Combat Rebalance Discussion

[iOnlySignIn]

Perhaps we should have a separate thread dedicated to unit combat balance. This thread.

Why bother? If you ask me, I'll be one of the first people to say that combat in Civ IV in general does not matter. First of all, the combat system is rather bland and simple (compared to for example Civ V, Hearts of Iron, or Panzer Commander). It's mostly about who has the more impressive stack. Second of all, this game is mostly about Tech. If you Tech to an era ahead of your enemies, it won't matter how the combat is balanced - you'll mow them down anyway.

However, that is only the beginning of the story.

On one hand, the simple and bland combat system of Civ IV can easily be enriched and improved. For example in Dale's Combat Mod. The combat system is no less malleable than any other aspects of Civ IV. That Rhye, Leoreth, and most of us have ignored it had been due to our choice, not because the combat system is "unsalvageable". Ideas such as Dale's Mod to improve the combat system of DoC in general are welcome in this thread.

On the other hand, RFC, especially DoC, urgently requires a rebalance due to the fact that many Civ's UHVs are confined to a certain era. Greece and Persia for example, do not have the option to fast tech into the Medieval Era to win their military UHVs with Knights and Maces. The same holds true for most of the Classical & Medieval civs. This is why units of a specific era (Classical for Greek & Persia) need to be finely balanced. Currently, they are anything but.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

As we set out on the task of combat rebalance for RFC: DoC, it's helpful if we acknowledge a few axiomatic guiding principles first. The ones I think are fairly obvious are:

(1) A Unique Unit should at least be outstanding for some purpose. Especially if it's the UU of a civ who's military are strong in history. Major violations of this principle that come to mind are the Immortal of Persia, Jaguar of Aztec, and Ballista Elephant of Khmer. They simply serve no purpose and their civs would be no worse off with the non-UU version of those units.

(2) A non-unique unit should have some form of counter from other units in the same era. Combat balance in any strategic game is about Rock-Paper-Scissors. You can't have Grenade in a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors. That would be overpowered. Examples of non-UUs with no counter in its era include Axemen, Knight (arguably), Cuirassier.

(3) A non-unique unit should not be so weak as to never be used by any Human player. This is the biggest problem with the current unit combat balance IMO. Many units are just so bad that people almost never use them. Examples include Spearmen, Swordsmen (Axemen), Horse Archer (Construction => War Elephants), Longbowmen (Crossbow + Pikes), ... the list goes on.

Based on these principles I will draft some rebalance plans specifically for Classical and Medieval units, as I feel those are most in need of balancing. I myself seldom play deep into the Modern Era, so opinions on that era would particularly improve this thread.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Axeman: +25% vs. Melee instead of +50%. Exceptions: Greek Hoplite and Inca Quechua retain their +50% vs. Melee to counter Immortal and Dog Soldier respectively. Dog Soldier is unchanged.

Spearman: Base Strength 5 instead of 4; +50% vs. Mounted units instead of +100%; this change also affects the UUs. Persian Immortal gets +50% Attack bonus vs. Archer instead of +100%. Maya Holkan retains their +25% vs Melee, and now completely replaces Axemen (not a problem as Maya has no access to Iron or Copper).

Swordsman: Basic unit is unchanged. Jaguar starts with Woodsman II in addition to Woodsman I, and a +10% vs. Melee (to make it useful against Dog Soldiers). Roman Legion can build Roads and Forts for historical realism (a mod tested to be bug-free by me).

Horse Archer: 35% base Withdrawal chance instead of 20%.

Catapult: x1.5 Bombard rate: 12% per turn instead of 8%.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Heavy Swordsman: +30% vs. Melee instead of +50%. Exceptions: Viking Huscarl and Japanese Samurai retain their +50% vs. Melee.

Pikeman: Base Strength 7; +50% vs. Mounted instead of +100%. Landsknecht receives +50% vs. Melee instead of +100%.

Knight: Unchanged. Cataphract receives +30% bonus vs. Melee instead of +25%.

Longbowman: Base Strength 7 instead of 6. Cost 75 instead of 65. Civs who do not start with Guilds have their starting Longbows replaced by Crossbows.

Bombard: +30% City Attack instead of +25%. Siege Elephant has +60% City Attack instead of +50%.

 

[Mr_Hobo]

In my opinion, the whole point of civilizations like Greece and Persia is to balance military and non-military production. The true strategy comes in positioning and upgrading your troops, not in the combat itself. It takes strategy to get "a bigger stick" than your opponents while still achieving other goals.

I think that the combat for Greece at least is balanced because you simply need to have enough troops to make up for bad luck. It's part of the strategy of the game.

 

[Mr_Hobo]

*Double post, sorry*

 

[iOnlySignIn]

In my opinion, the whole point of civilizations like Greece and Persia is to balance military and non-military production.

In my opinion it is important for your daily health to have a nutritional breakfast.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Barrage Siege in stack > Technologically superior stack (by 1 tech tier)

I don't know if I would exactly welcome these changes.
Mostly because I'm trying to move up in vanilla BtS difficulties at the same
time as playing this mod as well.

