Defensive Buildings

[Gidoza]

The thread for July 15th had a discussion regarding defensive buildings that was ongoing and Gazebo suggested that it belonged in the building thread. Seeing as that thread is locked and this is something on people's minds, it seems reasonable to have a thread devoted to it for now. I'll quote some relevant statements below.

 

[Gidoza]

Overall I'm liking the distress system, but I fall on the other side of everyone else w.r.t. defense buildings. Everyone seems to be enjoying how they don't need castles/arsenals in any of their safely-held cities, but I miss city defense having a peacetime component. All they do is increase supply cap now, if that city isn't on a border, so they feel too superfluous.

Maybe city defense could be factored into distress. Maybe city defense could affect spy stealing rate. Maybe Crime could be brought back, but as a negative modifier on gold in a city instead of happiness. Maybe it could negatively affect tourism... I know people are liking having situational buildings make a comeback, but each building having a measurable impact on a city was one of the main reasons I jumped ship from vanilla. Having buildings I know are just a waste of hammers frustrates me...

Every time I bring this up I get countered with "it increases supply cap". Just... Don't. I'm not going to choose to build something that gives +1 max supply for every 10 over literally anything else. I'd rather just work processes, and increase supply with population that way.

Can we also please stop acting like asking production starved tradition cities to spend 110 hammers to get -1 gold per turn is a serious option to increase their supply?

I'm just been leaving walls unbuilt until a CS gives me a quest for them, its a good candidate because its a cheap building with no prerequisite. You can time the completion of the quest to occur whenever you have something important to finish in the capital. Its the only reason to build them much of the time.

If you play a particularly peaceful game with anemic neighbours, set up a vassal as a buffer, or just are on an aggressive footing, there are ways you could go an entire game without taking a single hit on a city. The main value of a defensive building is to protect you from a melee unit hitting you. What if that never happens? You’ll always have trade routes, you’ll always have merchant specialists, you’ll always have a city with at least 1 plantation. Caravansaries and herbalists are situational, but they are ALWAYS useful. Walls are situationally anti-useful. You could conceivably play an entire game and win where a Defense building would have been nothing but a hammer and maintenance drain.

I can’t imagine why I wouldn’t just work the defensive process if I were ever put into a serious siege. All you need is a wall to prevent your cities from getting 1-shotted in later eras. Anything else can be managed with processes

For me, defensive buildings are useful specially against navy and territories where I don't have units nearby.
And no, not every building is always useful. If you feel like defensive buildings are useless then you are welcome to build sth else instead. You are not forced to build them, so what's the problem? Defensive buildings help AI for sure.

This is going to be, like, my fifth time explaining this.
No, I am not forced to build them, but defense buildings are now in a special clade of situational buildings that it's no longer a matter of opportunity cost. If you don't need defense in a city, then these buildings only drain gold; they can HURT you. These buildings are so fringe now, that if you aren't consistently bumping up against supply limits, or an invasion is a credible threat to that one specific city, then selling all defensive buildings in a city is now optimal play.

That seems like poor design. Walls/castles/arsenal/M. base need more to justify their existence than the whether or not an AI might ever hit that city.

In what universe am I going to need 20 more than 1000 and -6 per turn that an arsenal costs? Or the 2500 and -10 per turn that a military base costs? How is that ever a good choice?

If these buildings have no value in excess of the gold it costs to maintain them, then we either need to give them more value, or we need to trim the fat.

If Cities were less powerful, Walls/Castles/Arsenals would be more important. Maybe it's a sign City Combat Strength is too high? Right now I don't build them because frankly speaking cities do so much damage and take so much of a beating even without them it doesn't often seem worth it.

Ok, I'm not against buffs for defensive buildings. I'm just contradicting that they are useless and I'm against the idea that all cities should have all buildings; It's nice to have this flavor that border cities are more defensive.
I don't build military bases, because usually at this point I'm stronger than my opponents, but I might build arsenals when playing tall tradition, because of limited army. Walls are just cheap, so they don't hurt that much and castles are good with fealty or Neutswashen.
Reduced maintenance cost for defensive buildings might be good direction.
@Gazebo Is it feasible if defensive buildings reduced faith influence from other cities?

I like that! It adds unique value and nice territory defence flavor.

 

[CrazyG]

When will I build walls?

1. Early when a city is vulnerable
2. Later when a city isn't that vulnerable but I don't want a stray corvette to knock it down
3. I want some supply
   
4. To unlock castles
5. I have a city state quest

Walls do their job. Sometimes you will have a moment where you don't want a wall itself but have to build it. It won't hurt you too bad because they only cost 110 hammers. I am willing to pay 110 hammers for a supply point by about Renaissance, when walls are taking 2 turns to build.

