C2C - Units

[Dancing Hoskuld]

As Yudishtira says.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I see Warlords as like land-privateers. When you want to harass someone who you're not declaring war on, they are the strongest units for the job.

If you take away their HN, I presume that will mean they can't attack someone you're not at war with. That makes them rather dull 'generic hero' units. HN is all that makes them special - it is their raison d'etre. What reason do they have to exist without it?

Maybe they simply shouldn't exist then? Or be repositioned into another type of unit? What are they exactly? Criminals? Bandits? Renegades pretending to have no national affiliation? Their naming is throwing off the whole concept for me. Bandit Lord or Mercenary Lord might be more aptly termed. Would certainly help to be then able to give them a more appropriate CC that could make them more 'counterable' and could help to shape their promos better.

 

[Faustmouse]

The downside of them is, that if you need to walk with your stack trough your friends territory, they will most likely kill them. And the AI uses them in stacks quite often, and won't split up the stack.

I think it would be great if your friends (or even vasalls!) stops attacking you with HN units -.-

And, I don't know if possible: Could you make the Warlords HN if they are alone or with other HN units, BUT if they are in a stack of units with nationality, then they would also have a natonality?
This way they could harass your enemies but also help you in wars without fear they will be killed on the way to the front.

 

[Yudishtira]

@TB
We think of "false-flag operations" as being something new, but are they really? The Warlords are your medieval "black ops" guys, the ones that get told: "If you are caught, we will naturally deny all knowledge of you, and say 'Shocking the level to which some people will stoop in these desperate times, what?'"

They are the kick-ass "kill people and blow stuff up" wing of your espionage establishment.

I think there's a place for them (could you tell?). But of course they have to be HN.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The downside of them is, that if you need to walk with your stack trough your friends territory, they will most likely kill them. And the AI uses them in stacks quite often, and won't split up the stack.

I think it would be great if your friends (or even vasalls!) stops attacking you with HN units -.-

And, I don't know if possible: Could you make the Warlords HN if they are alone or with other HN units, BUT if they are in a stack of units with nationality, then they would also have a natonality?
This way they could harass your enemies but also help you in wars without fear they will be killed on the way to the front.

Some tricksy programming might make that possible. But I've got a lot of that on the plate as it stands already so I'm resistant to looking in that direction for an answer.

Have to agree with the Friends using HN units on you though. Like we can't ever really figure out who sent them in. You'd think there'd at least be a RISK of that unit being discovered to be of a particular nationality - hell a spy could steal plans and reveal all of them. And to me, if they aren't bluffing the 'friendship' status - which I don't agree with the assertion that this is always to be the case, then you'd thing they'd be more careful about putting their diplomatically positive position at risk?

Pretty sure in our MP games we wouldn't be able to get away with it without harming diplomacy

But that's AI stuff and generally in Koshling's arena.

@TB
We think of "false-flag operations" as being something new, but are they really? The Warlords are your medieval "black ops" guys, the ones that get told: "If you are caught, we will naturally deny all knowledge of you, and say 'Shocking the level to which some people will stoop in these desperate times, what?'"

They are the kick-ass "kill people and blow stuff up" wing of your espionage establishment.

I think there's a place for them (could you tell?). But of course they have to be HN.

My wife and I were talking about this subject last night of course. And on one hand I agree with you. But on the other, if we're to keep them I'd like to propose the following:

• They be renamed by replacing the term War, which has a connotation that indicates a troop leader under a flag in a national engagement - thus WAR - with the term 'Bandit'. Therefore they would be Banditlords.
• Their base gold upkeep cost (currently 1 gold) (yes I realize there's the +25% per unit in play too) should be made to be worse than the Bandit Footpad (5 gold) by placing it at 6 gold (at least.)
• Nearly double their build cost - they are nowhere near a standard unit.
• Make dang sure that they are utilizing the National Units exception.
• Once I get support promotions working, they can add a promotion to all existing bandit style units (Soon to be the Combat Class: Ruffian) on their same tile that gives those units +1 Str - but only when they stay on the same tile as the Banditlord - then perhaps some promotions for the Banditlord that allow him to pass off even more support promos like these to other same-tile 'Ruffians'.

