No no, not in the SVN of course, I just meant in my game. I like my settings to be as conducive to AI doing well as possible. If I stuff anything up - fixing it is just a drag-overwrite away
C2C Balance Thread
- Thread starter ls612
- Start date
No no, not in the SVN of course, I just meant in my game. I like my settings to be as conducive to AI doing well as possible. If I stuff anything up - fixing it is just a drag-overwrite away
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
They should be off by default - or did I accidently update the SVN version of my MLF files. Edit I did - sorry about that.
I like this suggestion.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I'd increase Knight strength to 15 and all the rest of the mounted lines thereafter to suit. Surely a Knight, considered the WMD of the medieval era, would be much stronger than a Heavy Swordsman!
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
You should go over this in the unit thread. We have talked about unit strength before. Don't want to have others feedback before you change an entire line.
The Knight should be 13. Remember that the Pikemen need to be able to reliably kill it. I'll change that in my large commit tomorrow.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
The Pikemen were a reaction to Knights, part of the arms race, so they should come after Knights.
Any suggestions for what techs specifically these should go at? Because as stats currently stand it would be hard to move one or the other without them being either OP for their time or totally useless.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Knights should be Op at the start of their use, but they should also be expensive then also. If possible I would go with a solution where something dramatically drops their cost. Perhaps one of the new resources Hydro put in may work iron something? I am not sure. The main point is that for a one-two hundred years the Knight and Castle were "the" peak of warfare. Pikes came along and gave some defense against mounted Knights. Then gunpowder made both obsolete within a few years.
Part of the problem is that currently you can ignore the mounted units almost completely to advance in the tech tree. For example, I don't bother to get Mounted Archery until it costs 2 or less turns to get or there is a tech I don't want yet because it obsoletes a wonder. There may need to be some cross links.
Part of the problem is that currently you can ignore the mounted units almost completely to advance in the tech tree. For example, I don't bother to get Mounted Archery until it costs 2 or less turns to get or there is a tech I don't want yet because it obsoletes a wonder. There may need to be some cross links.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
I agree. However there has always been the problem of "I have no horses. Why should I research mounted unit techs?"
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I agree with DH on these issues entirely. With some of his ideas on animal/plant placement spreads, civs by continent would tend to all have the same mounted access by Knighthood, which would be pretty true to reality there.
11 is really ok. But make them come a bit earlier, the same time as normal swordsmen (strength 10) or pikemen (6). Now you get the stronger heavy cavalry (13) one tech earlier, and the heavy knights (14) one tech later.
The Strength 9 heavy pikeman with some anti-cavalry promos should resist them on the defence anyway.
Hm, maybe Knights should come at Smithing and be Str 10, and then Heavy Knights can remain where they are at? Because IMO in my game I've used Mounted Infantry long enough.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Well there are a few types of pre-gunpowder horse units ...
- Horseman (6)
- Mounted Infantry (7)
- Horse Archer (8)
- Crossbow Horseman (8)
- Light Calvary (8)
- Heavy Calvary (13)
- Knight (11)
- Mailed Knight (14)
Not counting chariots and war wagons.
- Horseman (6)
- Mounted Infantry (7)
- Horse Archer (8)
- Crossbow Horseman (8)
- Light Calvary (8)
- Heavy Calvary (13)
- Knight (11)
- Mailed Knight (14)
Not counting chariots and war wagons.
Mounted infantry are a special case and probably should not be considered as quite the same line, since it uniquely receives defensive bonuses.
As i've said in the past - I think riding school is a completely broken building, its by far one of the best buildings in the game. Why not move the riding school all the way the tech tree to where knights come and change it to 'knight academy' or something, and the 50% faster production and the free mobility only given to knights.
Im not sure I agree with Barter post allowing city to have a merchant specialist. You can get the building quite early (for free) when requirements are met. At this point the only really other building that allows specialists are Sage building which you actually have to build. Im not against the idea of it being a free building (when requirements are met) but allowing specialist as well is too strong imo.
I actually agree with this, the specialist should be removed from it now that it is a free building.
I think 5 free slaves with slave market is too many, its too strong. It means 15 free hammers, and with multipliers it becomes quite ridiculous (especially for military).
I think you should cap slave specialists or at least give something like a penalty of 3
per 5 slave specialist (not including free ones). If you think about it your civ's citizens really wouldn't enjoy becoming slaves (formerly farmers or miners). Perhaps instead of the penalty there should be a growth penalty?
Also the caste benefit of +1
per slave specialist is pretty overpowered too. You could just reduce slave specialist by 1 hammer and allow the caste benefit to give an additional +1 hammer instead?
Most importantly I think the slave market needs to be nerfed - if you wanna keep the 5 free slave specialists then you should really ramp up the penalty for it. Something like -50% growth sounds about right if you ask me.
Im finding in my current game that with unlimited slave specialists + slave market + the right civics + the right terrain improvements, I can build whatever I want with ease. I can build multiple units per turn in each city and it just makes for bogged down gameplay. It really emphasises one of the mods weaknesses imo - which is the fact you are not really forced to make decisions when choosing what to build, if you need to make a decision between multiple buildings/units - you simply build them all. Choosing what your cities build just becomes a massive shift-click fest. Its not so much what to build but rather what not to build.
I think you should cap slave specialists or at least give something like a penalty of 3
per 5 slave specialist (not including free ones). If you think about it your civ's citizens really wouldn't enjoy becoming slaves (formerly farmers or miners). Perhaps instead of the penalty there should be a growth penalty? Also the caste benefit of +1
per slave specialist is pretty overpowered too. You could just reduce slave specialist by 1 hammer and allow the caste benefit to give an additional +1 hammer instead? Most importantly I think the slave market needs to be nerfed - if you wanna keep the 5 free slave specialists then you should really ramp up the penalty for it. Something like -50% growth sounds about right if you ask me.
Im finding in my current game that with unlimited slave specialists + slave market + the right civics + the right terrain improvements, I can build whatever I want with ease. I can build multiple units per turn in each city and it just makes for bogged down gameplay. It really emphasises one of the mods weaknesses imo - which is the fact you are not really forced to make decisions when choosing what to build, if you need to make a decision between multiple buildings/units - you simply build them all. Choosing what your cities build just becomes a massive shift-click fest. Its not so much what to build but rather what not to build.
Similar threads
