Armies

[Thalassicus]

@Txurce
Yes. If you double the number of civs on a map, regions will be about 100 tiles instead of 200. It still places the resources on a per-region basis so any particular area will have more resources. The deposits will also be larger on average. I increase deposit size to avoid overcrowding the tiles with strategics. (Otherwise if you pack a small map with players, the strategics would be spaces so close together they'd fill most tiles.)

@Herex
That's a graphical bug in the vanilla game that I believe occurs when an AI city attacks an AI unit that moves.

 

[Txurce]

Thal, I noticed that you buffed the AI starting units in b11. Could you be more specific about the where and why'

 

[Thalassicus]

I mainly did this because of Firaxis' change instructing the AI to rush a neighbor when certain conditions are met (not sure what those conditions are since most of the AI is done in the c++). When they do this with only warriors it harms the AI because the rush had little chance of succeeding. Now I typically notice 1 successful rush in each game, usually on an unseen continent.

A mixed force is better than lots of warriors, so I swapped two warriors for archers. The AI has also traditionally been bad at naval warfare so I swapped two more warriors for triremes if the civ starts on a coastline. In addition to these starting units, the AI typically builds 3-4 more warriors at the beginning of the game.

Old version added this at each difficulty:

1. Warrior
2. -
3. -
4. Warrior
5. Warrior, Scout
6. Warrior, Worker
7. Warrior, Worker
8. Warrior, Scout, Settler

King is difficulty 5 so the King-level AI started with 3 warriors and 1 scout.

New:

1. Warrior
2. -
3. -
4. Archer
5. Warrior or Trireme, Worker
6. Archer, Scout
7. Warrior or Trireme, Worker
8. Catapult, Scout, Settler

King-level AI now starts with 2 warriors, an archer, and worker... or 1 of each and a trireme. Even ignoring rushes, this mixed army is better for the AI on defense. I also swapped 1 starting warrior with a trireme for citystates if they start on a coastline.

 

[Txurce]

I mainly did this because of Firaxis' change instructing the AI to rush a neighbor when certain conditions are met (not sure what those conditions are since most of the AI is done in the c++). When they do this with only warriors it harms the AI because the rush had little chance of succeeding. Now I typically notice 1 successful rush in each game, usually on an unseen continent.

A mixed force is better than lots of warriors, so I swapped two warriors for archers. The AI has also traditionally been bad at naval warfare so I swapped two more warriors for triremes if the civ starts on a coastline. In addition to these starting units, the AI typically builds 3-4 more warriors at the beginning of the game.

Old version added this at each difficulty:

1. Warrior
2. -
3. -
4. Warrior
5. Warrior, Scout
6. Warrior, Worker
7. Warrior, Worker
8. Warrior, Scout, Settler

King is difficulty 5 so the King-level AI started with 3 warriors and 1 scout.

New:

1. Warrior
2. -
3. -
4. Archer
5. Warrior or Trireme, Worker
6. Archer, Scout
7. Warrior or Trireme, Worker
8. Catapult, Scout, Settler

King-level AI now starts with 2 warriors, an archer, and worker... or 1 of each and a trireme. Even ignoring rushes, this mixed army is better for the AI on defense. I also swapped 1 starting warrior with a trireme for citystates if they start on a coastline.

Thanks, Thal. It will be interesting to see how that archer affects those early AI rushes. The trireme could turn out to be a disadvantage from the pov of defense.

 

[Seek]

@Txurce
The trireme can stack with a ground unit in the city, so it's plausible that it will help defense.

I am a bit worried that rushes will become unbeatable; suppose I'll have to adjust my game to favor more military than before.

 

[Thalassicus]

I did some testing on emperor difficulty (#6) and didn't have much trouble defending against a Polynesian rush. Kame had 5 Maori warriors and 2 archers, I defended with a spearman, archer, and my starting scout. I killed 1 archer and weakened his warriors until my spearman and scout got too low on health, then ran those two away. My city and archer took potshots at Kame's remaining forces until he left and signed a cease fire.

It just takes some good tactics now because the archers are a decent threat to cities. I don't think defending against an immortal-difficulty rush would be much harder, though deity would definitely be a challenge.

For a militaristic player Warrior Code is much more valuable in the early game now. For peaceful players, Oligarchy is probably a must-have if rushed. The AI usually seems to declare war some distance away from our territory, and Tradition has fast policy generation, so it shouldn't be too hard to pick up Oligarchy if someone declares war. If we're skipping both tradition and honor to go down the Liberty tree, that probably means we're surrounded by empty land anyway so a rush isn't as big a concern.

