CEP: Armies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
Sorry for openinig this old thread once Again but I was looking through the tech tree of CEP 3.10.2 and it seems to me building costs for different units are really inconsistent.
I've only been through some of the early units but have found some examples which are posted below.
Costs are (Standard speed):
I've looked through some of the old discussion but it's rather long and I couldn't really find anything regarding this specifically.
I know the costs are modified based on UNITCLASS using formulae from the Armies Spreadsheet. It seems a lot of Work - and discussion - has been put into this but is this really what we want? Is it balanced?
\Skodkim
I've only been through some of the early units but have found some examples which are posted below.
Costs are (Standard speed):
- Archer (available at Archery) cost 80
- Spearman (available at Bronze working) cost 70 - sounds really cheap and cheaper the the Archer which comes earlier
- Swordsman (available at Iron working) cost 150
- Composite Bowman (available at Mathematics) cost 110 - rather cheap compared to the swordsman which is from the same tier
- Pikeman (available at Civil Service) cost 120 - really cheap compared to ealier units
- Knight (available at Chivalry) cost 260
- Crossbowman (available at Machinery) cost 170 - rather cheap compared to the knight and longsowrdsman which are from the same tier
- Longswordman (available at Steel) cost 240
- Arquebusier (available at Gunpowder) cost 160 - sounds really cheap and cheaper the the Longswordsman/knight/Crossbowman which comes earlier
I've looked through some of the old discussion but it's rather long and I couldn't really find anything regarding this specifically.
I know the costs are modified based on UNITCLASS using formulae from the Armies Spreadsheet. It seems a lot of Work - and discussion - has been put into this but is this really what we want? Is it balanced?
\Skodkim
I don't know if it's balanced per se, but it's improved in balance over where it was earlier. The cost and strength adjustments for the vanguard-styled mainline infantry units were way too low before.
The only one that jumps out at me is maybe the comp bowman. Xbow is much weaker than the knight or longsword so it's in line but the gap between swords and comp bow isn't that high (I think it's 4-5, the xbow is 7 or 9, which with promos is really around 9-11).
The only one that jumps out at me is maybe the comp bowman. Xbow is much weaker than the knight or longsword so it's in line but the gap between swords and comp bow isn't that high (I think it's 4-5, the xbow is 7 or 9, which with promos is really around 9-11).
Ahriman
Tyrant
The weirdest one I've noticed is frigate vs destroyer.
I have no problem with the very powerful strategic resource units having higher costs as they do. Remember that these units are much more powerful in the mod than they are in vanilla. It would be odd for them to cost the same as their weaker brethren.
I have no problem with the very powerful strategic resource units having higher costs as they do. Remember that these units are much more powerful in the mod than they are in vanilla. It would be odd for them to cost the same as their weaker brethren.
Delekhan
Prince
If the gap between frigate and destroyer is too long, then maybe we can fill it by adding a Pre-Dreadnaught ship in between.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Well yes, an industrial era melee ship is desperately needed. But there is also something odd in unit costs, the destroyer costs only a tiny bit more than the frigate.
ExpiredReign
Deity
What would be of a great help is if we could offer suggested values as to what needs changing, if we have an opinion along the lines that it does.
I remember when this thread first got started, it dragged out a long time because nothing definitive was suggested.
As usual, I don't have anything truly constructive regarding that
, balancing unit costs is not my forte.
I do like the insertion of the Dreadnaught though.
I remember when this thread first got started, it dragged out a long time because nothing definitive was suggested.
As usual, I don't have anything truly constructive regarding that
, balancing unit costs is not my forte.I do like the insertion of the Dreadnaught though.
I'd make the dreadnaught the ranged ship and make the ironclad the melee ship.
I'd agree the frigate/destroyer cost value seems off. Destroyer has a reduced cost modifier on it as well as being stronger (according to the unit formulas). That's probably the most curious aspect.
I'd agree the frigate/destroyer cost value seems off. Destroyer has a reduced cost modifier on it as well as being stronger (according to the unit formulas). That's probably the most curious aspect.
Delekhan
Prince
Just to clarify: A my suggestion was for a Pre-Dreadnaught, not a Dreadnaught. Big difference 
The ironclad does make more sense as a melee ship, with the Pre-Dreadnaught in the ranged role.
The ironclad does make more sense as a melee ship, with the Pre-Dreadnaught in the ranged role.
Ahriman
Tyrant
In 19th-early 20th century naval warfare terms, sure.... but in the big sweep of history, not so much - either one should be annihilating an age of sail ship with cannons but be pulverized by a ww2 battleship with much more speed and longer range guns.
Dreadnought is a simpler in-game name, even if its really off by a decade or two. The important thing is to have something industrial era.
ExpiredReign
Deity
Since we are re-opening this thread and discussing all things 'army', let me raise the issue of upgrade paths again.
