CEP: Armies

[ExpiredReign]

Well, that was easy!

Everyone is in agreement then. Oh wait, not quite.
It would really be nice if Thalassicus would just sign off on this. I could make the changes to the mod but I feel uneasy in doing so, he has put a lot of time into 'his baby'.

Thal, we all want it, and apparently now is the "time of giving ". What do you say?

 

[Delekhan]

Agree 100% x 100%! Good suggestion ExpiredReign. It was one of those things that's been nagging me too.

 

[mystikx21]

Expired. You could set up the files to do it and just patch in 5 seconds as soon as you get a send off. We've probably been doing this already as it is.

I'd hope we're not stuck with another melee sub problem as this comes up on being a complete mod. It's doing quite well aside from some nagging bugs and a few issues like this that I always changed as a salt-to-taste requirement to play (city connections was another, but he at least bumped that back up. The Carthage one looks like an easy fix too, just give a bonus at sailing).

 

[Kivin]

I would just like to weigh in that merging Soldier and Vanguard classes together makes a lot of sense. I think the supposed-separation of the two classes helped cause this confusion in the first place.

Vanguard made sense when we had the unique G&K Vanguard units, but without them, the unit class is no longer necessary.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@mystikx21

Yeah I could do that. Its just I feel a sense of duty to work inside the boundaries of the mod as supplied!

Thalassicus gave me a chance to try out my skills and I feel a debt of gratitude to him. It feels like "cheating on him", in a strange sort of way. I strongly feel the whole community wants CEP to be the way we have just described it, it just needs a final push to bring him on side.

As you say though, for the general populace that are vocal about this change, they probably have the skills to make those changes themselves, and do so. I would like to see that as unnecessary.

 

[mystikx21]

I did a couple mod-mods off of GEM, especially after the economy changes in 1.13. It's not that unusual to have the feel of "cheating" on the mod at that point. I'd agree. It's better if I don't feel I have to, but I know at times I'm in a vocal minority rather than the unruly mob (as in this case).

I imagine it gets frustrating when Thal wants to try something... and then that vision doesn't really get others excited and interested as it does him. Or indeed, even frustrates them. A lot of us have very strong visions about what the game should be like and what it could be like, and he's a diligent experimenter to bring some of those about, and some of his own have brought me along at times too.

But sometimes those experiments fall flat, and sometimes it takes a while to get a reverse course made or an explanation about why it happened that might get people to back down. I get vocal about those last bits that still seem broken or unjustified.

We still have some debating to do on policies and ideologies. Piety is still a mess and there's a few duds laying around, :cough:landknechts:cough and then the UI/yields stuff. But it's gone pretty well that we're making late pass adjustments like fixing this upgrade path or a particular leader UA and hopefully moving on to bigger things.

 

[mystikx21]

List of possible balance pass adjustments
Remove vanguard cost reduction from last version. Put back to ~-25%. I'd consider -33%, the current appears to be closer to -50% except for spears. Which is probably a rounding effect anyway.
Change GG/MG to bow upgrades with modest melee strength and somewhat lower ranged ability (high strength garrison with ranged ability or good counterattack/front line defensive unit). No resource requirements.
Remove longsword upgrade to GG, change to muskets.
Note: Muskets would cost the same as longsword after other adjustments, but they'd be +8 and have no iron requirement allowing for a naval build-up/upgrade.
Remove cost reduction on destroyer, possibly shift it to subs (specialized unit with no upgrade path to it).

List of proposed effects on unit changes for balance, feel free to comment.

Spoiler :

Knight 25 -1, cost -10.
Vanguard costs significantly higher% (spear costs 80, pike 140, arque 180, musket 240, rifle 280). Strengths unchanged.
Gatling 32 /30 cost 320, no resource, upgrades from xbow
MG 50/45 cost 500, no resource
Bazooka 70/65 cost 700, no resource

[table="Cost adjust"]Unit|Delta|Percent
GDR |270|33%
XCOM|540|263%
Mech Inf|210|49%
Bazooka|-150|-18%
MG|-100|-17%
Infantry|130|52%
Airborne|130|52%
Rifle|90|47%
Gatling|-30|-9%
Arque|60|50%
Pike|50|56%
Spear|20|33%
Destroyer|120|31%
Missile DD|210|33%
Sub|-190|-25%
Missile Sub|-310|-25%
[/table]

I will set it some version of this up once it appears a consensus emerged for use at least as an alternate unit set.

Note: There might be some reason to make XCOM dirt cheap as an upgrade (reward for late tech push?) since they're a very late game unit ... but since they are a very late game unit, it really doesn't matter very much if they're expensive.