This would make them cost what such a powerful unit should, be truly limited no matter what, be a strategic drain of wealth for the nation that chooses to boldly field one, and make them all the cooler in that they are obviously a King piece of a raiding stack, such a stack more powerful because of him, but all the more costly the more numbers IN that stack. It would also give this unit a clear purpose whereas right now its moniker and 'flavor' seem somewhat contradictory and overlaps too strongly with Commanders and Generals.

 

[Randomness]

Can HN units capture slaves? If they do, the slaves should a promo which gives HN but can be removed in your territory/city. This would allow the defender a chase to rescue their units, and reduce possible exploitation of HN units against friends.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

My wife and I were talking about this subject last night of course. And on one hand I agree with you. But on the other, if we're to keep them I'd like to propose the following:

• They be renamed by replacing the term War, which has a connotation that indicates a troop leader under a flag in a national engagement - thus WAR - with the term 'Bandit'. Therefore they would be Banditlords.

Except that in real life they are called warlords. Which is why they have that name. Don't you love the ambiguity of English

If you have unlimited national units on then you should not get these units at all as they are way to OP if not limited. I can do that very easily in XML. This is one of the down sides of that option as it undoes all the balancing done before it was introduced.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Except that in real life they are called warlords. Which is why they have that name. Don't you love the ambiguity of English

I see no examples in history of the commanders of secretly state funded mercenary armies being required to be called warlords. The term is ambiguous and serves mostly to confuse us as to what the point of the unit actually is.

If you have unlimited national units on then you should not get these units at all as they are way to OP if not limited. I can do that very easily in XML. This is one of the down sides of that option as it undoes all the balancing done before it was introduced.

Well, yes, the tag is easy enough to use. But there is little balance in having units in the game that should have to use it in the first place. Surely they could be far more expensive, both in build and maintenance and still would only be a start to balancing a unit that is currently 80% stronger and 400% cheaper to maintain than its closest comparable contemporary unit, the Bandit Footpad, which imo is pretty much the same thing and fills the same role. Even limiting a player to one super ultra powerful unit can imbalance the game when it cannot be defeated by even a horde of any other contemporary units. This guy can pretty much single-handedly win a war AND his nationality is hidden so he can go in and fight most of that war before a war even begins.

I'm just saying that nations should really have to pay to maintain him to the point that it wouldn't even be necessary to place an arbitrary limitation on him - make him so darned expensive that if you have even 4 of them you're cutting deeply into your research - make him so heavy to build that he's basically a wonder in his own right.

Balancing on arbitrary limitations breaks the ability to suspend disbelief. The question becomes, What stops the nation from producing more? And the answer comes down to: because the Game God says so.

 

[Yudishtira]

I see no examples in history of the commanders of secretly state funded mercenary armies being required to be called warlords. The term is ambiguous and serves mostly to confuse us as to what the point of the unit actually is.

Historically it was pretended that these acts were the work of "our gallant allies" who were dissidents in the other civ. Recently they have started being called warlords (mainly in Afghanistan), partly because of the growing opposition to their use. "Strongmen" is another term that is used to describe the ones who are so successful they get to be (puppet) rulers of that other nation eg. Saddam, Zia (& Musharraf), Noriega, Pinochet, the Duvaliers, Marcos, Chun Doo Hwan, Mubarak etc.

Well, yes, the tag is easy enough to use. But there is little balance in having units in the game that should have to use it in the first place. Surely they could be far more expensive, both in build and maintenance and still would only be a start to balancing a unit that is currently 80% stronger and 400% cheaper to maintain than its closest comparable contemporary unit, the Bandit Footpad, which imo is pretty much the same thing and fills the same role. Even limiting a player to one super ultra powerful unit can imbalance the game when it cannot be defeated by even a horde of any other contemporary units. This guy can pretty much single-handedly win a war AND his nationality is hidden so he can go in and fight most of that war before a war even begins.

I'm just saying that nations should really have to pay to maintain him to the point that it wouldn't even be necessary to place an arbitrary limitation on him - make him so darned expensive that if you have even 4 of them you're cutting deeply into your research - make him so heavy to build that he's basically a wonder in his own right.

Balancing on arbitrary limitations breaks the ability to suspend disbelief. The question becomes, What stops the nation from producing more? And the answer comes down to: because the Game God says so.

If you are arguing that there should be no limited national units, you may be right but that is a whole nother debate. Given that they do exist, and that the limits can be maintained on some even under the 'unlimited' game option, I agree with DH that that seems like the way to go.

I find a highly promoted melee specialist can generally take him out. If Archer Bombard is on that makes it considerably easier. Plus I always have a half-dozen heroes that pretty much have his measure. I don't know whether the AI can cope with him as well as I can. I dare say they most likely suicide a stack against him until he is dead. I personally find him too valuable (since he accumulates experience quite rapidly) to send to war by himself.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Historically it was pretended that these acts were the work of "our gallant allies" who were dissidents in the other civ. Recently they have started being called warlords (mainly in Afghanistan), partly because of the growing opposition to their use. "Strongmen" is another term that is used to describe the ones who are so successful they get to be (puppet) rulers of that other nation eg. Saddam, Zia (& Musharraf), Noriega, Pinochet, the Duvaliers, Marcos, Chun Doo Hwan, Mubarak etc.

So basically they are like sanctioned insurgencies. I guess I can work with that from a categorical standpoint.

If you are arguing that there should be no limited national units, you may be right but that is a whole nother debate. Given that they do exist, and that the limits can be maintained on some even under the 'unlimited' game option, I agree with DH that that seems like the way to go.

I find a highly promoted melee specialist can generally take him out. If Archer Bombard is on that makes it considerably easier. Plus I always have a half-dozen heroes that pretty much have his measure. I don't know whether the AI can cope with him as well as I can. I dare say they most likely suicide a stack against him until he is dead. I personally find him too valuable (since he accumulates experience quite rapidly) to send to war by himself.

I suppose what I'm arguing is that units should be balanced without consideration for limitations, even if they are given a limit to keep them a 'flavor' unit that doesn't overwhelm the ratio of forces for a given civ.

I'm trying to say that the unit is far too cheap for what it is, limit or no. I have no problem with adding them to the Unlimited Unit exceptions list which would make them still limited even if playing on Unlimited National Units (no need to remove them when playing under that option). What I have an issue with is even if limited they are still FAR outside the bounds of comparability to other contemporary units available at the same tech level that fulfill the same niche. I'm not against them being significantly strong - I would just like to see them be the sort of financial drain on the nation fielding them that you would expect from this sort of unit.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

They have been fine since RoM 2 days. I have always disliked them, but then I also dislike all the bandit and pirate units but they have worked and filled a niche all this time. Why are they bad all of a sudden?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Bandit Footpads and Riders have since established new precedents on the expenses to be expected from HN units. Footpads, for example, are weaker (by 4 out of 10 pts on the same era warlord), also limited, must be qualified by a particular civic AND a special building. Yet at the same time they cost a whopping 5 gold added upkeep each.

Meanwhile the Warlord costs 1 gold added upkeep. He's gone unchanged as other units filling the same niche have been made far more expensive. He's also basically a wonder unit and has the build costs of any normal unit of his qualifying tech level - this is not right either. He should be at least 50% more than he's at now.

And as for the name - they've been a little vague and confusing as to what they represented ever since RoM. I get the Insurgent concept though... but really he should be a central piece used in conjunction with Bandits. Whether he's limited or not, it simply doesn't seem at all right that he should be so much more powerful than the minions (bandits) yet at the same time so much cheaper to maintain.

 

[Crusis]

I have a thought regarding the Atlatalist.. or however you spell it.

60% chance of withdrawal is too high, and if you play with raging barbarians as I do, you wind up with hordes of unkillable atlatalists draining you to nothing and then killing your civ, losing hardly any of their own units in the process.

I just changed this value to 10% in my game, I'm about to load it and see if I like that better.

It also doesn't make sense that a unit could engage in combat against a superior unit and actually disengage 60% of the time while damaging the attacking unit. It gives the atlatal the best of all worlds. The freedom to fight and the freedom to retreat.

I can see retreating WITHOUT damaging the attacking unit 60% of the time. That would represent an all out retreat, running for the hills upon sighting a superior force. But fighting AND getting to retreat? That makes no sense to be at 6 times out of 10.