 

[Txurce]

The AI usually seems to declare war some distance away from our territory, and Tradition has fast policy generation, so it shouldn't be too hard to pick up Oligarchy if someone declares war. If we're skipping both tradition and honor to go down the Liberty tree, that probably means we're surrounded by empty land anyway so a rush isn't as big a concern.

One time Denmark rushed me from an unusually large distance, but I was his closest neighbor by a little bit. I think counting on Oligarchy could be a roll of the dice vs an archer, and you didn't mention the necessity in your example of having to research Archery very early as well. All of that seems to reduce my starting options in a normal game... but I'll play like I usually do first and see what happens. I agree that tactics are key, and not too difficult for most TBC users to execute.

 

[Thalassicus]

I had archers in that game because I was playing China, but I don't think they're absolutely necessary except on deity. A second spearman would likely be just as effective due to their defense buff.

 

[Mortal D]

Paratroopers are to strong.

Say what u want thal , but there is no way in hell u gonna convince me that paratroopers are as strong as M. infantry, even if they r weaker on offense.
Now they are resource free super defensive unit.

Same goes for Anti tank vs infatry, but i tend to look at it as a combo of anti tank and CKM battery ^^

 

[Stalker0]

What lead to the 12 strength change for swords and horses....I didn't hear anyone say that these units were too weak.

 

[Txurce]

What lead to the 12 strength change for swords and horses....I didn't hear anyone say that these units were too weak.

But you did hear someone say that spears were too strong!

 

[Seek]

But you did hear someone say that spears were too strong!

If you're referring to my comment, that wasn't what I meant at all!

 

[Txurce]

If you're referring to my comment, that wasn't what I meant at all!

I just checked - it's Babri, with the last post in a longish exchange on page 46.

 

[Thalassicus]

@Stalker0
I've had a feeling swords/horses are slightly too weak for a while now. I think that with the current numbers, the ancient/classical era balance is complete.

Alternatively, I've been considering inverting all the changes to the ancient/classical era units...

Right now I've buffed:

• Archers
• Spears
• Swords
• Horses
• Triremes
• Catapults

I could invert it to nerf:

• Warriors
• Cities

The problem is lower numbers are harder to adjust due to the quantized nature of unit strength. We can do 5 or 6 warriors, but not 5.5, so there's less room for small changes if I lower all numbers down by 10%. It's results in numbers closer to vanilla, but since overall balance would be the same either way, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.

 

[Stalker0]

I'll be a desenting voice on this one. At 11 strength, I produce horsemen and swords without question whenever I have the resources.

I have never gone....I have iron, but I'm just going to build spears instead of swords they just aren't worth my time.

 

[Txurce]

Alternatively, I've been considering inverting all the changes to the ancient/classical era units...

The problem is lower numbers are harder to adjust due to the quantized nature of unit strength.

I also thought that the former might have been easier, but only if you'd had it all figured out from the start. And even then, a nerf from 6 to 5 for a warrior might be too high a percentage drop. It's true that now you have more room for fine tuning... especially with the higher eras, as the numbers keep going up.

I'll be a desenting voice on this one. At 11 strength, I produce horsemen and swords without question whenever I have the resources.

I have never gone....I have iron, but I'm just going to build spears instead of swords they just aren't worth my time.

This is hard to follow. It sounds like you would build resource units at 11, but not at 12.

 

[Thalassicus]

I think what Stalker0 is saying is strategic units are not under-built. I agree, but I also felt they were a bit weak. 12 strength is the original vanilla value of horses, and I brought swords up to that same level.

 

[Txurce]

How do you load a nuclear missile on a carrier?

Or did I screw up when it should have been plain old atomic bombs?

 

[Stalker0]

I think what Stalker0 is saying is strategic units are not under-built. I agree, but I also felt they were a bit weak. 12 strength is the original vanilla value of horses, and I brought swords up to that same level.

Does this make the superior to spears/pikes even with their 50% defense bonus? I don't know off hand I haven't crunched the numbers.

Its also a question of how strong they should be against cities. I personally have never had a problem taking cities with a few swords and a catapult once the armies are taken out.

 

[Busdriver]

Hey Thal, have you considered adding more defensive units to later eras? I have found that offensive wars become significantly easier around the time gunpowder units start coming out. To remedy this, maybe you could add analogues to spearmen with +50% defense to later eras, such as machine guns like in civ IV, and analogues to archers, such as Grenadiers or Mortars. These units would all be cheap and resourceless. This would also enable you to either reduce late game strategic resource abundance or increase costs (as I discussed in the social policy thread) without harming small defensive empires too much.