 

[ExpiredReign]

As I have often said in other threads, I am more in line with your view of units than the current mod describes.

The suggestion looks fine to me. (but what do I know?)

 

[ShmooDude]

I defiantly agree with not converting melee units to ranged (longswordsman -> gattling gun).

Looking through the mod tech tree as well as the orignal BNW upgrade paths, I kind of come up with the following.

| 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 |Repeating Crossbowman|Lancer|Musketman|Arquebusier
Industrial Era |Gatling Gun|Dragoon|Rifleman|Marine*
Modern Era |Machine Gun|Landship|Infantry|Anti-tank Gun
Atomic Era |Bazooka|Tank|Paratrooper|Helicoptor Gunship
Information Era ||Modern Armor -> GWR|Xcom Squad|

The Vanguard line becomes a lot closer to base BNW, simply replacing the lancer with the Arquebusier, adding the Marine (renamed) and moving the Anti-tank Gun to the Modern era to fill out the line (adding anti-horse to both Arquebusier and Marine preferably if its not too much an historical faux pas to do so). Helicopter Gunship regains its anti-armor bonus.

The Soldier line merges with the Paratrooper line such that it maintains its soldier style (ie doesn't convert to 'fake' tanks at information era) in addition to regaining the Musketman/Rifleman.

The Ranged line gains the Repeating Crossbowman which is the Chu-ko-nu from China (obviously they'd need a new UU/building) filling the much needed gap between Crossbowman and Gatling Gun. The now unused Mechanized Infantry could be added to the end of the line as an Information Era upgrade to the ranged line, though I'm not sure that's necessary.

 

[mystikx21]

I would leave the mech infantry in the soldier line and have XCOM be like the armor>Robot upgrade. It is intended to be a superlate game upgrade for giggles more than a long-term unit I think. Mechanized units are typically infantry that just move a lot faster rather than "fake tanks" and provide some protection and added firepower to the troops. They're fine in the same line. Paratroops is kind of an odd fit there more so, as a special ops unit more than a frontline troop.

There's much to be said for that proposal, but we'd be adding 3 units (2 coming back) and doing a rather complete rebalance in unit values in strength and costs. There might be resistance to that given how long it took to get any kind of consensus on the current setup. Given that there's some obvious problems that have been introduced though (through post-consensus tinkering mostly), maybe a scrap and start over makes more sense. A similar approach to naval units would put a midpoint units between destroyers and frigates/galleons in the same vein as the crossbow-gatling line's big gap.

 

[skodkim]

As I have often said in other threads, I am more in line with your view of units than the current mod describes.

The suggestion looks fine to me. (but what do I know?)

I feel exactly the same

\Skodkim

 

[ShmooDude]

I would leave the mech infantry in the soldier line and have XCOM be like the armor>Robot upgrade. It is intended to be a superlate game upgrade for giggles more than a long-term unit I think. Mechanized units are typically infantry that just move a lot faster rather than "fake tanks" and provide some protection and added firepower to the troops. They're fine in the same line. Paratroops is kind of an odd fit there more so, as a special ops unit more than a frontline troop.

There's much to be said for that proposal, but we'd be adding 3 units (2 coming back) and doing a rather complete rebalance in unit values in strength and costs. There might be resistance to that given how long it took to get any kind of consensus on the current setup. Given that there's some obvious problems that have been introduced though (through post-consensus tinkering mostly), maybe a scrap and start over makes more sense. A similar approach to naval units would put a midpoint units between destroyers and frigates/galleons in the same vein as the crossbow-gatling line's big gap.

Yeah, this would defiantly be more of an overhaul than a tweak to the upgrade lines. The big reason I kind of liked changing the mech infantry off soldiers is they look like tanks, but aren't (ie aren't "armor" type) with bonus to armor having no affect against them. Perhaps its just me that finds that weird. But you're right in terms of unit balance, having that super fast unit at the end of the line to counter some of the other stuff that's going on does make sense.

Though the whole splitting things by era is perhaps the wrong way to look at it. For example the same gap exists between the composite bowman and the crossbowman as most of the rest of the ranged upgrade line (3 techs between is actually more common than 2 in most lines).

