Balance Factors

[JosEPh_II]

From one side of this argument, I can see how we would need to make an entire unit definition split with the replacement system for arsonists if we're going to use this sort of unit.

The reason it is allowed to be unlimited in this option is because it's logically unsound to limit this sort of military application. The individuals that make up the unit are not unique and hard to find types of people (which is the reason that Warlord units are still limited despite the unlimited national units option) and they don't currently have the exponential increasing cost factor and 'only one civ gets them' factor of unique cultural units. They are just an imbalanced unit and that's why they need a limit. AKA, bad design is the reason they need to be limited.

That said, I felt National Limits in most cases WAS bad design and was better addressed by more organic limitations where they apply. Thus the reason for the option No National Unit Limits. However, this particular unit would really need to be redesigned between the two options at this point. This way both sides of this argument could have their way on the matter. On the National Limits side, they would need to be given an exponential cost increase if the limit was to be so large as 20 and their stats keep them at an era of combat ahead of the game as they currently are. On the non-limits side, I'd like to take the bombard ability down to 2%, reduce their strength to 6, and their city attack to 10%. This would reintroduce some balance so that they aren't outshining every single unit normally intended for the role of city capture and so that they fit into the picture as a part of the fabric of the makeup of a good invasion army, rather than being a super unit. They would retain the 'a little bit of everything' aspect, including their unique ability to take the edge off of the city defenses enough for rams to have a fighting chance, but if they were used without rams you'd be sitting there for a LONG time trying to do the damage you need to make a difference.

There are some other rebalancing points to go after on other units as well but those adjustments would be a patch at least. Nothing I'm doing before the release though.


@Anq: Thanks for your overview. I think I could work it out from that. When you go to merge the branch, what happens when there are conflicts? You gotta go through the massive headache of deep comparisons at that point I imagine?

So what do you plan to do for all of Sparth's Culture units?( Most of which have a 15 limit. A few have less.) Destroy his whole addition to the mod? Because if you are in favor of getting rid of National Limits and making All units Unlimited then his work is made void and a waste of file space in the game. I'll just make an army of Coyote Runners in early Ancient and clear the map of all resistance ie other empires. Why don't we all just get more silly.

And in the same vein of reasoning then Heroes should be Unlimited (multiples of the same Hero) and available to all as well. Then we won't need the base units at all. We can All play with Heroes!

 

[Thunderbrd]

So what do you plan to do for all of Sparth's Culture units?( Most of which have a 15 limit. A few have less.) Destroy his whole addition to the mod? Because if you are in favor of getting rid of National Limits and making All units Unlimited then his work is made void and a waste of file space in the game. I'll just make an army of Coyote Runners in early Ancient and clear the map of all resistance ie other empires. Why don't we all just get more silly.

First, they are really supposed to be replacements for their original unit they are modelled on and not limiting them as a result worked just fine in core Civ where we had them actually replacing the originals. Just because you can still have the originals doesn't mean they need to be limited here, and they still should only really be a small improvement over the original anyhow. Most of them do need some balance work as some aren't even different from the original. We had someone go through and do some evaluations on that and on most of them I agreed with it but there were a few I didn't so I've had it on the task list to review it all forever. Coyote Runners are simply too strong imo. But I would not remove the option for Unlimited National Units, just rebalance those units that need it so that you can have your super units and balance them with that method while another method is used for balancing the rest.

Heroes are global unique units and would be stupid to make unlimited because there's a good reason for them to be limited, not just their power level but their story purpose in the game as well. This is why Warlords still make sense to be limited also - extraordinary people make sense to limit. These units aren't extraordinary people, just reflections of uniquely special ways that some cultures found to train or embellish an otherwise normal unit. For those who have access, I see no reason to limit them.