When will I build castles?

1. When I want some serious defense in medieval
2. When I want to buff quarries
3. When I really need a great work slot
4. When I want supply
5. When I took Fealty and want the yields
6. Because Neuschwanstein
7. I have a CS quest
   
8. A combination of the above

Lots of little reasons that come together to make a building that works. Its a little bit pricey for the supply, but if I also had like 2 quarries it could help. I'm probably only rushing castles if I really want #1. The reasons are small but because more than one of them can apply, I won't be upset when I build a castle.

When will I build arsenals?

Never. I'm not building it for the supply. Its too many hammers. I'm alright building walls or castles for the supply if I really need some more supply in a later era. So maybe this building would happen in information era? IDK though, they cost so many hammers they never become a cheap thing and the maintenance is huge.
The only reason I have ever built an arsenal in the past is because my crime was crippling me. If a CS asks for it he is out of luck.

When will I build military bases?

When I remember they exist . Seriously though we should solve arsenals before we tackle this.

So Walls and Castles do their job. I like them being optional buildings, rather than required. Arsenals don't.

 

[Legen]

In what universe am I going to need 20 more than 1000 and -6 per turn that an arsenal costs? Or the 2500 and -10 per turn that a military base costs? How is that ever a good choice?

If these buildings have no value in excess of the gold it costs to maintain them, then we either need to give them more value, or we need to trim the fat.

To be honest, Arsenals and Military Bases were already questionable before the crime/distress change. I once complained that, even with Japan's UA providing , I didn't want to build them in my cities; I pretty much needed Defender of the Faith (on top of Japan's UA) to justify the cost. People mentioned crime and supply as reasons to build anyways, but the former is gone now.

I don't think a few yields on defensive buildings are enough, you need to stack quite a good amount of yields to justify them over more dedicated economic buildings of the era.

Military Bases currently have a -50% distress need modifier, as well as a production bonus to air units, healing to garrisoned units, +10 damage vs air units and prevention of science theft by foreign spies. The peacetime bonuses aren't bad, but maintenance costs stack really quickly in the era it comes in. It can be painful to maintain even a few military bases, especially when playing tall. You don't want to build them unless strictly needed.

 

[ElliotS]

It can be painful to maintain even a few military base

Yeah better watch out or you'll get over 20 trillion in debt before you can say MAGA.

As for the discussion: I think a buff of 5% more supply from pop on walls and castle would be good, and tie in well with the complaints about low supply from tradition. (Who benefits the most twice, as the tree most likely to fight defensively and the one with high pop.) They're buildable right now, but I think a little too niche.

Not sure what to do about the other two, but I agree steps need to be taken. Reduced building maintenance would be okay on the Arsenal. (and probably 10% more supply from pop than what it gives now.) Military Bases need even more, looking forward to hearing what G proposes.

 

[CppMaster]

IMHO walls and castles are in good spot. Arsenals and military bases might need some buffs.
I really like this idea:

I hear you - I don't necessarily want walls/etc. to be as essential as they were before, but I also don't want them to languish. One thing I've considered adding is gold/culture plot cost modifiers to them, to represent the 'projection' element that defensive structures can provide for a city. This conversation belongs in the buildings thread, however.

Other ideas to consider:
-Increase limit of planes stationed in the city
-Add interception to the city
(Those 2 above would be like mini airports without tourism and land unit rebasing. Would be helpful in front cities or outposts, so they keep military flavor)
-Boost military units production
-Boost armored or gun unit production
(It would be like similar to stables or harbor)
-Just for military base: reduce enemy's land unit's movement. (It'd be like minefield, but for land units)

 

[Psikus]

I would like these buildings to have more of an impact on actual city combat. Something like locking the city attack range increases behind these buildings could make them much more interesting, e.g. granting range 2 with walls, range 3 with castle. Would that mess too much with combat balance or the AI?

Other combat-related options:
- reduce impact of barbarian looting, bonus attack vs barbs
- Make garrisoned units free
- City takes reduced damage from ranged attacks
- City attack gains splash damage
- Increase rate of city healing (in a way that synergizes with the defense process)

 

[ElliotS]

I would like these buildings to have more of an impact on actual city combat. Something like locking the city attack range increases behind these buildings could make them much more interesting, e.g. granting range 2 with walls, range 3 with castle. Would that mess too much with combat balance or the AI?

