C2C - Units

[raxo2222]

I'm pretty much just following the tech tree and what it's saying it unlocks and it's unfolding pretty well I think. Yes, it does get more and more fantastic as it goes, to truly mind-bending levels. Have you reviewed some of the initial design plans yet?

Man... getting the unit art for all this stuff is going to be something else.

I was looking at those units, looks fine.
There was one tab with future unit descriptions, I guess its hidden for now.
Some descriptions were bit too far out for eras.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I was looking at those units, looks fine.
There was one tab with future unit descriptions, I guess its hidden for now.
Some descriptions were bit too far out for eras.

I haven't hidden any tabs. There are notes on some units. What units do you feel were too far out for eras? I know the AI units get really wild quite early but it's due to not being so limited and after the tech singularity point, they go rather wild with stuff humans will take much longer to achieve, in a sense. Stuff like full on shapeshifting by being able to break themselves down and recomposing themselves however they wish at a nano-level, maintaining themselves as a cloud that covers a huge swath of territory rather than anything that can be directly fought or interacted with and pulling back together into something that can at any point within that cloud... healing almost instantaneously, that sort of thing. But most of it's due to nano-mastery. Stat-wise it should stay in balance with other human techs that will counter this stuff potentially.

 

[raxo2222]

I haven't hidden any tabs. There are notes on some units. What units do you feel were too far out for eras? I know the AI units get really wild quite early but it's due to not being so limited and after the tech singularity point, they go rather wild with stuff humans will take much longer to achieve, in a sense. Stuff like full on shapeshifting by being able to break themselves down and recomposing themselves however they wish at a nano-level, maintaining themselves as a cloud that covers a huge swath of territory rather than anything that can be directly fought or interacted with and pulling back together into something that can at any point within that cloud... healing almost instantaneously, that sort of thing. But most of it's due to nano-mastery. Stat-wise it should stay in balance with other human techs that will counter this stuff potentially.

Ah so you or someone else just changed names of tabs.
I can't find those notes anymore, I guess you or someone else changed them since I looked last time.

There are no problems with current descriptions now.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Ah so you or someone else just changed names of tabs.
I can't find those notes anymore, I guess you or someone else changed them since I looked last time.

There are no problems with current descriptions now.

You could be thinking of an older plan. The naval unit review perhaps? Anyhow, ok, cool.

 

[Nokaze]

Again, however, consider that the rationale is important only in so far as one can think of some for the reasons that it is such that it leans towards the setup being fairly realistic enough for the system to be believable while also being a clean set of counteractions for the sake of game structure.

For sure, and for the most part I tried to keep the general bonuses around the same as where they are, even noting some of the crazier things. I'll just have to wait for the equipment module to be implemented I guess.

Depends highly on gear setup; Lindybeige testing out untrained spearmen vs trained swordsmen .

IMO I'd take the existing game balancing over more 'realistic' rock-paper-scissors who-beats-what effects for the simple reason that this fundamentally is a game, and I'd call the existing interactions both close enough and not too complex to understand, but there is always a place for someone who wants to take things to the
next level, and put the (massive) work into entirely redesigning all the weapon type interactions.

It was a given that the spearman and the swordsman be of equal skill. While an untrained spearman can be relatively easy to deal with for an experienced swordsman, an inexperienced swordsman won't have as easy of a time. Even moreso a trained spearman understands how to use their spear to keep their reach advantage and how not to make dumb mistakes, making it extremely hard for a swordsman to close without experienced footwork.

Anyway, while it is a game, there is a lot in this mod in the spirit of historical accuracy. It'd be a hard press to argue that there isn't, to my understanding. In that sense, seeing armies of 10K+ axemen is weird and immersion breaking to me, but not horribly so. A rock paper scissors system will never be realistic anyway, since spear would pretty much beat everything every time in mass combat. Ultimately it's fine, the official stance here is clear and that's most of what I wanted to know. That is to say, closer military realism is planned but decently far off.

 

[Thunderbrd]

In that sense, seeing armies of 10K+ axemen is weird and immersion breaking to me, but not horribly so.

Part of that is an AI challenge. That shouldn't really be how the AI would want to arrange things but perhaps right now I can spot the bubble in time where that would be happening if the AI is selecting the 'best' unit and only that best unit. Part of the problem with our AI is that it is a little TOO much weighted to only find and select a 'best' unit for a role. With perhaps too few roles listed, this is not a surprising problem. They should be able to see 'best for a use' and they do but they don't have a wide enough sense of the list of 'uses' and how to coordinate those.

The path I'm on in development here is to address that after the unit balance has been properly addressed and their roles more firmly defined for what they are. From there, those roles can be included more directly in AI definitions and can be made to act more in harmony and coordinated efforts.