Dancing Hoskuld makes a good point but at least it's a more organic limitation that is a lot more interesting in play than a fixed limit. I'm with him in that it doesn't feel right in the sense that it's unrealistic to an extent, however, the justification would be that only so many people in a society can perform ANY given role well - people are born with talents that spread their gifts out to all corners of the needs of society so it would be harder and harder to find qualified people to fulfill certain roles the more that the most obviously qualified people are spent from the population pool on filling them, thus the cost and time spent training the less and less naturally qualified folks becomes higher and higher the more you drive a particular role to be filled. It's the opposite with the materials to fill those roles, where admittedly it's usually the more you make the more efficient you get - at least until you start stressing your ability to provide the raw goods needed to manufacture them.

 

[Harrier]

Consider this, regardless of gameplay considerations. How many people are in the USA army/navy etc.? How many are in special forces? If the numbers are nearly the same, TB is correct. If not - I rest my case.

 

[KaTiON_PT]

In my auto-played test game the AI doesn't seem to know when to stop building property fighting units, dogs, and workboats for some reason.

Lots of "advertising for work" in the logs.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Consider this, regardless of gameplay considerations. How many people are in the USA army/navy etc.? How many are in special forces? If the numbers are nearly the same, TB is correct. If not - I rest my case.

Cultural units are not special forces type elite units. They are just better versions of standard units in many cases. Aztec 'swordsmen' were known as Jaguar warriors. Celtic warriors were Highlanders. And so on. The difficulty in training more and more 'special forces' or elite units, or strike teams or hunters, for example, would be better reflected by a much higher compiling cost factor representing how hard it's getting to find the 'right stuff' among the pool of recruits. Even at a light level, it applies well to Axes vs Swords. Some guys would be better with an axe naturally than a sword. Some better with a bow than a shield. Thus the increasing cost (lighter on standard units) would help to urge a wider selection of unit types for both the AI and a clever human player and discourage overly focusing efforts in any particular direction.

 

[Thunderbrd]

In my auto-played test game the AI doesn't seem to know when to stop building property fighting units, dogs, and workboats for some reason.

Lots of "advertising for work" in the logs.

Yes, this is the chief AI problem I'm not sure how to currently solve. What is supposed to be used as the factor to indicate to put on the breaks isn't working a bit and I'm not sure why. I'm thinking the function that gets a count of the unit types and/or their missions isn't working properly, leaving the AI blind to how much response it already has to a given need. It's very frustrating.

 

[Yudishtira]

How about a new tag to make the hammer cost increases exponential rather than linear? Eg. 50% would mean the 2nd unit is 50% more expensive, but the 3rd is (1.5*1.5) - 1 = 125% (instead of 100% on the current linear tag).

Linear increases either take forever to have an impact (for sensible increase numbers) or stop you in your tracks right away. Exponential increases are guaranteed to have an impact at some stage, even if the increase starts out small.

 

[Thunderbrd]

How about a new tag to make the hammer cost increases exponential rather than linear? Eg. 50% would mean the 2nd unit is 50% more expensive, but the 3rd is (1.5*1.5) - 1 = 125% (instead of 100% on the current linear tag).

Linear increases either take forever to have an impact (for sensible increase numbers) or stop you in your tracks right away. Exponential increases are guaranteed to have an impact at some stage, even if the increase starts out small.

If I'm understanding the way the tag works, it IS cumulative, which would make for an exponential growth of the cost. Like +15% PER unit you already have is going to build up fast. If we need it to build up faster for a given unit, it's not problematic to increase that tag. I suppose some units would be good to NOT apply it to, like city defense units, for example, or maybe have an effect built into this where each city or amount of national population reduces the count for the sake of adjustment by X amount.

 

[Toffer90]

How about a new tag to make the hammer cost increases exponential rather than linear? Eg. 50% would mean the 2nd unit is 50% more expensive, but the 3rd is (1.5*1.5) - 1 = 125% (instead of 100% on the current linear tag).

Linear increases either take forever to have an impact (for sensible increase numbers) or stop you in your tracks right away. Exponential increases are guaranteed to have an impact at some stage, even if the increase starts out small.

