CEP: Armies

[mystikx21]

I'm fine with rough terrain bonuses. They are in effect specialized ways of getting them an advantage (and you can get promos for vs wounded or vs ranged). Just not getting them on defence by default would be a big improvement. I will post the files tonight. I had some family time that interferes with the computer time today.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I had some family time that interferes with the computer time today.

I'm sure your family will be glad to know of the priority.

 

[Babri]

I'm fine with rough terrain bonuses. They are in effect specialized ways of getting them an advantage (and you can get promos for vs wounded or vs ranged). Just not getting them on defence by default would be a big improvement. I will post the files tonight. I had some family time that interferes with the computer time today.

They don't make sense though, horses don't work that well in rough terrain especially forests.

The terrain bonuses should only be for unmounted melee units. It would make a much better balanced game.
And yes there is a promotion for bonus against wounded units but there is no promotion you can acquire through XP that increases flanking damage, attack against ranged units or attack bonus only. I think these kind of promotions would bring more variety to the combat system.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

 

[Ahriman]

What, if anything would we do with the machine gun?

I would leave it out. There is no real need I think for both MG and AT gun - just as there was no need for both spearmen and a separate militia infantry unit.

Why do horse units have the ability to fortify?

I didn't think they did. Or rather, you can press the fortify command, but this gives no defensive bonus, it is basically just a "sleep" command which freezes the unit so that it doesn't activate each turn unless you select it.
Was this somehow changed in the mod? I didn't think they did in vanilla. I agree that there is no need for such a bonus.

I have no problem with mounted units still being able to select rough terrain bonuses. They are already less useful in rough terrain because they can't hit and run as effectively. I think this should stay.

 

[mystikx21]

Some notes on the spin-off update:
To set it up, you should be able to just unzip it over-top of the mod in the same directory. Backup any .civ5mod file to overwrite it if there's an issue. If you've done your own modding to any files I modified, they'd be overwritten also.
List of files in mod adjusted

Spoiler :

Armies\CEA_Start.sql
Armies\CEA_Land.xml
Armies\Promotions\CEA_Promotions_End.sql
Armies\Promotions\CEA_PromotionReplace.sql
Barbarians\CEB_End.sql

The increase in costs across the board is still in place. I think it should be gutted anyway but it will impact unit costs by roughly +20% along with buildings and I left it in. Keep that in mind when looking at unit costs though.
If someone wants to change this for units and buildings... this is how.

Spoiler :

Open CEA_Start.sql in the armies directory of the mod
Look/Search for this line
UPDATE Units SET Cost = ROUND
Replace 2 with 1.8

Open CEC_Start.sql in the cities directory of the mod
Look/search for several lines (anything like "note and after" is commentary to guide from me, not in the actual file)
SET Cost = ROUND((Cost * 2) / 10, 0) * 10 note: should be for non-max instance buildings, eg buildings
Replace 2 with 1.8
SET Cost = ROUND((Cost * 1.4) / 10, 0) * 10 note: should be for max 1 instance buildings, eg wonders
Replace 1.4 with 1.2
SET Cost = Cost * 1.4 - note should be after projects
Replace 1.4 with 1.2

At the moment, I did not change the vanguard promotions such that they would have access to "siege". This will not destroy any siege promotion selected for a sword-longsword however when upgraded as it's not listed under the promotion swaps to be destroyed. It will destroy the native 10% bonus on swords as intended, that's not at issue versus a selected promotion costing XP. That stays.

I'd rather vanguards have access to siege as it is rather than use this as a work-around (I can't think of a good reason not to). So that's probably part of step two is to work out the way to do that. The sword units and mobile/siege units already have significant advantages as elite units that this wouldn't be a major impediment to build them instead that a cheaper unit could also attack cities and fortified units when upgraded with XP.

I did strip out the defensive terrain bonus for any mobile units. We could discuss which UU(s) might be best to allow this as a special feature for a mobile unit. Berber might be a good pick though.

It remains on infantry, melee, ranged, and siege units (as intended in the mod for siege). Terrain promos remain in but they should get no defensive bonus without those terrain-specific promo for rough or flat terrain and I believe no fortification bonus, but I'd have to test that.

I admit a flanking promo would be interesting, but they're already likely to get a bonus as it is for now that we can make do before making or discussing further changes. It is an option that we could do though without much trouble as added promotion rather than replacing rough or flat terrain promotions.