*: "extra" unit in the line that will upgrade to something further down the line, not necessarily the next thing in line.
M: Bonus vs Mounted
A: Bonus vs Armored
U: Bonus vs Land/Sea Units
C: Bonus vs Cities
D: Bonus vs Dragoon
a: Bonus vs Air

Current layout:

| A0 | A1 | A2 | C1 | C2 | M1 | M2 | R1 | R2 | I1 | I2 | m1 | m2 | a1 | a2 | i1 | i2 Ranged ||7/5||11/8|||17/12||
Horse/Armor |||13/10*|16|||26||32/24D*|40||55||75||105|160
Soldier |8|||15C|||24C|||35/35|||60/60||85/85
Vanguard ||11M|||18M|||24||32|37||50||85||118
Siege ||||14/9C|||22/15C||33/22C||45/30C|||75/50C
Naval-Melee |||13U|||21U|||32U|||50U|||85U
Naval-Ranged ||13/10||||21/16|||32/24||43/32C||70/50C||125/95C
Submarines ||||||||||||75/25|||125/40
Bomber ||||||||||||40U||55U|||80U
Fighter ||||||||||||40||55||80
AA Guns |||||||||||||45a||65a
Carrier |||||||||||||70

Proposed change (ranged line set as its own instead of merging into soldiers, mid and end game vanguard regain their anti-mobile abilities):

| A0 | A1 | A2 | C1 | C2 | M1 | M2 | R1 | R2 | I1 | I2 | m1 | m2 | a1 | a2 | i1 | i2 Ranged ||7/5||11/8|||17/12|||35/35|||60/60||85/85
Horse/Armor |||13/10*|16|||26||32/24D*|40||55||75||105|160
Soldier |8|||15C|||24C||| 37 ||| 60 | 55 *|85||118
Vanguard ||11M|||18M|||24 M |||37 M || 55A || 75A Siege ||||14/9C|||22/15C||33/22C||45/30C|||75/50C
Naval-Melee |||13U|||21U|||32U|||50U|||85U
Naval-Ranged ||13/10||||21/16|||32/24||43/32C||70/50C||125/95C
Submarines ||||||||||||75/25|||125/40
Bomber ||||||||||||40U||55U|||80U
Fighter ||||||||||||40||55||80
AA Guns |||||||||||||45a||65a
Carrier |||||||||||||70

Soldier is: Warrior, Swordsman, Longswordsman, Musketman, Rifleman, Infantry, Airborne*, Mechanized Infantry, Xcom Squad
Vanguard is: Spearman, Pikeman, Arquebusier, NewUnit, Anti-tank Gun, Helicopter Gunship

Bold is my proposed changes to unit strength/abilities trying to keep changes at a minimum.

Alternative order for Vanguard could be: Spearman, Pikeman, Lansknecht, Arquebusier, Anti-tank Gun, Helicopter Gunship with a new wealth purchase merc added.

 

[mystikx21]

I'd just get rid of the wealth purchase merc. That policy is just there to find a way to use the landknecht as it is.

 

[Ahriman]

I still don't see what is wrong with having arquebus and longswords both upgrade to muskets. It strikes me that this remains the simplest solution by far.

There is no reason why anything needs to upgrade into specialists units like the AT gun. It's ok to have these new specialist units as things that you build only in special circumstances and build from scratch.
[Alternatively, we could remove the machine gun and put the AT gun into its role, as a defensive unit with a moderate ranged attack - but keep the extra bonus vs tanks.

This makes both units more meaningful: armored units are very strong (as they should be as resource requiring units) so it makes some sense to have the defensive AT gun and bazooka as having bonuses vs tanks. So tanks really have great offensive power, but you still want to use them as hit and run, and you still want to use artillery and aircraft to soften up dedicated defenses rather than just being able to throw tanks at anything.

So we have crossbow->gatling gun->AT gun->bazooka and have the helicopter as a unique that doesn't upgrade to or from anything, and we have the lancer upgrade into the landship just as the cavalry does.]

I think my views on units are generally aligned with mystikx.

 

[mystikx21]

I will post the updated files here if anyone wants them for the proposal I had outlined above (with one minor change to the XCOM cost calculation that puts them a little lower).

Though Shmoo's is fine too and I would offer some endorsement to it; with some minor revisions on unit stats here or there and questions about resources to iron out. It's slightly more involved and would take somewhat longer to re-organise the file(s) correctly for upgrade paths and promotions and add another unit in. Plus I was already doing this when his idea popped up so it was faster to finish than to start over.

A note on that outline above Shmoo, all ranged ships have a bonus against cities in the mod, not just ironclad>battleship>cruiser. I think it is worth eliminating this for the first two ships and leaving it on frigates onward. A resource requirement should be the signal of an anti-city bonus. Also fighters have a bonus against air units I believe (including helicopters?).

I will test it in the morning to make sure I caught everything in the promotions/upgrade paths that needed adjusting post-stats adjustment and then attach it in the next post. It would be trivial to remove the city attack bonus on the first two ranged ships if desired at that point (take me about 30 seconds).

Some notes as I was clearing through the army directory.

