumResource

I'd use them to change the local resource quantity +X when the forge is built, where X is how many of the resources it consumes. The second and third functions are used nowhere in the normal game files however, so I'd have to do some wild guessing trial and error to see if they work and how, but it might be possible.

 

[alpaca]

I believe that's an option. I checked and found these functions in the lua api:

GetNumResource
SetNumResource
ChangeNumResource

I'd use them to change the local resource quantity +X when the forge is built, where X is how many of the resources it consumes. The second and third functions are used nowhere in the normal game files however, so I'd have to do some wild guessing trial and error to see if they work and how, but it might be possible.

I think Whys is using these in the building resources mod, but they aren't displayed in the UI. In a way, it would be simpler and faster to just copy the building and make two versions of it, though.

 

[Thalassicus]

What part isn't displayed?

 

[Ahriman]

I've been thinking about changing the Forge from "requires 1 iron nearby" to "consumes 1 iron," so it can be built anywhere.

I don't really see a need for it to require iron at all.
The workshop doesn't, nor does the windmill. Why should the forge?

One other idea, probably not the best one, would be to try to make the forge and workshop mutually incompatible, so you could only have one or other.
But I guess there's no logical reason for that.

Having a building that sometimes consumes a resource and sometimes doesn't sounds unnecessarily confusing.

 

[Txurce]

I don't really see a need for it to require iron at all.
The workshop doesn't, nor does the windmill. Why should the forge?

Having a building that sometimes consumes a resource and sometimes doesn't sounds unnecessarily confusing.

This makes sense.

Trying to be consistent with recent building outputs, why not make the forge require no resources, but have a high maintenance, and then give it a bonus if iron is nearby (like you do with other resources in other buildings).

 

[Ahriman]

why not make the forge require no resources, but have a high maintenance, and then give it a bonus if iron is nearby (like you do with other resources in other buildings).

Thats a very good idea. Much simpler way of achieving a similar effect.

The one thing I'd add: does the AI understand the effects of all of these bonus-with-resource-X, and prioritize those buildings in cities that will benefit from them?

The existence of the mint building and monastary are not sufficient evidence that the AI understands these, since those buildings are *only* buildable in cities that have the relevant resource.

 

[Sneaks]

What part isn't displayed?

I know Set and Change don't "use" resources. It simply eliminates 1 of that resource from the game for that player if you use it in your case with the Forge. There are no commands to "use" a resource, so basically you would need to add extra code so that if the building is destroyed or sold, the 1 iron is added back. You would also probably need to account for these missing resources in some other value, then calculate them into the top panel display. Of course, you'll still have visual errors with mods like AgS.

 

[Joneill]

Trying to be consistent with recent building outputs, why not make the forge require no resources, but have a high maintenance, and then give it a bonus if iron is nearby (like you do with other resources in other buildings).

But is it really needed? Iron production output already increases with techs, is there a need for a separate upgrade? And is the forge still in need of buffing or what is the reason why it should be buildable everywhere (which btw the windmill cannot either, and the workshop's effect is mainly specific to the city it is built in, while unitproduction is much more "global")? Not trying to fight against a change here, just don't really see the need to change a building only because "it can be done".

 

[Txurce]

But is it really needed? Iron production output already increases with techs, is there a need for a separate upgrade? And is the forge still in need of buffing or what is the reason why it should be buildable everywhere (which btw the windmill cannot either, and the workshop's effect is mainly specific to the city it is built in, while unitproduction is much more "global")? Not trying to fight against a change here, just don't really see the need to change a building only because "it can be done".

Top of my head, I'd say it's not needed. And your comparison to the windmill (if not the workshop) is certainly valid. What it does do is take the luck factor out of where a forge can be built, just as diffusing the iron resources reduced the luck factor in building swords. And of course it makes the forge itself more important in most cases. In that sense it's consistent with the general trend of these mods.

 

[Ahriman]

Though I would be just fine with a Forge that didn't require iron locally or have any interaction with iron, I think the idea is to have some kind of counterpart to how horses let you build the circus, and get a boost with stables.

We don't want iron becoming the weak cousin to horses.

However, possibly even better than "higher maintenance cost but gold from nearby iron" might be "higher maintenance cost but hammers from nearby iron".
Really emphasizing it as an industrial booster.

 

[orangecape]

This is a little off topic for now, but one thing I found was that chariots were absolutely terrible now that they lack the move after attack buff. I will certainly agree with others than when they had the promotion they were too powerful but I think the current problem is their combat value when defending. They get one shotted by absolutely everything (barring archers, I suppose) including the lowly warrior and don't do enough damage to warrant the amount of protection they need to survive. If their combat value was 5 instead of 3 I think I would find a real use for them. They could actually survive a hit from a warrior and would have a chance to live through a hit from a swordsman or spearman instead of the current situation where they die and do 1 damage. Heck, you might even go to 6 combat value. I still think nobody would be convinced they were the only way to go but if you did rush to them they would pack a substantial punch.

 

[Thalassicus]

There might be a mistake in documentation somewhere, but chariots still do have move-after-attack capability like all other mounted units.

One reason they're actually weaker than they might at first appear is that ranged units defend against them with ranged strength... so they're actually much, much weaker at attacking archers than a warrior would be. It makes sense but isn't intuitively obvious, and took me several months to realize what was going on!

An option I considered at one point is to let them flee when attacked like Incan Slingers, and buff Slingers. It's a rather weak UU.