 

[Nokaze]

Part of that is an AI challenge. That shouldn't really be how the AI would want to arrange things but perhaps right now I can spot the bubble in time where that would be happening if the AI is selecting the 'best' unit and only that best unit. Part of the problem with our AI is that it is a little TOO much weighted to only find and select a 'best' unit for a role. With perhaps too few roles listed, this is not a surprising problem. They should be able to see 'best for a use' and they do but they don't have a wide enough sense of the list of 'uses' and how to coordinate those.

The path I'm on in development here is to address that after the unit balance has been properly addressed and their roles more firmly defined for what they are. From there, those roles can be included more directly in AI definitions and can be made to act more in harmony and coordinated efforts.

Well part of it isn't even the AI, it's that I the player have it in my interest to create armies of 10K+ axemen. While I of course build other things, spearman are nowhere near that list since the AI rarely use mounted units in my experience. Seeing huge armies of arsonists on the other hand, that's definitely weird no matter how you cut it.

Yeah that path seems fine, there isn't necessarily a best way to balance or mod so whatever keeps ya'll interested is probably the best route.

Edit: Was there an idea for providing earlier firearm units, at least without the equipment mod, to those who have access to firearms but not the tech to make them? Such that you could trade firearms to a country and they could make crappy militia units that used firearms even if they were pretty far behind the tech tree.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well part of it isn't even the AI, it's that I the player have it in my interest to create armies of 10K+ axemen. While I of course build other things, spearman are nowhere near that list since the AI rarely use mounted units in my experience. Seeing huge armies of arsonists on the other hand, that's definitely weird no matter how you cut it.

There's a point where axes are currently out of balance and a touch elevated over where they probably should be in the balance scheme, though it's not too severe, only by a single iCombat pt. Otherwise, axes are useful but not the end all.

Edit: Was there an idea for providing earlier firearm units, at least without the equipment mod, to those who have access to firearms but not the tech to make them? Such that you could trade firearms to a country and they could make crappy militia units that used firearms even if they were pretty far behind the tech tree.

We could do something like that eventually. Would make sense.

 

[Nokaze]

There's a point where axes are currently out of balance and a touch elevated over where they probably should be in the balance scheme, though it's not too severe, only by a single iCombat pt. Otherwise, axes are useful but not the end all.

Fair, I personally find them remarkably useful but that's just my playstyle.

We could do something like that eventually. Would make sense.

Cool, fun feature for the revolution module too.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Question, probably to @Dancing Hoskuld :
Why do Adventurers currently require the option Advanced Diplomacy?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Anyway, while it is a game, there is a lot in this mod in the spirit of historical accuracy. It'd be a hard press to argue that there isn't, to my understanding. In that sense, seeing armies of 10K+ axemen is weird and immersion breaking to me, but not horribly so.

I miss read that (read spearmen rather than axemen ) and thought hey,I just watched a video about Alexander the Great sweeping into Asia with many K of phalanx (spearmen with very long spears, about 3m) a few K of hoplites (medium spear and shield) and some skirmishers (short spear, javelins, bows and slings).

Question, probably to @Dancing Hoskuld :
Why do Adventurers currently require the option Advanced Diplomacy?

IIRC there was nowhere else for them which fitted better at the time. However we may have been planning for them to be minor diplomats as well. Based on historical explorers opening trade with newly discovered peoples.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Well part of it isn't even the AI, it's that I the player have it in my interest to create armies of 10K+ axemen. While I of course build other things, spearman are nowhere near that list since the AI rarely use mounted units in my experience. Seeing huge armies of arsonists on the other hand, that's definitely weird no matter how you cut it.

Yeah that path seems fine, there isn't necessarily a best way to balance or mod so whatever keeps ya'll interested is probably the best route.

Edit: Was there an idea for providing earlier firearm units, at least without the equipment mod, to those who have access to firearms but not the tech to make them? Such that you could trade firearms to a country and they could make crappy militia units that used firearms even if they were pretty far behind the tech tree.

Is this because you use Size matters all the time? Sounds like it.

You can't use that strategy very well in a Non SM game. Spearman are important in Non SM. And not sure why you are not seeing AI mounted units. Again perhaps this is a SM side effect.

 

[Nokaze]

I miss read that (read spearmen rather than axemen ) and thought hey,I just watched a video about Alexander the Great sweeping into Asia with many K of phalanx (spearmen with very long spears, about 3m) a few K of hoplites (medium spear and shield) and some skirmishers (short spear, javelins, bows and slings).

Lol yeah, spearman are the quintessential infantry before firearms, like modern rifleman, no way I'd be complaining about too many spearman.

Is this because you use Size matters all the time? Sounds like it.

You can't use that strategy very well in a Non SM game. Spearman are important in Non SM. And not sure why you are not seeing AI mounted units. Again perhaps this is a SM side effect.

I definitely don't have enough time to play more than one set of settings. I absolutely play with size matters though. It's possible that the AI I've been going to war with simply haven't had access to mounted resources, due to the map generation. Even then though, aside from horse archers axemen are still pretty good against mounted units, since they count as melee. At least a lot of them do. It's just easier to have a main fighting force made up of axemen with groups of macemen et al and mounted units to deal with special circumstances. I don't know if it's the best choice, but it definitely works for me.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Is this because you use Size matters all the time? Sounds like it.