1) Infantry has a tag to use the paradrop AI still as well as the paratrooper art. I doubt we still need it that way since that function was restored to airborne units and airborne units were not eliminated.
2) Buildings destroyed on conquest are referenced in both the start and end.sql (redundant code). Clarification: The 50% buildings are only in the start.sql (commented out in end). 0% are in both. I assume they're intended to be commented out in end as well.
3) I will also swap back the frigate/galleon to default roles, which is essentially cosmetic rather than significant to game play. But it's been bugging me at least as an unnecessary swap for months.

4) Sea Beggar (a deleted unique unit as I recall) includes a promotion to be a submarine as a very old line. I don't think it's possible to get one in game (maybe from a military CS?), but it would be a very odd upgrade if so. I fixed it in the file.

 

[ShmooDude]

I still don't see what is wrong with having arquebus and longswords both upgrade to muskets. It strikes me that this remains the simplest solution by far.

There is no reason why anything needs to upgrade into specialists units like the AT gun. It's ok to have these new specialist units as things that you build only in special circumstances and build from scratch.
[Alternatively, we could remove the machine gun and put the AT gun into its role, as a defensive unit with a moderate ranged attack - but keep the extra bonus vs tanks.

This makes both units more meaningful: armored units are very strong (as they should be as resource requiring units) so it makes some sense to have the defensive AT gun and bazooka as having bonuses vs tanks. So tanks really have great offensive power, but you still want to use them as hit and run, and you still want to use artillery and aircraft to soften up dedicated defenses rather than just being able to throw tanks at anything.

So we have crossbow->gatling gun->AT gun->bazooka and have the helicopter as a unique that doesn't upgrade to or from anything, and we have the lancer upgrade into the landship just as the cavalry does.]

I think my views on units are generally aligned with mystikx.

Oh its definitely the simplest. Actually do like your idea a lot as well. Tanks essentially take over the "elite" role while ranged takes over the anti-elite role. And simplifying those lines from 4-to-3 makes sense given the added stuff of late game (aircraft, etc).

So something along the lines of:

| A0 | A1 | A2 | C1 | C2 | M1 | M2 | R1 | R2 | I1 | I2 | m1 | m2 | a1 | a2 | i1 | i2 Ranged ||7/5||11/8|||17/12|||35/35|||60/60A||85/85A
Horse/Armor |||13/10*|16|||26||32/24D*|40||55||75||105|160
Soldier/Vanguard |8*|11M||15C*|18M||24C*|24||32|37||50||85||118
Siege ||||14/9C|||22/15C||33/22C||45/30C|||75/50C
Naval-Melee |||13U|||21U|||32U|||50U|||85U
Naval-Ranged ||13/10||||21/16|||32/24||43/32C||70/50C||125/95C
Submarines ||||||||||||75/25|||125/40
Bomber ||||||||||||40U||55U|||80U
Fighter ||||||||||||40||55||80
AA Guns |||||||||||||45a||65a
Carrier |||||||||||||70

What, if anything would we do with the machine gun? Leave it out (thus still having 2 units left out, just swapping at gun with mg)?

 

[skodkim]

This is begining to look really interesting

\Skodkim

 

[Babri]

Why do horse units have the ability to fortify? Horse units having higher base strength & higher cost makes sense but historically unmounted units were better for holding line & maintaining defensive position/fortifying. Also horse units sucked in forests & weren't that great in hilly terrain so it makes little sense for them to get terrain bonuses.

I would suggest to remove fortify ability for horse units as well as remove terrain defense bonus for horse units. Berber cavalry could keep it though, this would make them more flavourful & a change of pace for the Morrocan player as they can use former offensive units into a defensive weapon.

 

[mystikx21]

The mounted fortification change is among the reasons mounted units are so good in the current setup (aside from move after attack, fast movement, flanking bonuses, and additional strength).

I'd be fine with removing it and I'd agree it might make some sense to remain on certain or particular UUs.

 

[Babri]

The mounted fortification change is among the reasons mounted units are so good in the current setup (aside from move after attack, fast movement, flanking bonuses, and additional strength).

I'd be fine with removing it and I'd agree it might make some sense to remain on certain or particular UUs.

It certainly makes them OP. Why create infantry when you can create cavalry which are much faster, versatile & stringer than infantry units. Just bring some siege units in case of capturing cities & you can safely ignore infantry for the most point.

That is why I believe that we should revert to vanilla in this regard. Cavalry units are specialised units, in most armies the bulk was infantry while cavalry was reserved for specialised tasks (except few armies such as Mongols & Timurids)

I would even suggest to remove the rough terrain promotions for cavalry units & replace them with some special promotions which effect cavalry flanking bonuses, attack Vs ranged units or wounded units maybe. The point is to make them more distinct & powerful rather than spamming them to replace infantry units.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk