Armies

[Thalassicus]

I've created a new menu at the top of the website, and all details of the mod components have been consolidated into that one place for easy reference.

Website: civmodding.wordpress.com

This thread is now just for feedback on the Armies component.

 

[Smrgol]

I have soo many of your mods to put on to my main computer now that I have Civ 5 installed on it.

Cant wait to install this one along with the others

 

[Zeppelin4]

I like your chariot archer change that they can move after attacking. This will help out a lot for Egypt early on. I hardly ever used them after my first game for they were pretty bad for being a UU.

I would also like to say thanks for all the hard work you put in to your mods. To bad you can't do something about the poor combat ai. I would be happy if they just built some troops to stop me from rolling over them.

 

[Numenori]

Just wanted to to say that your doing an absolute amazing job making Civ 5 more fun and balanced then the vanilla version is at the moment. I can't even play civ 5 without using your mods at this point, playing the normal game just feels wrong now.

Anyway I had some thoughts for unit balance that you might find helpful.

Seige units are IMO too powerful when used against regular combat units, 1 - 2 well placed cannons or even trebuchets can wipe out wave after wave of normal front line units often times completely destroying the enemy in one shot. Maybe changing siege weapons to have fairly weak bombard against units but a massive bonus against cities and fortified units would help make using them less of a steamroll and more of a strategic endeavor.

As for the changes you have already made I think they all look good except maybe the buff to archers bombard damage. I can understand increasing ships and chariot archer damage but the normal archer has such a huge early game impact before catapults and horsemen can hit the field that making them any more powerful then they already are might be overwhelming against warriors and spearmen alone. Although I will have to try it out to say for sure, everything else looks spot on.

 

[Perkus]

With all those downsides, Tanks seem pretty weak even with the buff!

Artillery in my experience is extremely overpowered. The combination of range 3 and indirect fire and the strongest attack rating available in that era is incredibly strong and makes Dynamite one of those "must have ASAP" techs, IMHO. The AI typically doesn't use them very well, so this hugely benefits the player.

I also never build Archers for some reason - that early on I'm generally not focused on fighting, and very busy building everything else. They are very expensive compared to warriors (70 vs 40), so if I want another military unit, I always build more warriors instead because I have Settlers/Workers/Libraries/etc. to urgently spit out on my oldest cities. By the time I could afford to build them, I have better stuff available - Horsemen, Swordsmen, whatever. For my playstyle they just don't fit into my build orders. Maybe if they were cheaper (60? 50 even?). I suppose others do use them, and will disagree.

Mainly I wanted to make a case for considering dropping both free & unique unit promotions if they're upgraded. I've installed the "Obsolete Promotions" mod and it feels like the right way to go to me. Double-attacking Chu-ko-nu keeping their upgrade for hundreds of turns beyond is ridiculous. The super-healing Jannisaries also. My other argument is that I don't like having to check each unit's promotions to see if it happens to be promoted from a UU or a different-class and therefore is actually different from the vanilla version.

In my last game, I was facing several of the dreaded Musketmen-promoted-from-Pikemen, and as I had a horse-based army, it was a real pain keeping track of which enemy musketman were "normal", and which ones were "horse-slayers", for no good reason. Pikes are good against horses 'cause they are long and stab 'em first. If you give a trained pikeman a gun, he's no longer any bigger a threat to a horse than a newly trained gunman! I'd rather not have to deal with this next time I play, even if it's to my benefit. Maybe it's balanced, but it's not logical.

 

[gandalf51]

I also find ranged units weak, and I don't understand why they can't attack in melee.
I think the increase in cost and the lower combat value are enough, and that the Cant melee attack promotion should be removed (maybe put cant take cities instead and/or lower combat value for some).

 

[Thalassicus]

@Numenori
That's something I've thought about too, siege units are quite powerful against normal troops. I've seen the strength of artillery pointed out several times too. Something I could do is reduce the strength of siege by 20%, and increase their bonus against cities to 50%. This would place them weaker against normal units but about the same against cities.

Normal	City	City+GG	City+GG+Morale
1.0	1.1	1.35	1.5
0.8	1.2	1.4	1.5

In addition to this, I could reduce the strength of Artillery a further 10%.

Regarding archers, one thing to consider is what Perkus pointed out: they do cost nearly 2 warriors, and most importantly melee units can get flanking bonuses while ranged units cannot. Three archers cost the same as five warriors, and those five warriors could potentially each get +45% if flanked by two others. Archers are somewhat better at attacking cities (can't flank cities), but in the field warriors are quite powerful.