You can't use that strategy very well in a Non SM game. Spearman are important in Non SM. And not sure why you are not seeing AI mounted units. Again perhaps this is a SM side effect.

Wouldn't make the difference in this case. Spears ARE important as anti-mounted, SM or no. And good at being anti-animal of any kind, like dogs. The only reason we might not see as much mounted AI as we should really is because the AI doesn't really see them as having a real strong use right now, not as much as it used to. That's not due to SM though. It's due to futher needs to proliferate AI types.

Lol yeah, spearman are the quintessential infantry before firearms, like modern rifleman, no way I'd be complaining about too many spearman.



I definitely don't have enough time to play more than one set of settings. I absolutely play with size matters though. It's possible that the AI I've been going to war with simply haven't had access to mounted resources, due to the map generation. Even then though, aside from horse archers axemen are still pretty good against mounted units, since they count as melee. At least a lot of them do. It's just easier to have a main fighting force made up of axemen with groups of macemen et al and mounted units to deal with special circumstances. I don't know if it's the best choice, but it definitely works for me.

Only dismount mounted count as melee as well (usually). The type that aren't as strong but do get defensive bonuses. And yes, for punching holes in enemy lines in the field, axes are usually one of the better attackers, them and javelins.

 

[Nokaze]

Wouldn't make the difference in this case. Spears ARE important as anti-mounted, SM or no. And good at being anti-animal of any kind, like dogs. The only reason we might not see as much mounted AI as we should really is because the AI doesn't really see them as having a real strong use right now, not as much as it used to. That's not due to SM though. It's due to futher needs to proliferate AI types.


Only dismount mounted count as melee as well (usually). The type that aren't as strong but do get defensive bonuses. And yes, for punching holes in enemy lines in the field, axes are usually one of the better attackers, them and javelins.

Ah, I wondered if that was the case. Makes sense. Otherwise that's good to hear that I'm not crazy in what units I make.

 

[JosEPh_II]

The only reason we might not see as much mounted AI as we should really is because the AI doesn't really see them as having a real strong use right now, not as much as it used to. That's not due to SM though. It's due to futher needs to proliferate AI types.

Strange then that I see them (Mounted Units) in every game I play.

You still play exclusively SM? You of course know that I play exclusively Without SM. Seems we live in different C2C worlds for gameplay. Yet you tell me that the AI use for Mounted is weak when I do not see that. Strange indeed.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Strange then that I see them (Mounted Units) in every game I play.

You still play exclusively SM? You of course know that I play exclusively Without SM. Seems we live in different C2C worlds for gameplay. Yet you tell me that the AI use for Mounted is weak when I do not see that. Strange indeed.

They don't use it as they used to because they used to make it a big part of their city stack strategy to make withdrawing mounted and I changed that a bit. Nothing to do with SM.

That said, it's quite possible for horses to be scarce for some players on some maps.

 

[JosEPh_II]

They don't use it as they used to because they used to make it a big part of their city stack strategy to make withdrawing mounted and I changed that a bit.

What was the purpose for doing this?

Nothing to do with SM

Are you 100% sure? Guess I'll have to take your word on this then as you are the AI coder.

That said, it's quite possible for horses to be scarce for some players on some maps.

Always understood. But if horses are scarce, then there is almost always other animals available for mounted units, Elephant, Camel, LLama, and the Megafauna Mounts. And most of these can be had thru trade, as this was worked on not long ago.

And I would like to know how Nokaze can make 10K armies' of axemen. His game should freeze up with even 1000 axemen. Much less 10,000 even with SM cheat method of making SM units cheaper to make.

it's that I the player have it in my interest to create armies of 10K+ axemen

 

[Thunderbrd]

What was the purpose for doing this?

Because they do better when they just build themselves to attack to win. At least that was the case when the change was made back in the 2nd year I was here.

Are you 100% sure? Guess I'll have to take your word on this then as you are the AI coder.

100%

Always understood. But if horses are scarce, then there is almost always other animals available for mounted units, Elephant, Camel, LLama, and the Megafauna Mounts. And most of these can be had thru trade, as this was worked on not long ago.

Depends on the map. There are some where I've seen numerous players without any mounted at all.

And I would like to know how Nokaze can make 10K armies' of axemen. His game should freeze up with even 1000 axemen. Much less 10,000 even with SM cheat method of making SM units cheaper to make.

He's probably counting that in terms of how many actual soldiers are there in total according to group volume estimates per unit, not how many units, as the game defines them, are counted.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Much less 10,000 even with SM cheat method of making SM units cheaper to make.

So to get around this unit cheat of making them cheaper in terms of cost you have to use Both SM options? Just want clarification so if I try a game of SM I want the units cost to stay the same as a NON SM game unit cost.