Too big a risk for hammer cost integer overflow happening imo. Making it exponential would also make it feel like a hard limit at some point.
Even starting at 10% (a sensible number) will go like this 10%, 21%, 33%, 46%, 61%, 77%, 94%, 114%, and when making the tenth unit it would cost 135% more than the first one.
The twentieth unit would cost 511% more than the first one
Reaching the 50. unit, which is not a strange thing on a large map for a normal city defender unit, it would cost 10571% more than the first unit, I would prefer it to only be 490% at that point as it would be if it is linear (which it currently is.).

The downside of using this tag with SM is that one can effectively make a unit cheaper/quicker to train by merging existing units of that kind... So it is best to use on unit types that cannot merge.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The downside of using this tag with SM is that one can effectively make a unit cheaper/quicker to train by merging existing units of that kind... So it is best to use on unit types that cannot merge.

That still sorta works for me. The AI is quick to merge when it can usually.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

So we are thinking of replacing a unrealistic mechanism that is built into Civ IV with a super ridiculous one that has no bearing in reality at all just because????? Also what is this merge stuff. Isn't that an option? Why are we making the base game less realistic to satisfy a game option. Shouldn't the option be made to fit with the base? Seems backward thinking to me.

 

[JosEPh_II]

So we are thinking of replacing a unrealistic mechanism that is built into Civ IV with a super ridiculous one that has no bearing in reality at all just because????? Also what is this merge stuff. Isn't that an option? Why are we making the base game less realistic to satisfy a game option. Shouldn't the option be made to fit with the base? Seems backward thinking to me.

You beat me to it. Was going to post the same thing.

 

[Toffer90]

So we are thinking of replacing a unrealistic mechanism that is built into Civ IV with a super ridiculous one that has no bearing in reality at all just because?????

Replace what with what? Feels to me that you are overreacting...
Are you saying that you veto the usage of the vanilla BtS unit tag with the name iInstanceCostModifier? Should we remove it from all units that currently have it?

Also what is this merge stuff. Isn't that an option? Why are we making the base game less realistic to satisfy a game option. Shouldn't the option be made to fit with the base? Seems backward thinking to me.

I was saying the opposite... That we should use that tag more even if it makes little sense for players who are using the "size matters" option.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Is that what you got from his post? Seriously?

 

[Thunderbrd]

So we are thinking of replacing a unrealistic mechanism that is built into Civ IV with a super ridiculous one that has no bearing in reality at all just because?????

Dancing Hoskuld makes a good point but at least it's a more organic limitation that is a lot more interesting in play than a fixed limit. I'm with him in that it doesn't feel right in the sense that it's unrealistic to an extent, however, the justification would be that only so many people in a society can perform ANY given role well - people are born with talents that spread their gifts out to all corners of the needs of society so it would be harder and harder to find qualified people to fulfill certain roles the more that the most obviously qualified people are spent from the population pool on filling them, thus the cost and time spent training the less and less naturally qualified folks becomes higher and higher the more you drive a particular role to be filled. It's the opposite with the materials to fill those roles, where admittedly it's usually the more you make the more efficient you get - at least until you start stressing your ability to provide the raw goods needed to manufacture them.

You didn't address this rationale, yet you still call it unrealistic. In fact, the more I think about it, the more it makes complete rational sense. If it wasn't for the cost of training idiots becoming more and more prohibitive, the US WOULD dedicate special forces training to all of its forces. The prerequisite for being trained as one is based on your aptitude and physical condition testing because if they start training people that score less than that prerequisite line, it would take a LOT more time and resources to get them up to speed. Thus it very much makes sense that it gets more and more costly to train those who are not naturally suited to a role. That said, spend enough time with anyone and you can get them up to snuff eventually.

Besides, I'm really thinking this should be a difference in method applied at a more fundamental option based level so y'all can still have it the way you want it and we don't have to keep arguing over this thing.

Still, it would be an effective way to help address the fundamental stated reason the arsonists were OP'd to begin with. (AI overbuilding of a particular unit type) However, I think there are other problems in the AI measuring its responses.