@Perkus
You're right that tanks are rather weak (I've never built one, mech infantry are just so much better and can be upgraded to), but I didn't want to overdo it with the buff. I've been thinking possibly a bonus from 50 to 60 might be warranted.

About promotion upgrades, thank you for pointing out that mod. I crossposted my thoughts on the topic in Lord Olleus's thread.


@gandalf51
I suspect that marker is for targeting purposes. If a ranged unit could attack in melee, it would use its (low) base when attacking targets one tile away, instead of the higher value.

 

[Inverted]

Theres an easy way to make tanks viable. Give a cavalry -> tank upgrade possibility.

And I think artillery being overpowered is rather realistic. Just think of WWI. However it does comes maybe a bit too early.
I dont see other siege units being overpowered, its just strange that catapult and trebuchet can shoot at units (historically they were immobile siege machines) but otherwise they would be just useless.

 

[Thalassicus]

Allowing that upgrade would be an excellent way to improve tanks, I think I'll do that. About artillery, one idea given in another thread is to make Dynamite require Military Science or Steam Power. Either of these would be easy to do and could delay early beelines to artillery.

 

[Perkus]

Perhaps Mech Infantry should be nerfed rather than Tanks buffed? I don't have a feel for it yet, because I keep winning my games before those units come into play!

 

[Perkus]

Hi Thal, as long as we're discussing combat balance, you should really read this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=391032

It makes a very good case for modding out the -33% penalty for defending in open terrain. As they point out, it should also go a long way to helping the AI compete, and helping the AI defend in general. I would suggest you add this idea to your balance package at some point.

 

[Thalassicus]

Interesting... so could be summed up as:

1. Normal pathfinding takes shortest route to destination.
2. Open terrain is shortest route.
3. Units on open terrain defend at half strength vs rough terrain.

Those 3 things combined really do explain a lot about the AI I had never thought about before. I think eliminating the bonus entirely might be too much, but I could reduce the spread to +50% on rough instead of double strength on rough.

 

[clearbeard]

Interesting... so could be summed up as:

1. Normal pathfinding takes shortest route to destination.
2. Open terrain is shortest route.
3. Units on open terrain defend at half strength vs rough terrain.

Those 3 things combined really do explain a lot about the AI I had never thought about before. I think eliminating the bonus entirely might be too much, but I could reduce the spread to +50% on rough instead of double strength on rough.

Don't know if it would help the AI any, but improving the open terrain promotions might be another way to go. In the 'pedia, the -33% is justified as, e.g., "the defensive penalty that an unprepared unit might get if attacked in a grassland tile." But a unit well trained in open field fighting could easily lead an unprepared attacker to their doom. Increasing the Shock bonuses to 30/30/40, for instance, would lead to the following progression (listed as open/rough bonuses):

.........................Current........Suggested
No Promotions......-33/+25........-33/+25
Drill/Shock I.........-13/+45..........-3/+45
Drill/Shock II.........+7/+65........+27/+65
Drill/Shock III.......+32/+90.......+67/+90

It's still better to be in rough terrain, in general, but more balanced and provides more of a reason to take shock promotions. Being unable to teach the AI to take proper promotions and deploy its units appropriately may make this suggestion moot for the time being, just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[NackteElfe]

I'd like to suggest extending the jump radius of paratroopers. Right now they are of no military value.

The very idea of a paratrooper is going behind enemey lines and strike where the enemy don't expect you to show up. Because of that I guess it would be realistic to widen its jump radis from 5 to 10 tiles. (To be realistic they should be able to jump as far as bombers fly, but I guess that would be not very well balanced anymore)

 

[Appassionato]

Your mods do an incredible job of making the game more like I would like it to be.
Reduced open terrain penalty seems essential.
I have a couple of additional suggestions regarding units/battle, that I would hope you would consider.

1. Barbarians don't really pose a challenge. Encampments are little more than xp/gold-farms. With honor already providing +25% vs. barbarians, would you consider a reduction of the initial +33% vs. barbs. to perhaps 10-20%? Would it be possible for you to make archers in encampments more likely to fire than to fortify? As it is barb archers are mostly just a very poor defensive unit waiting to be kiled.

2. IMO city defence is mess. Active City Defence helps a little, but I would like something more radical. Currently it is possible to conquer a city with just a spearman and an archer way into the game. Would it perhaps be possible and balanced to add a garrisoned unit's full defensive strength to city defence strength?

3. Could you do something about the absurd Infantry without rifling thing?

 

[gunnergoz]

I want to add my own kudos to you for the excellent work on the mod series...keep it up!

As for my own 2 bits - how about enhancing ranged units and artillery's effect on units in the open? Would that be possible without adding to the penalty for fighting in the open? Tanks and cavalry class units too should get buffed for open space combat and penalized for anything else (cities, rough, hills, forest.)

