Cost of siege units

[valergrad]

In general in Civ4 the more advanced and stronger unit -> the more hammers you need to build it.
Sounds quite logical. But there is one exception here - in siege units. And I don't understand - why?

Untitled

• valergrad
• Mar 27, 2020

Look - trebushet with strength 8 requires 150 hammers.
Than you get increase to bombard(11) to 280 hammers.
And cannon(16) to 380 hammers.

But then you go to artillery(22) to 240 hammers. So, artillery(22) is cheaper than cannon(16) or even bombard(11). This is strange. And the same is for upgrade: you get almost free upgrades from trebushet or bombard to artillery. But if you want to upgrade trebushet to artillery steps by steps: trebushet -> bombard -> cannon -> artillery you'll pay 100 times more.

What should be real price? Comparing with other units of the same strength.

Swordsman(9) - 75 . So, trebushet is 2.5 times more expensive that melee units of the same strength.
Heavy Swordsman(12) - 110. The same - 2.5 times more expensive.
Looks like siege units are approx. 2.5 times more expensive than real units - this sounds logical, they are stronger and more important.

But then:
Mushketman(20) - 200. And Artillery(22) for 240 hammers - looks like too cheap! The rule "siege units should be expensive" doesn't complain there.

So, my question: has it been done intentionally? ( bases on some "realistic" or "gameplay" considerations).
If not: than I believe we should increase cost of siege units starting from artillery. For example artillery should cost 500 etc.

 

[MAvL]

"In general in Civ4 the more advanced and stronger unit -> the more hammers you need to build it.
Sounds quite logical."

Well I can imagine ballista or a trebuchet not necessarilly being easier to craft than a canon, or a rifle not being harder than a Macuahuitl, and definitely needing less maintenance. So that might be the "realistic" consideration. If that's the case, I would have expected the discrepancy to be from non powder siege to canon, not from artiellery to canon though, but I don't know much about weapon history.

There might also be the idea that modern warfare are higher scale, but that should be done (and is most likely already done) by scaling up the eco, not scaling down the military costs.

There might also be the "gameplay" consideration to push the player toward a heavier use of artiellery. Civ3 did this by making artiellery significantly stronger than canon, not cheaper. And that makes sense realistically and intuitively, thinking about warfare from Napoleon through WW1.

But back then (in civ3) artiellery was bombard damage, kind of a perpendicular game mechanic. Not sure in AND how artiellery could be made much more appealing than preceeding siege units while still being balanced against other units. Cost might be a lesser evil than raw strength. Maybe by buffing one of the perpendicular ability of siege units, like bombard, bombard city defense or collateral damage?


And maybe it's just an oversight. I haven't play tested up to that point, so all I'm saying are wild uninformed guesses. But yeah, at the very least upgrade costs feel wrong.

 

[valergrad]

Up this a little bit)

 

[Hrvoje193]

Unbalanced cost is probably leftover from before.
Realistic consideration for games is to proportionally increase cost for better units.Period.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

This is @Vokarya 's field, I don't know if it's something that he overlooked, if it's intentional or if it's something already planned in his next release.

 

[Vokarya]

I haven't looked at it yet. I will. (I'm still stuck on this name for the Art Gallery/Museum upgrade. I really want this because I think it's one of the last buildings I think the game needs.)

 

[<Nexus>]

(I'm still stuck on this name for the Art Gallery/Museum upgrade. I really want this because I think it's one of the last buildings I think the game needs.)

Another idea: Preservarium

 

[Vokarya]

I am still looking at this. I think the issue is that the cost of the earlier units was inflated to account for the Siege Weapons Workshop/Cannon Forge and that when I created the Arsenal I did not inflate the later units. The question for me is whether the cross-purposes is worth keeping in the mod.

 

[valergrad]

I think the issue is that the cost of the earlier units was inflated to account for the Siege Weapons Workshop/Cannon Forge and that when I created the Arsenal I did not inflate the later units.

Yes, that was exactly my guess))
Anyway, in my current game I've updated cost of this units ( approximately multiplied by 2 ). And later I will know how it will affect the gameplay. I expect that it will be a little harder for strong civs to crush weaker civs with this update. Usually at this level in the end from 18 civs only 4-6 left, I'll say how much it will be in this game.