I feel that in the SVN version, there are already a good number of changes to try and adjust to as well without having to worry about combat.

Also, the proposed cav-counter unit changes would hurt Normal speed players excessively; cavalry is crucial to waging efficient wars on that setting.
I would only support this if Leoreth took the Giant Earth Map route and gave every unit +1 movement.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Barrage Siege in stack > Technologically superior stack (by 1 tech tier).

Obviously only when the technologically superior stack does not have Barrage Siege in them. Or Machine Guns. Or even Drill Longbows.

Also, the proposed cav-counter unit changes would hurt Normal speed players excessively; cavalry is crucial to waging efficient wars on that setting.

So you would rather that Spears and Pikes stay as they currently are, completely useless?

Anyway, I've pointed out in the OP of this thread that combat in Civ IV is rather tedious and pointless to begin with. Perhaps it's indeed unsalvageable and I'm merely wasting my time.

I would only support this if Leoreth took the Giant Earth Map route and gave every unit +1 movement.

Yeah that's one of my original ideas that came with this thread too. Just forgot to put it here. I believe unit speed should be increased across the board even on the current map to simulate historically realistic timelines, particularly on Normal, but also on Epic.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Movement speed of Medieval and later units should be increased to encourage more fluid and historically realistic combat.

Janissary: +1 Movement Speed;
Rifleman: +1 Movement Speed with Nationalism;

Camel Archer, Cuirassier, Cavalry: +1 Movement Speed;
Promotions: Mobility available with Flanking I; Morale available with Flanking II;

Infantry, Tank, all post-Industrialism units: +1 Movement Speed;

Naval Units: +2 Movement Speed with Refrigeration instead of +1;
Naval Units: Double movement speed on Coast Tiles with Corporation;

Air Units: +3 Operation Range; Bombers, Stealth Bombers get +5 Operation Range;

* The operation range of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero is 3,100 km, more than 3/4 the distance between Honolulu and Los Angeles.
* The operation range of the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress is 7,210 km, slightly more than the distance from Tokyo to Brisbane.

 

[Jusos2108]

Axeman has a counter -> Chariot +100% against Axemen. Also Horse Archer and catapults.

Also you can't categorize the units by era. System basicly works that once you unlock a good unit, you triumph with it for while, until the next unit obsoletes it. The eras have nothing to do with it.

I agree about the speed things, although I am afraid that it would ruin the balance.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Axeman has a counter -> Chariot +100% against Axemen.

That's the original intention of the creators of Civ IV, sure, but in practice it's useless. I don't even need Spears. All I need is to put some units that are not Axemen in my Axemen stack. A Sword. An Archer. Or even a sufficiently promoted Axe.

This is an instance of a much more general problem. "Counter units" in Civ IV tend to suck against everything that it does not counter (due to low base Strength), and the stack mechanics (defenders always respond with the strongest defender) makes such counters useless. This is why Spears/Pikes in particular needs higher base Strength.

Also you can't categorize the units by era. System basicly works that once you unlock a good unit, you triumph with it for while, until the next unit obsoletes it. The eras have nothing to do with it.

I wrote the second post in this thread especially to address this. What you said is perfectly true for a Domination game, or for a regular BTS game.

But in RFC, and DoC, it's less true because you're expected to be able to win UHVs within a certain era. The Greeks have to win their UHV with Hoplites, because teching to Knights & Maces in order to win UHV would take the H out of UHV. Not to mention absurdly difficult.

I agree about the speed things, although I am afraid that it would ruin the balance.

Good thing that there is no balance there to begin with, so nothing is ruined.

 

[soul-breathing]

Is landsknecht nerfed too much?

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Spears, Levies and Pikes are the contrary.
They are infinitely useful.
Because China cannot raise the Great Wall in time to hold off barbs anymore in current SVN, Spearmen are required.
As a Mediterranean civ, I find myself building them all the time to hold off Camel Archers.
As Russia, Spears and Levies are integral in holding off the initial Bulgar barbarian hordes and maintain usefulness in repelling the Mongols.

 

[strijder20]

I like some of your proposed chances, but I think adding Dale's combat mod would already be a large step in the right direction, and it wouldn't require so much testing/possible inbalances.

Also, strength 7 pikes with +75% against mounted? If someone fully fortifies them in a city (without any defence) then it's strength vs cavalry is 8.75 vs 8.6. They would be able to beat a unit which is two eras ahead of them.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Spears, Levies and Pikes are the contrary.
They are infinitely useful.
Because China cannot raise the Great Wall in time to hold off barbs anymore in current SVN, Spearmen are required.

Really? Unless the current SVN is changed greatly from the last time I played China, all of the early (till 200 BCE at least) Barbs faced by China are Axes (out of the Gobi), Swords (out of Tibet), and Warriors (till well after you got Bronze), which are countered by Axes instead of Spears. I typically delay GW intentionally because I find no urgent need for it. 3~4 Shock Axes can hold them off easily.

Even if there are Horse Archers, you can just Fortify a few Axes in the Forests and Hills in the Hetao (so that the Barbs attacking them get Amphibious penalty). Fort those tiles if necessary. Horse Archers will drop like flies.