I stripped out the bireme/galleass getting a city attack boost. Frigates (swapped with galleons) should now start the city attack bonus for naval ranged units. It was extremely powerful to use naval ranged units without a resource requirement otherwise. This is also easy to undo as a change. I just commented them out in the file.

Bazookas didn't get a ranged defence bonus alongside GG/MG? Fixed for consistency but I'm not sure any of them need it.

I'm not sure what the intended strength for XCOM is. I set it at 120 and adjusted cost accordingly. The spreadsheet used for the cost and strength adjustment scripts in the sql file contained an error with a listed strength of 110, but they are currently only 100 in vanilla BNW. Both them and GDR still receive a discount in cost, mostly for giggles rather than balance and it is not as extreme as in the default mod.

Hand-Axe was still really strong for some reason. Adjusted it down to 13/13 (was 20/15). It's basically a slower version of the chariot and a little harder to kill.

For all other changes: refer back to here

 

[Thalassicus]

I personally like defensive units. I removed all defensive units in July because of a thread where many people indicated they disliked defensive units. I'm okay with giving all the old defensive units (like Gatling Guns) their defense role again. I turned them into elite units because without their defensive bonuses, they had no role at all. Keep in mind upgrading a long-range attack unit (crossbow) into a short range defense unit (gatling) is a much bigger change than upgrading short-range elite attack (longsword) to short-range elite attack (gatling). I'm okay with radically changing units when they upgrade, but some people might feel uncomfortable with it. I think that's what bothered people about the defensive role of gatling guns.

Unit costs typically equal 10 times the melee or ranged strength of the unit, whichever is higher. I'm okay with adjusting the cost of specific units for balance. I did that for a few units you can see on the "Cost Mod" (column Z) in the Armies table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...k5OS0xamFFQlBqYUthYnVQR2c&usp=drive_web#gid=1

I'm comfortable with small adjustments to unit-line strength too. Unit strengths follow the formulas on the UnitFormulas table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...k5OS0xamFFQlBqYUthYnVQR2c&usp=drive_web#gid=2


I didn't ever intentionally add a fortify ability to horses. I don't know why cavalry might be able to fortify, nor how we could change it.

Horse promotions like Drill have always given defensive bonuses on rough terrain. This has been in the unmodded game since the beginning, and hasn't been changed in this project.


==========

Something I struggle to understand is why the distinction of alternating or simultaneous damage from combat seems important to so many people. This has confused me for years. It's a detail that doesn't affect my wartime decisions. It came up during the submarine discussion too.

I'm thinking of these two situations:

Simultaneous Damage
Turn 100: Unit A attacks B, for 5 damage to both A&B
Turn 100: Unit B attacks A, for 5 damage to both A&B

Alternating Damage
Turn 100: Unit A attacks B, for 10 damage to B
Turn 100: Unit B attacks A, for 9 damage to A​

On average these damage types even out. The second situation slightly favors unit A, but not after we consider the inconsistency between ranged & melee combat interactions. Ranged strength is not the attack of an archer, since archers defend against ranged attacks with ranged strength. It's both their attack and ranged strength in that circumstance. This gives simultaneous-damage units a significant advantage against alternating-damage units. It's why horses counter archers so well, and why archers are poor at attacking siege units and other archers. The two damage types have marginal overall difference in long term damage potential from the tests and calculations I examined after G&K's release.

What am I missing? I feel this is the fundamental misunderstanding I've never really cleared up in all our military discussions over the years.

 

[mystikx21]

Thal the major reason people didn't like "defensive units" (at least in my estimation) was they were:
a) often too weak to defend capably on a front line, especially at low level
b) had defensive only promotions that did not make them stronger on attack as compared to shock or drill promotions that work in both directions.
c) were effectively useless in attacking other than as pillagers as a result
None of these arguments applied to the machine gun style units. They applied to weak gunpowder units and vanguard styled units.

Defense isn't just about being able to sit in one spot and keep someone out. Active defense is an important role. All units generally have defensive purpose, either as counter attackers, softeners, or holding lines to guard ranged units behind. The GG/MG upgrade from crossbows preserves the units capability to deal out damage pre-emptively, but also makes it a little tougher to kill on top of this. This is an appealing defensive unit. It isn't necessary to change it very much, and it also upgrades from an existing unit with similar promotions if left alone.

The resource requirement is only part of the experiment. Still leaves the upgrade path?