To everyone that plays this mod it makes no sense to have Longswordsmen, & the variants, along with Crossbows upgrade to Gatling Guns. No sense at all.
The most logical and easiest to comprehend is to have Longswords -- Arquebusiers --Musketmen and Crossbows -- Gatling Guns.
Putting aside all the arguments about concurrent or turn-based attacks or ranged vs melee, there simply is no reason to change it, other than for the sake of change.
What do you gain? Nothing. There is still the big gap in the Renaissance era where the two lines exist without an upgrade. It is only once you enter the Industrial era with Smokeless Powder & Steam Power do you get to upgrade.
If the purpose is to merge two lines of units, then the Pikemen & Longswords make a much better mix. They can both upgrade to Arquebusiers at Gunpowder then to Musketmen at Smokeless Powder.
It is often said the purpose of this mod is to make more fun. Adding aggravation goes against that desire. I wonder if a poll was taken, how many would show they change this upgrade in their copies?
To everyone that plays this mod it makes no sense to have Longswordsmen, & the variants, along with Crossbows upgrade to Gatling Guns. No sense at all.
The most logical and easiest to comprehend is to have Longswords -- Arquebusiers --Musketmen and Crossbows -- Gatling Guns.
Putting aside all the arguments about concurrent or turn-based attacks or ranged vs melee, there simply is no reason to change it, other than for the sake of change.
What do you gain? Nothing. There is still the big gap in the Renaissance era where the two lines exist without an upgrade. It is only once you enter the Industrial era with Smokeless Powder & Steam Power do you get to upgrade.
If the purpose is to merge two lines of units, then the Pikemen & Longswords make a much better mix. They can both upgrade to Arquebusiers at Gunpowder then to Musketmen at Smokeless Powder.
It is often said the purpose of this mod is to make more fun. Adding aggravation goes against that desire. I wonder if a poll was taken, how many would show they change this upgrade in their copies?
Stop the show. We have a winner.
I'd say because of the city bonus and relative strength/cost advantages, it would make the most sense (without making other adjustments) to go longsword-musket rather than arque, but to have arques also go to muskets. We could go toward the vanilla structure of strength and cost for muskets and longswords instead and adjust them, but it's just as simple to do it that way and doesn't have the same issues of ranged/melee role shifts either way.
And I've always changed it.
And I've always changed it.
ExpiredReign
Deity
Ok, let's wade into the fray again.
The Iron requirement for Gatling Guns is also a sore point.
Let me highlight a point I am now faced in my current game.
I garrison Crossbows in my cities for the extra ranged attack if needed. I have very little Iron, which at the moment is tied up in other more important units. I've kept the Crossbows until Electronics where I can upgrade to Machine Guns, which require Oil (another story). Well I can't get to Machine Guns without first upgrading to Gatlings.
I have money and oil to do it but can't because of the resource requirement.
I can't see the logic in going from Crossbows, with no resource, to Gatlings with Iron and then to Machine Guns with Oil!
If we want the units to be reource based, can't we at least be reasonably consistent?
The only other upgrade, apart from the obvious Dragoon to Landship, that makes a change of resource is the Battleship which needs oil instead of iron. That though is a bit more logical as it is a capital ship that should have support ships along with it. At least the change is logical to me.
The Iron requirement for Gatling Guns is also a sore point.
Let me highlight a point I am now faced in my current game.
I garrison Crossbows in my cities for the extra ranged attack if needed. I have very little Iron, which at the moment is tied up in other more important units. I've kept the Crossbows until Electronics where I can upgrade to Machine Guns, which require Oil (another story). Well I can't get to Machine Guns without first upgrading to Gatlings.
I have money and oil to do it but can't because of the resource requirement.
I can't see the logic in going from Crossbows, with no resource, to Gatlings with Iron and then to Machine Guns with Oil!
If we want the units to be reource based, can't we at least be reasonably consistent?
The only other upgrade, apart from the obvious Dragoon to Landship, that makes a change of resource is the Battleship which needs oil instead of iron. That though is a bit more logical as it is a capital ship that should have support ships along with it. At least the change is logical to me.
I also delete the iron and oil requirements for the gun units while you're at it. If the units are too strong that they should require some sort of resource, we could just reduce their value somewhat (the way infantry units get reduced somewhat, say), but I am otherwise uncertain where this came from or why. I assume it has to do with upgrading from longswords which have an iron requirement. But the default (preferred) upgrade path of longswords to muskets drops it. Which would also make sense here. This greatly reduces the use of the units versus ships and tanks that the trade-off seems unnecessary.
The other two resource switches are switches rather than new resource requirements in the line representing shifts in the economy powering a military in the first place (going from steel hand-held weapons to machines or sails and cannons to engines). The closer parallel is ranged ships going from nothing to iron.