 

[Txurce]

This is a little off topic for now, but one thing I found was that chariots were absolutely terrible now that they lack the move after attack buff. I will certainly agree with others than when they had the promotion they were too powerful but I think the current problem is their combat value when defending. They get one shotted by absolutely everything (barring archers, I suppose) including the lowly warrior and don't do enough damage to warrant the amount of protection they need to survive. If their combat value was 5 instead of 3 I think I would find a real use for them. They could actually survive a hit from a warrior and would have a chance to live through a hit from a swordsman or spearman instead of the current situation where they die and do 1 damage. Heck, you might even go to 6 combat value. I still think nobody would be convinced they were the only way to go but if you did rush to them they would pack a substantial punch.

I became hooked on chariots back in their brief, buffed heyday - so much that I still build them as an auxiliary if focusing on swords rather than horses. They are capable early game siege units, and a couple of them can soften up any enemy formation. When you consider that part of their value is how early they appear, and how safe their 4-space range makes them... where our opinions differ... I think they're just right.

 

[Joneill]

I'd like to revive some of the earlier discussion in this thread.
First: Knights and Cavalry. They share the same basic disadvantages with horseman, but offer reduced mobility and, in the case of cavalry, even require higher production and tech than their infantry-counterparts. I think increasing them to four moves would be a good idea, as it would create a real mounted unit line (allowing obsoletion of horsemen at chivalry).
Second: I think the spearman-buff should be reverted. While at 7 strength they are somewhat less hammerefficient than warriors, they do offer more strength per gold maintenance (unless there is fractional maintenance?). The reason it was useful to build warriors instead of spearman in the unmodded game was the ability to mass-upgrade them to swordsman, but I think this has been nicely adressed with the scarcer resources and increased upgrade costs here.
Also, while it is true that high percentage modifiers can change the odds of horseman vs. spearman to favor the horseman, this does not take into account the substantial cost difference between these units, which still makes the spearman the most efficient counter to horseman.
Now, I don't think spearman are really unbalanced at 8 strength, but I don't feel the buff is necessary, especcially if it also has adverse effects: By buffing spearman, you also increased the unique units and then had to nerf hoplites quite substantially (which is somewhat ironic, since they actually were as hammer-efficient as warriors in the unmodded game).

 

[rhammer640]

Second: I think the spearman-buff should be reverted. While at 7 strength they are somewhat less hammerefficient than warriors, they do offer more strength per gold maintenance (unless there is fractional maintenance?). The reason it was useful to build warriors instead of spearman in the unmodded game was the ability to mass-upgrade them to swordsman, but I think this has been nicely adressed with the scarcer resources and increased upgrade costs here.
Also, while it is true that high percentage modifiers can change the odds of horseman vs. spearman to favor the horseman, this does not take into account the substantial cost difference between these units, which still makes the spearman the most efficient counter to horseman.
Now, I don't think spearman are really unbalanced at 8 strength, but I don't feel the buff is necessary, especcially if it also has adverse effects: By buffing spearman, you also increased the unique units and then had to nerf hoplites quite substantially (which is somewhat ironic, since they actually were as hammer-efficient as warriors in the unmodded game).

I actually think the spearman upgrade is perfect the way it is. They need to be a bit stronger because after thal reduced the abundance of iron they are supposed to act as the backbone of your early army. I know from my games at least that i actually will build them now when i never would before and actually see them as better then warriors as they should be. Also the AI doesn't build horsemen often and not that we should ballance against a bad Ai but the 100% bonus vs horsemen doesn't come into play as often as it should.

 

[Thalassicus]

Thank you for bringing up the knight/cavalry topic again, I'll address it in the next beta build.

The primary reason spearmen were buffed is to give civs without iron a realistic chance at defending themselves. Either in this thread or the combined one I pointed out swordsmen one-hit-kill 7 spears on open terrain, with just a great general (no promotions). 8 spears shifts it more into 2-hit kill territory, giving iron-deprived civs a fighting chance.

Spears are good on rough terrain but the defender can't pick the terrain of their start location. If a city has open terrain on even a single side it's the one-hit-kill scenario. Horsemen are not a viable defensive unit since they 1) receive no defensive bonuses and 2) have a hard counter.

Hoplites have 10 to swords' 11, at an earlier tech than swords, cost no resources, and counter horsemen. I'd say the base strength increase I gave Hoplites actually results in a net buff, making them more useful in general, even if they cost a little more. If you feel they're not strong enough I could reduce their cost a bit.

 

[Txurce]

Hoplites have 10 to swords' 11, at an earlier tech than swords, cost no resources, and counter horsemen. I'd say the base strength increase I gave Hoplites actually results in a net buff, making them more useful in general, even if they cost a little more. If you feel they're not strong enough I could reduce their cost a bit.

No kidding it's a net buff. Don't reduce their cost!

 

[Joneill]

The primary reason spearmen were buffed is to give civs without iron a realistic chance at defending themselves. Either in this thread or the combined one I pointed out swordsmen one-hit-kill 7 spears on open terrain, with just a great general (no promotions). 8 spears shifts it more into 2-hit kill territory, giving iron-deprived civs a fighting chance.

Granted, I never ran into the scenario of having to fight swordsmen with my spearmen, which I mainly use to provide ZoC for my siege machinery, but point taken.

Hoplites have 10 to swords' 11, at an earlier tech than swords, cost no resources, and counter horsemen. I'd say the base strength increase I gave Hoplites actually results in a net buff, making them more useful in general, even if they cost a little more. If you feel they're not strong enough I could reduce their cost a bit.

I thought that a better way to handle the unique units and keep the 8 strength spearman would be to not alter the vanilla unique unit stats, but reduce the cost of Immortals to match that of regular spearman (so they would have their double healing as only unique benefit, while hoplites would still be 9 strength at 60 hammer cost). But I guess if other people like the new hoplites, than that is not really an issue .