I don't think most of us consider crossbows to be "attack" units when compared to longswords. That might be where the problem lies here. I don't consider it a dramatic change to go from crossbow to gatling gun. The roles are similar: defensive role with a support attack sideline. I do consider it a dramatic change to go from longsword (city buster) to gatling gun (defensive role ranged unit).

I don't understand the appeal of shifting the existing combat roles in the upgrade path when it wasn't necessary to do this to still maintain the prospect of alternating damage units versus simultaneous damage units. Those roles already existed in game with well-defined units filling them. The problem with them in vanilla is the unit balance of elite vs standard and the like is very poor, not that the roles are strange.

Fortification for horses might be from the no-defense promotion being removed. I'm not sure what that does in the game code but it might interact in that way. I don't remember it being added either but I'm pretty sure that's the only defensive feature changed in the mod for most units.

 

[Thalassicus]

I'm struggling to understand this, and ask for your patience. I changed many units in the summer without really understanding what people were saying. I was hoping that would work out, but realize that experiment was a mistake. The changes clearly did not meet the goals people had. We wouldn't need to revisit this conversation if I'd understood the first time.

Here's my thoughts...

Units with a range of 2 or greater can attack over the heads of other units (like artillery or bombers). This is different from units with 1 range who fight on the front lines (like longswords or gatling guns). Units with 2+ range fight in the rear, while units with 1 range fight in front. This is separate from simultaneous or alternating damage, which can go both ways.

Consider these units:

• 6 range simultaneous damage - Great War Bomber
• 3 range alternating damage - Artillery
• 1 range alternating damage - Gatling Gun
• 1 range simultaneous damage - Musketman

The first two units attack at range from the back of army formations. The last two are front-line units who attack up close. This distinction is really important to me, since it determines how I place my units on the field.

Alternating or simultaneous damage has no effect on my strategy for these units. I use artillery/bombers the same way, and use gatling guns/muskets similarly.

The main thing which distinguishes these units for me is their promotions.

• Siege units have city bonuses so I use artillery against cities, and bombers against units.
• I use gatling guns for attacking units that have superior strength, or cities.
• Muskets are my throwaway units to scout enemy formations or soften up defenders.

 

[Babri]

Fortification for horses might be from the no-defense promotion being removed. I'm not sure what that does in the game code but it might interact in that way. I don't remember it being added either but I'm pretty sure that's the only defensive feature changed in the mod for most units.

This. I think we should give the 'no terrain bonuses' promotion back to the cavalry units.

And regarding the defensive units issue, I think the reason they are disliked is that their role in battle is kind of passive instead of active. This makes the battle boring & tedious instead of being attacking & getting done with the war quickly enough.

Gatling guns have higher attack than muskets, can get bonus damage attacking cities, unlike muskets, and don't take damage from attacking. They seem like much better attack units than muskets. Why do you consider gatling guns more defensive than muskets?

Because naturally ranged units perform better in defensive roles such as sitting inside a fort/citadel or city & attacking the incoming enemy without taking damage. On the other hand offensive infantry is more about trading blows with the enemy & inflicting heavy damage while receiving some as well. This would go better with the musketmen rather than gatling guns.

 

[mystikx21]

Couple thoughts:
1) The muskets probably should be able to get bonus damage from attacking cities too. I'm not persuaded that vanguard units should be prevented from getting that promotion as a melee style unit. I'm also not persuaded that MGs should get such an advantage. Pretty much the only reason to make them "melee" is to prevent them from getting +1 range promotions.

2) The cost ratio in the latest version made it such that you can build an absurdly large army of muskets to attack with relative to a single gatling gun. 4-1 ratios should negate the modest attack advantage they have that they'll be more effective on attack and still allow the units to recover rather than be slaughtered. The cost ratio should be something closer to 1.5 to 1.

The downside is the expense of paying upkeep isn't adjusted in the mod the way it was in GEM I believe, so that larger army costs if you go all out on it but I haven't found gold management to be a significant problem for paying for troops with the additional gold on villages. If I mod that out, it's a little more of a concern but I can get around it by pillaging like crazy in a war which is easier with a larger army.

3) The ranged attack ability is much more defensive/support psychologically because it isn't the same as being able to actually capture things. This flavor issue shouldn't be undersold because it offers a level of flexibility to the unit.

4) By the time I can get gatling guns, I will have much better ranged units available for this role for many cities and targets I might want to attack. Ironclads and artillery, even frigates/galleons are more than equal to the task of hitting cities and dragoons are superior on ground assaults for most units because of their speed and strength combination. Where gatling guns are superior to these units is the ability to hold ground and counterattack modestly against most any enemy unit around. That's a defensive ability.

