Armies

[Ahriman]

In terms of base strength spears are only a few percentage points more cost effective than warriors.

33% stronger. Huge difference.

Pikes upgrading to muskets makes at least as much sense as cavalry to tanks. I'm all in favor of it

More sense, arguably; both were often masses of semi-trained peasant levies, given a cheap weapon and used in large numbers to form a battle line.
Plus there's the whole historic fact of how pike-and-shot formations gradually transitioned from pure pike to pure shot.

Of course, my real preference would be to actually broaden the Renaissance, so there was room for an advanced Renaissance pikeman in addition to an early medieval one, and to separate arquebuses from muskets, so there is some real difference between 16th century and 18th century weapons. But that's not for this mod.

But it doesn't mean I'm going to build pikes any more than I was spears before you adjusted the Classical era.

Well, you only have so many strategic resources. With what's left, you have to build pikes, cats/trebs or archers/xbows. If you still don't want to build pikes, then maybe that suggests the others are slightly too powerful?

I think muskets are fine as they are.

I've lost track of the latest Knight tweaks. I think vanilla knights were slightly too weak.
Compare horseman:swordsman vs knight:longsword.

 

[Joneill]

I think early units are rather well-balanced in the present state. I'm happy with the place archers and spears are at, especially with camps now on archery to improve the value of the tech itself a bit. In terms of base strength spears are only a few percentage points more cost effective than warriors.

Well, my point was that hoplites seem rather bad compared to spearmen (you can have three of the latter for two hoplites, at less goldmaintenance), but they seem to be balanced well when compared to swordsmen/pikes. So the problem are either spearmen - or the maintenance costs of hoplites (and swords, horses and I guess pikes as well).

• Knights... question is are they more desirable now that tech accessibility has been modified?
• I'm happy with cavalry/rifles balance now. Both are equally accessible and have the same cost.

Both units are certainly more accessible now, but I still wonder why the upgrade horsemen->knight->cavalry must come at the cost of one movementpoint, while swordsmen->longsword->riflemen does not incur any penalties.

 

[Sneaks]

Honestly, I would be cool with making Knights require Iron and Horses, and making them the strongest unit available until Rifles, and making Horsemen only obsolete with Military Science.

 

[Txurce]

Honestly, I would be cool with making Knights require Iron and Horses, and making them the strongest unit available until Rifles, and making Horsemen only obsolete with Military Science.

That's the way it was in earlier versions of Civ. Given that horsemen effectively become light cavalry, this is an interesting notion - horses killing ranged and wounded units? The catch might be their city nerf, which cuts into the "strongest unit" approach.

 

[Ahriman]

I think I would prefer to keep units as just requiring 1 strategic resource, so the knight is the counterpart to the longswordsman.

I think its a cool idea for a much more detailed mod, where you could have a mix of mounted infantry and heavy cavalry at the same tech level, but I don't think its the right way to go here. I don't think we have space for light/heavy horse contrasts in Civ5.

Horsemen are pretty useless once your foes consist primarily of longswords and pikes.

Several possibilities were suggested for improving knights and cavalry:
a) extra movement point
b) higher strength (but maybe something like turn over in rough terrain, a la chariots)
c) bonus to attack

I think any tweaks to them need to be considered in concert with cavalry and lancers though.

 

[Thalassicus]

In terms of base strength spears are only a few percentage points more cost effective than warriors.

33% stronger. Huge difference.

1 - 8/50 / 6/40 = +7% cost effectiveness

It doesn't necessarily mean the unit's better or worse in its time period though... just one of many guides to estimate unit value.

Knights and longswords themselves are unchanged from vanilla, with the exception that I reduced the mounted penalty vs cities from -33% to -25% a while back. The main difference is tech accessibility.

• Chivalry now requires only civil service and horseback riding (also required currency in vanilla).
• Banking requires only chivalry and currency (also required education).
• Longswords require metal casting, which now requires iron working and construction (only required iron working).

Cumulatively they require:

• Vanilla: Knights need +74.7% more than Longswords
• Mod: Knights need +24.6% more

Something I've considered is a 25% cost increase for the Steel tech, similar to how Iron Working costs 25% more than Horseback Riding. It'd bring Longswords and Knights down to a 12% tech spread, and the remainder would be made up for by the fact Chivalry allows for an easier era jump to the renaissance than vanilla.

Well, my point was that hoplites seem rather bad compared to spearmen (you can have three of the latter for two hoplites, at less goldmaintenance), but they seem to be balanced well when compared to swordsmen/pikes. So the problem are either spearmen - or the maintenance costs of hoplites (and swords, horses and I guess pikes as well).

I think it's reasonable for hoplites to ignore the normal maintenance rules and have only 1maintenance, since that's the per-turn cost of the base unit. Would this achieve your goals?

 

[Txurce]

Something I've considered is a 25% cost increase for the Steel tech, similar to how Iron Working costs 25% more than Horseback Riding. It'd bring Longswords and Knights down to a 12% tech spread, and the remainder would be made up for by the fact Chivalry allows for an easier era jump to the renaissance than vanilla.