I think that the simplistic original formula of enhancing defense in the rough classes and penalizing defense in the open is too restrictive to properly portray the effect of terrain on combat vis a vis different units' capabilities. In other words, the bonuses and penalties should apply to specific units and not to the terrain itself, which is neutral. It is the nature of the units and their abilities/weaknesses that makes one type of terrain superior and another inferior. It is all relative and the current system in the game is actually topsy turvy to reality.

Can anything even be done about that at this point?

 

[Thalassicus]

I decided to go with a somewhat modest change to the flat terrain penalty, altering the defense ratio between rough:flat to 160% (down from 190%) instead of removing the penalty entirely. The developers did seem to intend attackers to have a moderate bonus, likely to counteract fortification bonuses. Attacking bonus is basically now 25% (down from 50%).


@NackteElfe
I agree paratroopers could use a buff. I've never had use for them... can't upgrade to them from earlier units, range is short, speed is slow, strength is low. Increasing the range might make them too powerful for small map sizes though, so I'm not sure what the best buff would be.


@Appassionato
I agree that reducing the bonus against barbarians slightly seems reasonable, I've also felt they're a little weak in vanilla.

Regarding city defense, the problem is the AI won't have a clue about dramatic changes. This is something Afforess points out in his mod. The damage to adjacent units doesn't require any new knowledge by the AI, but the AI can't know how to properly use the healing effect since it's sort of done with a hack (manually picks units and reduces their health). Any other radical changes would likewise be ignored by the AI so wouldn't really have the desired effect... we basically need access to the C++ to do decent AI or city defense changes.

The thing about infantry and riflemen (and mech infantry) is you can build them early, but can't upgrade to them without all links in the upgrade path. Since my primary military units are usually very experienced by this era, I find it's usually better to get the techs necessary to allow upgrades. This provides a sort of "soft requirement" on Infantry instead of an explicit restriction, and seems like something intended by the developers, not an accidental / unintended balance problem.


@gunnergoz
Tanks and cavalry do somewhat get a penalty in rough terrain (compared to other units) since they don't receive as much of a defensive bonus. The penalty is a little misleading though - they still defend better in rough than open terrain since the open terrain penalty isn't present.

As for artillery, I'm going to play with the current changes to siege for a while and see how it feels.

 

[Perkus]

Ok, I'm reviewing your readme.html, and I'm confused by the following:

1) "Archers now have the following advantages and disadvantages compared to Warriors: +50% (Production Cost symbol)." Archers cost 70, Warriors cost 40, and you haven't changed the cost of either (in v2). 70 vs 40 = 75%.

2) Ironclads: You've raised the Ranged Attack by 20%. Then later you have: "New: (same melee strength) and (ranged strength symbol).

 

[Thalassicus]

You're right, the 50% is a typo, it should be 75%.

The Ironclads note is comparing it to Destroyers, now the same but with the existing Ironclad penalties.

By the way, if you are replying in Advanced mode and click the symbol, you can copy-paste text directly with all formatting (including symbols and such). It's a temporary way to be able to use these icons until they're added to CivFanatics. Other icons are here.


Update: Icons got uploaded, so you can now use them like :c5production: :c5strength:

On a side note... I'll probably be merging the Embarkation mod with this one in the next version. Dunno why I didn't do that in the first place...

 

[MisterBenn]

To achieve unit type-specific terrain bonuses, could we not use a unit type promotion against each unit, such as:

* Melee Unit: +25% defense in forest, jungle, hills
* Tracked Unit: +25% attack in open, -33% defence in forest, jungle, city
* Helicopter Unit: +25% attack in open, -33% attack in forest, jungle
* Siege Unit: +50% attack versus city, fortified units

(Bonuses and numbers off the top of my head). With unit type specific bonuses you could perhaps do away with bonuses against terrain types completely and you'd have the tools to be specific with each unit role.

Also, I like the idea that siege units could be set up with slightly lower strength and have bonuses versus city and fortified units to compensate. They'd be less effective when either on the move or set up to defend choke points (humans are good at this and not the AI) and still useful against cities or piercing static defenses like a line of fortified defenders (the AI just about manages to do this). Quite AI friendly and assists the attacker in breaking a stalemate which retains the incentive to attack.

Finally, what about "terrain doesn't slow movement" for ranged units? They only skirmish currently so they should be able to keep at range from melee in tough terrain since they are equipped to be agile. Perhaps Scout -> Archer upgrade in the same spirit.

Thanks Thalassicus for these mods, I am playing them through CCMAT and Civ is already coming together very well having been out for a month!