5) The historical military role of GG/MG as a unit was largely defensive rather than offensive in a strategic sense. Machine guns are typically for holding down an enemy advance, or supporting one of your own with suppressing fire. They're not for "attacking" in the sense of leading the charge because until more recently in game-terms both were unwieldy and large weapons and are limited by the line of sight for an advance. Infantry could much more easily go find the other guy and kill him.

Between changes in these historical roles for flavor purposes and changes in upgrade paths from default, it's a lot to ask for a unit that still has a good niche to defend to call it an assault unit.

 

[mystikx21]

Babri, the modded file above I did do the no terrain bonuses promo for mobile units. It could probably be done a little more elegantly than I did, but the basic routine was to take out the modification that eliminates the promotion that causes defensive bonuses to not take effect, and then attach it only to those unit classes we wanted it on, and remove it from those that we don't that have it by default (like siege weapons?). That could be repeated for any UU adjustments as well.

I haven't tested if this influences fortification, but it should definitely take out the bonus of forests or hills.

 

[Thalassicus]

Remember that a year ago people preferred footmen to mounted units nearly 3 to 1. We risk going back to that imbalance if we reduce the power of mounted units too much. I'm okay with some small changes to horses, but we need to be really careful. Horses have an inherent disadvantage because they're countered by common spears and pikes.

To give a little background about army design, last spring I wanted to make the musket line into attack units, while the gatling line are defensive units. I encountered a lot of resistance to that idea at the time so I dropped it. Feedback during the summer indicated people didn't like defensive units, so I got rid of all defensive units. This required changing gatling guns into elite units to ensure they have some useful role. I wasn't really happy with these changes, but people really wanted to try it, so I did that experiment during the fall. It seems like everyone's moving away from this experiment back to having defensive units again.

ShmooDude's table and the others are essentially what I proposed last year. I'm happy to go back to that. I'll make the changes when I have time.

Offensive infantry is more about trading blows with the enemy & inflicting heavy damage while receiving some as well. This would go better with the musketmen rather than gatling guns.

I'm struggling to understand this. Why do you feel this type of attacker must take simultaneous damage? How do you think of bombers, which also take simultaneous damage?

I think of it this way:

One row of napoleonic soldiers fires their weapons, then slowly reloads over several minutes. Sometime later the enemy row fires. We can think these events happen in one turn (simultaneous damage) or spread out over two turns (alternating). It doesn't matter from a realism perspective, and has less effect on gameplay than the range of the units.

 

[ShmooDude]

I'm struggling to understand this. Why do you feel this type of attacker must take simultaneous damage? How do you think of bombers, which also take simultaneous damage?

I think of it this way:

One row of napoleonic soldiers fires their weapons, then slowly reloads over several minutes. Sometime later the enemy row fires. We can think these events happen in one turn (simultaneous damage) or spread out over two turns (alternating). It doesn't matter from a realism perspective, and has less effect on gameplay than the range of the units.

Look at it less as soldier vs soldier and more from the perspective of soldier vs city.

How would that same row of Napoleonic soldiers have to assault a city? They'd have to enter it, correct? As shooting musket balls at walls/buildings is fairly ineffective. This leaves them vulnerable to any occupying force, far more so than a catapult or archers bombarding them from range. The same can be said of the bombers, they must enter the city to do their damage, thus leaving them more vulnerable. Since as you said, from a realism perspective, it doesn't really matter. This more than anything I think should determine whether a unit is simultaneous damage vs alternating damage.

The GG/MG are the ones that seem the most out of place as far as that determination unless they are more effective from outside a city's limits than I would think. I suppose though it could be looked at more as suppression than anything else at that point. That to me also increases the desire to replace the MG with the AT Gun, as it would be far more formidable vs cities leaving only the GG feeling out of place in that role.

 

[Kivin]

Thal- The reason that differentiating between simultaneous and alternating damage is important is because we associate the behaviour of our game units with our idea of how battle is conducted in real life. In game terms, melee units are battling to take control of the enemy unit's tilespace, where ranged units are firing in to the enemy tilespace. Whether the enemy unit responds in its own turn is irrelevant; what's important is that the unit behaves the way we imagine it.

Short vs. Sword: Attacking Sword marches in to the enemy territory, they trade blows, and the attacker either claims the land or retreats back with casualties.