Also what is this merge stuff. Isn't that an option? Why are we making the base game less realistic to satisfy a game option. Shouldn't the option be made to fit with the base? Seems backward thinking to me

Really this was irrelevant to the discussion except to say that it somewhat counters the application of the method of increasing production cost per unit of the same type in play a little.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Did I not post my previous post or something? Gist of that post - "As far as I can tell there is no instance anywhere for anything where the cost of the second is higher than the cost of the first. "

If we use the iInstanceCostModifier it should only be with negative numbers to represent the reality that it gets cheaper to make something the more you make of them.

You didn't address this rationale, yet you still call it unrealistic. In fact, the more I think about it, the more it makes complete rational sense. If it wasn't for the cost of training idiots becoming more and more prohibitive, the US WOULD dedicate special forces training to all of its forces. The prerequisite for being trained as one is based on your aptitude and physical condition testing because if they start training people that score less than that prerequisite line, it would take a LOT more time and resources to get them up to speed. Thus it very much makes sense that it gets more and more costly to train those who are not naturally suited to a role. That said, spend enough time with anyone and you can get them up to snuff eventually.

Besides, I'm really thinking this should be a difference in method applied at a more fundamental option based level so y'all can still have it the way you want it and we don't have to keep arguing over this thing.

Still, it would be an effective way to help address the fundamental stated reason the arsonists were OP'd to begin with. (AI overbuilding of a particular unit type) However, I think there are other problems in the AI measuring its responses.


Really this was irrelevant to the discussion except to say that it somewhat counters the application of the method of increasing production cost per unit of the same type in play a little.

What you are saying here is that you lack the resources to make the units. In this case qualified recruits. Which is exactly what limited numbers represents.

 

[Thunderbrd]

It works like this: Under the Sources folder, you open up the "Branch/tag..." menu, set destination path to "branches/test_folder" (notice it uses forward slashes, not backward slashes like windows paths), and then every file under Sources folder will be copied to the test_folder. You have to enter some messages because this action is recorded by the server and will be assigned an svn revision number in series with the trunk changes. Be careful about the from/to paths. Think of them as: Files having the pattern /path/of/origin/*, will be found at /path/of/destination/* after the branching operation. If destination files exist already, then what you do is merge two different trees (EDIT: merge different revisions), either from trunk to branch to keep branch updated(**), or branch to trunk once the development is done and we're ready to break savegame compatibility.
The "switch working copy" checkbox will let you switch the Mods\Caveman2Cosmos folder to the branch you created, which means you're not going to receive updates in the trunk unless you switch over again to the trunk. Basically I don't do this. I just check out the branches to a separate folder from the trunk aka Mods\Caveman2Cosmos, so I can keep the trunk updated.

**: Merging is not published to the svn server until you commit the changes, so you can use merge however many times to keep your local copy up to date with the trunk sources.

Now that you have established new branches, I'm not seeing how to switch the sources file over to them.
I'm only seeing /trunk

I assume I'm doing this all wrong.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

PS is the SVN down? I can't update to the latest.

 

[Thunderbrd]

If we use the iInstanceCostModifier it should only be with negative numbers to represent the reality that it gets cheaper to make something the more you make of them.

This applies to the resources to provide equipment, sure, however,

What you are saying here is that you lack the resources to make the units. In this case qualified recruits. Which is exactly what limited numbers represents.

You can force any recruit to qualify with more training, thus the more you have, the more expensive they become to train as you dip further and further into less qualified individuals for the role, rather than there being an ultimate limit. Either way it's not based on your population which is the primary issue I have with realism either way.

PS is the SVN down? I can't update to the latest.

Had some issues with it during my commit trying to tell me it couldn't let it go through, so yeah, something is intermittently messing up on their end right now.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

The more you train people the less it costs also as you learn how better to train them. It is not just the cost equipment that goes down. Neither costs reduce to zero and should be "diminishing returns" like, something not available to us.

Increase the general education of the populace and your costs to train more advanced/complex units goes down. This does not seem to be part of the Education property. Perhaps there should be some influence here.