EDIT: I personally like the new value a lot better. The Atlatl is no longer an uber unit.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I have a thought regarding the Atlatalist.. or however you spell it.

60% chance of withdrawal is too high, and if you play with raging barbarians as I do, you wind up with hordes of unkillable atlatalists draining you to nothing and then killing your civ, losing hardly any of their own units in the process.

I just changed this value to 10% in my game, I'm about to load it and see if I like that better.

It also doesn't make sense that a unit could engage in combat against a superior unit and actually disengage 60% of the time while damaging the attacking unit. It gives the atlatal the best of all worlds. The freedom to fight and the freedom to retreat.

I can see retreating WITHOUT damaging the attacking unit 60% of the time. That would represent an all out retreat, running for the hills upon sighting a superior force. But fighting AND getting to retreat? That makes no sense to be at 6 times out of 10.

EDIT: I personally like the new value a lot better. The Atlatl is no longer an uber unit.

I've been spending a lot of time on planning for pursuit applications which will certainly put a dent in their capabilities against many units.

 

[Nimek]

@TB

Can you tweak withdrawal code so units will be able to withdraw only once per turn or make withdrawal chance also dependent on unit stamina.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I read this late last night and have been considering it since (and my wife has said similar.)

How about:
1) Limit the number of withdrawals in a given game turn to an amount equal to the base move of the unit.

AND

2) Once I have the combat classes capable of adding modifiers of their own to all units that possess them, I'll work out a basis for a fatigue system. We're already a long ways towards what you suggested on that but this would be faster to get there from here in comparison to adding that sort of effect to all units that have withdraw.

AND

3) Complete my evaluation of Pursuit applications and get those 'in play'.

I've already:

4) Made it so units defending cities may not withdraw.


Throughout these 4 steps I'm sure we'll find withdraw a bit more balanced in general.

 

[Crusis]

The atlatlist isn't the only unit with superpowers.

I have discovered barbarian archers coming into my territory and obliterating nearby units with archery fire.

I wish I had a screenshot of this before I entered worldbuilder and deleted the barbarian archer, but I didn't think of it in time. EDIT: (I reloaded and took new screenshots.)

But one archer destroyed TWO archers I moved in place to protect the worker you see in the tile. The barbarian fired his shots, and destroyed my units, all in one turn. Yes, shots. He fired enough times in one turn to kill two units doing 7-9% damage per hit.

I played another turn following this one and arches in a barbarian city obliterated my attacking units in one turn. Talk about your superpowers!

This wasn't happening previously, but just started within the last several turns. It happened once before this, but I thought maybe I just missed something. Nope. Barbarian archers have gone all Conan on me.

EDIT: I tried to upload the save file, but it exceeded the size I'm allowed to upload.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The atlatlist isn't the only unit with superpowers.

I have discovered barbarian archers coming into my territory and obliterating nearby units with archery fire.

I wish I had a screenshot of this before I entered worldbuilder and deleted the barbarian archer, but I didn't think of it in time. EDIT: (I reloaded and took new screenshots.)

But one archer destroyed TWO archers I moved in place to protect the worker you see in the tile. The barbarian fired his shots, and destroyed my units, all in one turn. Yes, shots. He fired enough times in one turn to kill two units doing 7-9% damage per hit.

I played another turn following this one and arches in a barbarian city obliterated my attacking units in one turn. Talk about your superpowers!

This wasn't happening previously, but just started within the last several turns. It happened once before this, but I thought maybe I just missed something. Nope. Barbarian archers have gone all Conan on me.

EDIT: I tried to upload the save file, but it exceeded the size I'm allowed to upload.

This suggests that somehow the archery bombard mission isn't ending the unit's turn as it should. Hmm... definitely a bug to look into there!

 

[Nimek]

Two important things

1 Please remove max demage on attack from camel archer it is simply annoying

2 Please add archery subcombat class to all mounted archery units.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Two important things

1 Please remove max demage on attack from camel archer it is simply annoying

2 Please add archery subcombat class to all mounted archery units.

Agreed on both. According to plan, riding archery units will also have some minor amount of early withdrawal rather than max damage.