Sword vs. Bow: Attacking Sword marches on a fixed placement of archers. They take missile fire as they approach, a battle ensues, and they claim the land or fall back, taking additional missile fire.

Bow vs. Sword: The archers fortify themselves in a fixed location and fire on the enemy position, causing casualties.

Musket vs. Musket: Musketeers march in to range of the enemy and fire their weapons; the enemy returns fire. Casualties on both sides.

What if we made Bow units melee? Roughly the same amount of damage might get interchanged, but it doesn't meet our mental vision of what's happening on the ground.

It's for this reason that I decried the move to make submarines a melee unit.

Subs as ranged: The sub silently approaches the destroyer and fires its missile. Next turn, the destroyer retaliates.
Subs as melee: The sub surfaces and approaches the destroyer, taking cannon fire. It fires its payload. Damage exchanged on both sides.

Now, on to city capture. My general moves his siege units on to the hills surrounding the city. The soldiers move up to the edge of the city fortifications and the archers move in behind them. The siege units fire in on the city, causing causalities within and structural damage. The soldiers surge over the fortifications and attempt to take control of the city while the bow fire their payload in on the defending units.

This is why I don't want sword, pike, or gunpowder flipping to machine guns: The soldiers are surging in on the city, the machine guns are setting up a fixed perimeter.

 

[ShmooDude]

I'm comfortable with small adjustments to unit-line strength too. Unit strengths follow the formulas on the UnitFormulas table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...k5OS0xamFFQlBqYUthYnVQR2c&usp=drive_web#gid=2

Couple thoughts.

Is it intended that the Giant Death Robot (and to a lesser extent Xcom; its more 16.5 though) have a tech level 17 level stats? Tech level 17 would technically be future tech. Stealth Bomber is also tech level 16 with level 15 stats.

If we do decide to make the end of the Automatic line into the Anti-tank role end game, consider adding the AT Gun to the line rather than replacing the M Gun. The M Gun would move up one tech slot, the Bazooka down one and the AT Gun in the middle. This would also allow the line to have an Information Era unit that it currently doesn't have (not that that's necessary, but lets it remain a little more relevant). Also, they would probably need to not be "defensive" (equal ranged attack and strength, or maybe even lower str than ra) such that Vanguards could be their counter (vanguard > automatic > mobile > vanguard).


Also, the Arquebusier change is puzzling me. All that change did was move The Great War Infantry up one tech level. What was the purpose of this?
Instead of:
7 Musketman, 9 Rifleman, 11 GWI, 12 Infantry, 15 Mech Inf
We have:
7 Arquebusier, 9 Musketman, 10 Rifleman, 12 Infantry, 15 Mech Inf

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to spread the upgrades out like this?
7 Musketman, 9 Rifleman, 11 GWI, 13 Infantry, 15 Mech Infantry
Perhaps switching the infantry model for the marine model as that's the exact spot the marines are in base BNW.




The other more radical idea I had was to perhaps expand the Skirmish line. Something like:

Chariot Archer -> Horse Archer -> Lancer -> ?? -> Heli

Biggest problem is I can't really think of a Modern era Skirmish unit. Its a bit too early for the AT Gun (and I wouldn't really call it skirmish anyhow), and too late for any of the Calvary UU. If the line isn't expanded, I think that the Chariot and Lancer should upgrade to the Knight and Landship respectively. Maybe let the Helicopter upgrade to the Giant Death Robot as well.

Anyhow, that's all my musings for now.

 

[Delekhan]

The sequence of the gunpowder infantry line is the same, it's just a couple of names have been changed to better reflect historical reality.

The first widely used gunpowder weapons were arquebuses (1460 - 1700). Then came smoothbore muskets (1700 - 1820), then rifled muskets (1820 - 1875), then bolt-action rifles with brass cartridges (1875 - 1935), then semi-automatic & automatic rifles, then mechanized infantry.

Civ5/BNW's names implied that muskets were the first guns and called smoothbore muskets rifles, which just seems weird for the many history aficionados who play this game.

 

[mystikx21]

Thal, I would have to go back and check, but it sounds like you severely misinterpreted
A) what resistance to defensive units was based upon or what a defensive unit was.

Its basically a counter unit that can used to attack but is also excellent at holding ground. Better than most alternatives. The problem was "defensive units" generally meant cannon fodder rather than capable attack and good holding ground ability at the time in the mod. Vanguards were useless in this design. Ranged gun units were not. The key point is defensive unit does not mean "unit occupying space in front line but killed easily and useless at active defense for counterattacking". That's what defensive unit seemed to be in the mod at the time and that's a useless unit. We do not want a design that returns us to that mode.