If you feel knight need further balancing, this would be a good approach, as it would be an instantly noticeable difference. As with the long-lasting appeal of Maritimes, I think that's a lot of what influences player choices. (It's also why I think maintenance costs may technically balance something, but don't give the sense of doing so.)

 

[Ahriman]

1 - 8/50 / 6/40 = +7% cost effectiveness
It doesn't necessarily mean the unit's better or worse in its time period though... just one of many guides to estimate unit value.

I don't think cost per strength point is a good value of the cost-effectiveness of a unit, because the value of a unit is not linearly related to its strength. A strength 12 unit is far more powerful than 2 strength 6 units.
To me, cost-effectiveness is about the costs compared to the actual effectiveness/performance of the unit, including its special abilities and so forth.
Taking a straight unit strength/unit cost ratio is not a very useful comparison IMO.

I don't think tweaking tech costs should be the approach for how to balance knights vs longswords or cavalry vs rifles, I think their stats and value should be what is compared.
Roughly speaking, I think knights:longswords should be as horsemen:swordsmen, and that cavalry:rifles should have slightly superior cavalry (they require a strategic resource, riflemen don't).

I think it's reasonable for hoplites to ignore the normal maintenance rules and have only 1maintenance, since that's the per-turn cost of the base unit.

Agreed.

If you feel knight need further balancing, this would be a good approach, as it would be an instantly noticeable difference. As with the long-lasting appeal of Maritimes, I think that's a lot of what influences player choices. (It's also why I think maintenance costs may technically balance something, but don't give the sense of doing so.)

Actually I kinda think the opposite; a change in cumulative tech costs is not easily noticeable compared to a change in actual stats. As long as people find longswords more generally useful than knights, they're more likely to go for a steel techline than they are for a chivalry techline, a couple of extra turns of research time isn't going to change that decision.

 

[Joneill]

I think it's reasonable for hoplites to ignore the normal maintenance rules and have only 1maintenance, since that's the per-turn cost of the base unit. Would this achieve your goals?

Sounds good to me, although you might consider doing the same for swordsmen/horsemen. I think that rounding the maintenance costs has a negative effect for those classical units, since they are just over the 75 hammer mark. And this early in the game, going from 1 gold per unit to 2 is a noticeable effect - which the power of those units does not really reflect.

Actually I kinda think the opposite; a change in cumulative tech costs is not easily noticeable compared to a change in actual stats. As long as people find longswords more generally useful than knights, they're more likely to go for a steel techline than they are for a chivalry techline, a couple of extra turns of research time isn't going to change that decision.

I'm also in favor of tweaking the actual units at this point, since the tech-requirements are already much closer than in vanilla. Increasing the beaker cost of steel means that longswords should remain the best unit of their era - the tech doesn't offer anything else, after all. I'm against that design, I'd rather have comparable mounted/footsoldiers here.
Problem of knights and chivalry is that the ability to move after attacking is much less useful on a 3 move unit than on one with 4 moves - and those are the only advantages of mounted units compared to footsoldiers (for which they pay with no defensive boni, city attack penalty and a counterunit).

 

[Txurce]

Actually I kinda think the opposite; a change in cumulative tech costs is not easily noticeable compared to a change in actual stats. As long as people find longswords more generally useful than knights, they're more likely to go for a steel techline than they are for a chivalry techline, a couple of extra turns of research time isn't going to change that decision.

You could be right. The change Thal suggested would make me think about moving in one direction on the tech tree rather than another, but others may not see it the same way. As I mentioned a few posts back, comparing the horse/sword equation from the Classical era to the Medieval may help, if it's the general opinion that help is needed. Again, I already use knights as part of my mix. I don't center my army round them as a rule, but that's how it should be.

 

[Ahriman]

I'd be inclined to test 4-move knights (and maybe cavalry), if and only if the AI can also be encouraged to build them.
I'm not certain that it would be an improvement, but it feels like it might be.

This would also be a nice boost for pikemen and a relative nerf to siege units.

Part of the reason why pikemen are so weak and siege units so strong is that the enemy armies are normally composed almost entirely of infantry.

[Of course, I do worry a bit about 3 move 22 strength Siamese Elephants.]

 

[Sneaks]

I agree that tech cost balancing is not the best approach. I always view that as more of a numbers balancing than game decision balancing.

 

[Ahriman]

I think part of the reason that it feels like longswords are more useful than knights (relative to how swordsmen feel vs horses) is that by the medieval era, armies are slightly larger, and so its harder to wipe out the enemy in a big blow and easier to protect ranged units, and so having defensive units backed up by bombardment attacks is a relatively more effective in making progress without losing units than attacking in melee.

And longswords, with rough terrain bonus, are significantly better at holding a frontline than knights are.

But maybe this is just my personal playstyle (I try to maximize efficiency and avoid losing units, even if that means wars take a bit longer).