As a Mediterranean civ, I find myself building them all the time to hold off Camel Archers.

Do you actually find Spears effective against Camel Archers in the Deserts of Egypt?

As Russia, Spears and Levies are integral in holding off the initial Bulgar barbarian hordes and maintain usefulness in repelling the Mongols.

Crossbowmen > Spears for this purpose. Crossbow can deal with Huscarls too, Spears/Pikes cannot.

Levy is good; that's why I leave it unchanged. It's good precisely because of its higher base Strength compared to Spearman.

Also, strength 7 pikes with +75% against mounted? If someone fully fortifies them in a city (without any defence) then it's strength vs cavalry is 8.75 vs 8.6. They would be able to beat a unit which is two eras ahead of them.

Actually it would be 14 vs. 15. Pike gets 75% base bonus, plus +25% from Fortification. Cavalry has a base of 15. If both units are Promoted, Cavalry will have an upper hand due to higher base Strength.

But I agree. 7, +75% is a bit too much. I've changed it to 7, +50%. The basic idea is:

(1) Pikes should counter not only Knights, but Cuirassiers. Otherwise Cuirassiers are invincible, as they currently are.

(2) Well Promoted Pikes should not drop like flies to Maces. They should at least have a fighting chance. Hence the higher base Strength.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Barbs start advancing into your territory as Warriors against China on turn 104.
They quickly become Horse Archers around turn 117. Again, Normal speed idiosyncrasy.
And Spears are effective as Rome, definitely. They're more economical than War Elephants for defense and free up hammers for economy buildings.
Not to mention you can whip out a Spear in dire straits while you can't with a War Elephant.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

And Spears are effective as Rome, definitely. They're more economical than War Elephants for defense and free up hammers for economy buildings.
Not to mention you can whip out a Spear in dire straits while you can't with a War Elephant.

I completely disagree.

(1) As Rome, Legions are your best bet. Non-promoted Legions are as good as Spears vs. Mounted. Promoted Legions > All vs. Everything. Legion is both cost-effective (esp. with SoZ, Colosseum), and free (from your UP).

(2) As non-Rome, War Elephants. They are better vs. Camel Archers, and everything else. And unlike Spears, they are actually useful for offense in addition to defense. I find them much more cost-effective than Spears. The only balancing factor is you need to get & guard your Ivory.

(3) If you need cheap cannon fodder (so as to tank enemies with sheer numbers to prevent your cities from falling), the go-to unit is the Archer. They are dirty cheap and get obscene City Defense bonuses and Promotions. They are also very useful for Dynasticism Happiness.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

The base cost for a War Elephant is 60 Hammers.
The base cost for a Spearman is 35 Hammers.
That is already a near 2:1 advantage ratio with Spearmen vs. War Elephant.
Also, if a War Elephant falls by bad luck and it's your only garrison unit, a player becomes SoL.
With Spearmen, there's at least one more to back you up in the instance of a failed attack/defense.
Given that the average hammer output of a Maghreb city is about 5 or so Hammers (at about pop 3-4),
and the barbs come in waves of 2-3 per 7-10 turns or so,
I'd rather have a Spearman that I can reliably churn out every 7 turns instead of a War Elephant every 12 or so.
This does not even include the instance where whipping a Spearman becomes neccesary either.
Spearmen also only require Hunting & Bronze.
War Elephants require HBR, Construction & Ivory.
That may be inconsequential to you, but sometimes, not all of those options are readily avialable (especially HBR) and it's wasteful to self-tech HBR.
Legions are a different story for Rome entirely, of which points I somewhat agree with you with but between Spearmen & War Elephants, I think there are enough advantages to Spearmen.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

^ Your military units should be produced by your top Production cities rather than whichever city that needs them. So the Production power of a Maghreb city is irrelevant, as your troops should be built by cities like Rome, Athens, Constantinople, Thebes, Babylon, and Shiraz. Ideally you shouldn't even waste Hammers on Barracks in a Production poor city, much less build any Units in them.

Like I said, if you want sheer numbers, build Archers. Archer costs 25, and is better than Spearman defensively since it gets the CG line of Promotions. Say you have a total of 280 Hammers. What would you rather have: 3 War Elephants + 4 Archers, or 8 Spearmen? Try to come up with a Classical Era combat scenario where the latter army is superior to the former. I cannot.

Persia starts with HBR. Rome has Legion so doesn't need anything else. If you are any other civ, you can get HBR from Persia - Persian leaders are very open to Trade. Failing that, you can always reliably get HBR from Ethiopia. As for Construction, you should always prioritize it anyway because of Amphitheatres and the Colosseum. As for Ivory, the only civ having slight trouble getting it is Greece, who doesn't need Elephants most of the time since Mounted Barbs in Arabia and Africa cannot reach Greece, and Mounted Barbs out of Europe are easily blocked off by Fortified Hoplites in Constantinople and along the Carpathian Mountains (they will not even attack you; they will steer towards Rome instead because of the Combat Odds).