B) That muskets should be attack units. They just aren't 'elite' units in the form of resource requirements anymore. They don't need to be much different than they are now except more expensive and capable of city attack promotions. I am basically fine with their strength as is. Strength with a few exceptions seems in a good balance already (possibly reduce the gatling-machine gun line in strength and ranged strength slightly along with cost).

Shmoo's proposal is probably good too with a few tweaks here and there as an AT effect taking over from anti-mounted units would be useful. I'd be fine with that on ranged "defensive" units. We could in theory move around the infantry line and that would adjust strength somewhat, but I'd have to see what the numbers might be after to see if we'd need to adjust anything else. They're fine now for the most part.

 

[Ahriman]

I would say that defensive melee units, which can't fight without taking damage are fairly useless. Trying to make muskets or rifles largely defensive doesn't work.

But defensive units with a ranged attack, like the gatling gun, my proposed AT gun, or the bazooka, are not useless. They can function as attrition fighters - they don't do much damage, but they don't take much damage either because they have a fairly decent base strength.

I strongly disagree that having crossbows upgrade to gatlings is somehow weird. I also don't think there is really any support for it, or for trying to make gatlings and MGs into elite units. That's what tanks, battleships, and bombers should be for.

Something I struggle to understand is why the distinction of alternating or simultaneous damage from combat seems important to so many people

What I think you are missing is that you assume that warfare is just pairs of units slugging it out. But it doesn't work like that. If I have a ranged attack, I can shoot you on my turn without taking any damage. If you don't attack me back, either because you are moving elsewhere, attacking something else, defending to heal, or your unit is dead, then my ranged unit takes zero damage. So the simple model you have that the only difference is alternating or simultaneous damage doesn't really describe what is going on. That is part of the beauty of ranged attack: it can deal out damage without taking any in return (and also it can hit sea units).

 

[ExpiredReign]

Thal I am glad to see you are beginning to see the fundamental difference in views to units.

Your view, while not 'wrong as such', doesn't match the perceived game role as experienced by just about everyone else.
This comes across in other ways to. Elsewhere you mentioned you like to use horses as garrisons! Who would have thought of that?
Is it the norm? No.
Is it wrong? definitely not.
I would go so far as to say it is an inspired choice. This is mentioned to just highlight the radically different view of the units you have.

We all use crossbows/gatlings/machine guns as units that hold a position and deal out damage to approaching enemy units. More often than not many in unison with other CB/GG/MGs. They wear down the enemy as they approach our location. An approaching unit will not engage in combat with ALL of these units on its way to attack our city, at least it shouldn't. Making them MELEE and ELITE, resource based units limits their effectiveness in this role. I am not going to waste IRON or OIL on units designed to hold off the attack when I need those resources for my Battleships or Tanks to counter-attack.

Producing low-cost low-maintenance foot-soldiers to act as a meat shield is not a good way of defence, IMO. Why do these units have to be expendable?
I'm not sure what size of a military group each unit is designed to represent, but if a military commander was recklessly throwing away battalion after battalion of foot soldiers in an attempt to stop invaders, I'm pretty sure those further up the food-chain would be saying something!

If as you say these changes were made because of a perceived dislike of the previous model, and now that change is challenged. Just change it back.
There should be no need for mod/mods to 'FIX' this. (no offence mystikx21)

It seems to be fairly clear where everyone views this. If in the future it proves to be a mistake the evidence is laid out clearly before us all. We can then shut up and bow to your inspired choices.

 

[mystikx21]

Fix was intended to be temporary and born out of the frustration with the lack of progression on the upgrade path problem in argument rather than as a required fix.

It should give a decent starting point to work with since I took out some redundant or ineffectual things and fixed a couple others too on top of the relevant adjustments I made.

Note, lost in the longsword-gatling issue there's a couple others that I adjusted too that might need to be kicked around briefly.
1) Destroyers are dirt cheap when they shouldn't be. I made subs cheaper instead, but this is optional. Neither has to be discounted, but destroyers especially do not need a discount.
1a) Vanguards also are way too cheap, especially now. That screws up upgrade costs if we adjust them back to an intended upgrade path among other things. I'd prefer them to be more expensive but also more valuable (city attack promotion available).
2) Early ships probably shouldn't have a bonus city attack promotion for free. That should probably be resource based.

Rest was more like bug fixes or consistency of design.