 

[Txurce]

I'd be inclined to test 4-move knights (and maybe cavalry), if and only if the AI can also be encouraged to build them.
I'm not certain that it would be an improvement, but it feels like it might be.

This would also be a nice boost for pikemen and a relative nerf to siege units.

Part of the reason why pikemen are so weak and siege units so strong is that the enemy armies are normally composed almost entirely of infantry.

[Of course, I do worry a bit about 3 move 22 strength Siamese Elephants.]

I think we've already had this conversation. The arguments against it included 1) the general lack of complaints about the status quo, 2) the road factor, 3) throwing off the knight/longsword balance; 4) exacerbating the lancer issue, 5) nerfing siege units right after being buffed.

Again, this is why I'm generally against a never-ending conversation about the same units, based only on conjecture, when there is no evidence in general game play that there is an obvious imbalance.

On a separate note, AI armies build plenty of siege units in my games. And pikemen don't become stronger if there are more knights in the game. They become more useful vs mounted units.

 

[Ahriman]

1) the general lack of complaints about the status quo,

The status quo isn't good!
Happy?
I have seen many complaints that people feel that knights and particularly cavalry are underpowered relative to longswords and most particularly (resourceless!) riflemen.

2) the road factor

I don't find this that relevant. There are rarely roads that come into play on the front line of a fight; roads are relevant strategically, but they seldom apply tactically for melee units (they do often apply tactically for ranged units, particularly artillery, but the road doesn't need to be as close to use this). And roads do nothing in enemy territory.

throwing off the knight/longsword balance;

Longswords are currently more useful than knights, whereas swordsmen are not necessarily more useful than horsemen.

4) exacerbating the lancer issue

Lancer issue should be fixed separately, for example giving them a bonus when attacking.

5) nerfing siege units right after being buffed.

Siege units are not underpowered. They're fantastic vs cities (as they should be), and they're still a bit too good vs units in the field.

On a separate note, AI armies build plenty of siege units in my games.

I think I may have been unclear. I was intending primarily to criticize the AI's relative lack of cavalry.

And pikemen don't become stronger if there are more knights in the game. They become more useful vs mounted units.

This statement makes no sense to me. If pikes counter mounted units, and there are more mounted units around, then pikes are more useful, and so its more worth building pikes.
The issue with pikes was never about whether or not they are good enough vs mounted units, its whether being good vs mounted units was a valuable enough role.
If all you're saying is that changing knights doesn't literally directly affect how good a pikeman is vs a mounted unit, thats correct, but I think irrelevant.

 

[rhammer640]

edit: never mind, answered above by ahriman

 

[Joneill]

[Of course, I do worry a bit about 3 move 22 strength Siamese Elephants.]

Well in this case, not all unique units should necessarily get the same movement boost. Songhai Cavalry - sure. Camel Archers - maybe. Elephants and Keshiks seem to be strong units on their own (and have promotions they can pass on once upgraded), so I'd leave them as is.

 

[Ahriman]

I worry the Elephants might be underpowered at 22 strength 2 moves vs 18 strength 4 moves.
I dunno though; part of the issue why knights might deserve a boost is that we want strategic resources to be valuable, but the elephant is resourceless.

The one other thing which does make me wonder if we shouldn't change knights after all is that knights are on a techline which gives lots of other benefits, whereas longswords aren't.

Another alternative might be to make knights 4 moves, but reduce their strength slightly (17?).
This would further enhance them feeling "different" from longswords in role (not just for battering down enemy units, more of a surgical use).

 

[Joneill]

I worry the Elephants might be underpowered at 22 strength 2 moves vs 18 strength 4 moves.

But the problem we're trying to solve is how knights compare to longswords, so really you should compare 22 strength 2 move elephants to 18 strength 2 move longswords. Their high base strength already neutralizes two of the knight's downsides: Pikemen are not at all great at countering them, and they can be used to effectively attack cities. They also counter other mounted units, so really, there is no reason a siamese army shouldn't be comprised mostly of elephants.

 

[Ahriman]

But the problem we're trying to solve is how knights compare to longswords

That's the main issue, but if we change knights, then this brings up the secondary issue of how to adjust Knight UUs.

If Knights are boosted while Knight UUs remain the same, then those factions with Knight UUs are relatively weakened.

You might be right and there might be no issue, or maybe the Elephant should get a small cost decrease if we boosted knights.

I think I'm tending to lean towards boosting knights to move 4 while slightly reducing their strength (to 17?), and then leaving elephants as they are. Not sure about Mandelaku. Maybe just leave them as in vanilla; no extra move but no cost decrease. Since the gain from Mandelaku is their value vs cities, a strength reduction would hurt.
I'd be tempted to go add +1 moves for the camel archers, as it would feel odd if they were slower than knights, but extra movement on a move-after-attack is very powerful.
Otoh, the human player can already usually get them out of the way, and maybe the extra move would help the AI use them better?