The other two resource switches are switches rather than new resource requirements in the line representing shifts in the economy powering a military in the first place (going from steel hand-held weapons to machines or sails and cannons to engines). The closer parallel is ranged ships going from nothing to iron.
Classical Era |Composite Bowman|Horseman|Swordsman|
Medieval Era |Crossbowman|Knight|Longswordsman|Pikeman
Renaissance Era ||Lancer||Arquebusier
Industrial Era |Gatling Gun|Dragoon||Musketman & Rifleman
Modern Era |Machine Gun|Landship||Infantry
Atomic Era |Bazooka|Tank||Airborne & Mechanized Infantry
IMHO this is what we're looking for.
I don't think there is a good separation between vanguard units and soldiers any more. In G&K, we had the mod-unique vanguards with lots of defensive bonuses, and I basically just used them as throw away catapult fodder. But since we're now classifying all vanilla units in to these two categories, it ends up being a bit confused.
You're missing the warrior, gunship (and armor) from that list I believe. That's a bit of a separate path too as chariot-lancer-gunship which keeps the lancer around as it partly operates as a special counter dragoon unit.
In that same vein. I think it's fine the swords retain some usefulness up into the renaissance in exchange for having a resource requirement. For some reason military commanders (or the commentaries about said commanders) were obsessed with being able to use sabres and bayonets well into the 19th century as it was. But we could also just fold them into a "single" melee line that unifies around arques or muskets and upgrades from warriors.
What we don't need is for them to:
a) upgrade to a ranged unit
b) have that ranged unit require a resource
c) have special promotions other than anything unique to the unit itself from other melee/soldier units in a way that considers them a separate unit "type" in any way.
We can still calculate the unit stats according to a separate formula because of the resource requirements.
In that same vein. I think it's fine the swords retain some usefulness up into the renaissance in exchange for having a resource requirement. For some reason military commanders (or the commentaries about said commanders) were obsessed with being able to use sabres and bayonets well into the 19th century as it was. But we could also just fold them into a "single" melee line that unifies around arques or muskets and upgrades from warriors.
What we don't need is for them to:
a) upgrade to a ranged unit
b) have that ranged unit require a resource
c) have special promotions other than anything unique to the unit itself from other melee/soldier units in a way that considers them a separate unit "type" in any way.
We can still calculate the unit stats according to a separate formula because of the resource requirements.
Agree even Though warriors should probably be added to the soldier line as ancient.
Also I think unit combat ability AND cost should be more consistant.
\Skodkim
Fix'd:
|
Ranged
|
Horse/Armor
|
Soldier
|
Vanguard
Ancient Era
|Archer|Chariot Archer|Warrior|Spearman
Classical Era |Composite Bowman|Horseman|Swordsman|
Medieval Era |Crossbowman|Knight|Longswordsman|Pikeman
Renaissance Era ||Lancer||Arquebusier
Industrial Era |Gatling Gun|Dragoon||Musketman & Rifleman
Modern Era |Machine Gun|Landship||Infantry
Atomic Era |Bazooka|Tank||Airborne & Mechanized Infantry
note: I didn't include many late-game units on the table because they are far less confused than the mid game units.
Classical Era |Composite Bowman|Horseman|Swordsman|
Medieval Era |Crossbowman|Knight|Longswordsman|Pikeman
Renaissance Era ||Lancer||Arquebusier
Industrial Era |Gatling Gun|Dragoon||Musketman & Rifleman
Modern Era |Machine Gun|Landship||Infantry
Atomic Era |Bazooka|Tank||Airborne & Mechanized Infantry
note: I didn't include many late-game units on the table because they are far less confused than the mid game units.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I agree with mystikx in general. Pikes should upgrade to arqeubus, arquebus to muskets, longswords to muskets, crossbows to gatling guns.
And there is no way that machine guns should require oil! Oil should just be for armored units and ranged naval units. Gatlings and MGs should just be defensive infantry units in the same way that rifles and infantry are offensive infantry units.
I'd also note that the unit design gets a whole lot easier once you merge the vanguard and soldier groups together and just have melee and gunpowder classes for infantry. I've never understood the need for two different classes. It becomes super-confusing for the player with the various vs x promotions, because it is unintuitive which units belong to which class.
Oh, yeah, that's weird too. I'd remove that. There is no need to be making gatling guns into elite units, I think they should return to the GEM design where they were defensive units.
And there is no way that machine guns should require oil! Oil should just be for armored units and ranged naval units. Gatlings and MGs should just be defensive infantry units in the same way that rifles and infantry are offensive infantry units.
I'd also note that the unit design gets a whole lot easier once you merge the vanguard and soldier groups together and just have melee and gunpowder classes for infantry. I've never understood the need for two different classes. It becomes super-confusing for the player with the various vs x promotions, because it is unintuitive which units belong to which class.