Other combat-related options:
- reduce impact of barbarian looting, bonus attack vs barbs
- Make garrisoned units free
- City takes reduced damage from ranged attacks
- City attack gains splash damage
- Increase rate of city healing (in a way that synergizes with the defense process)

Combat is the only thing no one is complaining about.

 

[Gidoza]

Combat is the only thing no one is complaining about.

I agree with that. Nevertheless, combat range behind the buildings would be kinda cool.

 

[Bromar1]

Yeah better watch out or you'll get over 20 trillion in debt before you can say MAGA.

As for the discussion: I think a buff of 5% more supply from pop on walls and castle would be good, and tie in well with the complaints about low supply from tradition. (Who benefits the most twice, as the tree most likely to fight defensively and the one with high pop.) They're buildable right now, but I think a little too niche.

Not sure what to do about the other two, but I agree steps need to be taken. Reduced building maintenance would be okay on the Arsenal. (and probably 10% more supply from pop than what it gives now.) Military Bases need even more, looking forward to hearing what G proposes.

I disagree. I think overall unit caps are finally balanced, inflating the numbers would make the late game drag even harder.

The original complaint was that the hammer cost is not justified for peace time play, nothing related to combat

 

[chicorbeef]

I disagree. I think overall unit caps are finally balanced, inflating the numbers would make the late game drag even harder.

The original complaint was that the hammer cost is not justified for peace time play, nothing related to combat

What if we cut supply from Stables/Hospitals and gave them to Arsenals/Military Bases?

 

[CrazyG]

What if we cut supply from Stables/Hospitals and gave them to Arsenals/Military Bases?

Arsenals would still be really bad

 

[chicorbeef]

Arsenals would still be really bad

With +20% supply from pop? We could also cut out the Military Base and give Arsenal +30%. With the Hospital/Stable +10% each gone it should be fine.

 

[CrazyG]

With +20% supply from pop? We could also cut out the Military Base and give Arsenal +30%. With the Hospital/Stable +10% each gone it should be fine.

Paying 1000 to lose 6 a turn for the rest of the game is just fundamentally bad. I suppose at 30% supply its something I will consider if I'm desperate for supply, but its still going to feel really bad.

 

[Gazebo]

Current changes for defensive buildings:

- tech-unlocked range/indirect fire buffs for city range strike now gone - these attributes are now tied to buildings.

Walls increase city range strike range by 1
Castles increase city range strike power by 25%
Arsenals increase city range strike range by 1 and grant indirect fire
Military bases increase city range strike power by 100%

In addition, the supply on the arsenal and military base were buffed slightly. The arsenal gets the military base's science theft prevention ability and gains +10 healing. The military base keeps all other bonuses.

In this way, the buildings remain defensive in posture, but increase your city's reach and defense/damage potential. I don't want the line to be essential like it used to be, but I do want it to have more active potential. In this way, the Arsenal becomes much more important, and the military base remains niche, which is fine.

G

 

[chicorbeef]

Current changes for defensive buildings:

- tech-unlocked range/indirect fire buffs for city range strike now gone - these attributes are now tied to buildings.

Walls increase city range strike range by 1
Castles increase city range strike power by 25%
Arsenals increase city range strike range by 1 and grant indirect fire
Military bases increase city range strike power by 100%

In addition, the supply on the arsenal and military base were buffed slightly. The arsenal gets the military base's science theft prevention ability and gains +10 healing. The military base keeps all other bonuses.

In this way, the buildings remain defensive in posture, but increase your city's reach and defense/damage potential. I don't want the line to be essential like it used to be, but I do want it to have more active potential. In this way, the Arsenal becomes much more important, and the military base remains niche, which is fine.

G

Love this.

 

[Stalker0]

Current changes for defensive buildings:

- tech-unlocked range/indirect fire buffs for city range strike now gone - these attributes are now tied to buildings.

Walls increase city range strike range by 1
Castles increase city range strike power by 25%
Arsenals increase city range strike range by 1 and grant indirect fire
Military bases increase city range strike power by 100%

In addition, the supply on the arsenal and military base were buffed slightly. The arsenal gets the military base's science theft prevention ability and gains +10 healing. The military base keeps all other bonuses.

In this way, the buildings remain defensive in posture, but increase your city's reach and defense/damage potential. I don't want the line to be essential like it used to be, but I do want it to have more active potential. In this way, the Arsenal becomes much more important, and the military base remains niche, which is fine.

G

My quick reaction. If your goal is to simply increase the power of defensive buildings, these changes look good. It probably also addresses some of our late game concerns that cities start to hit like wet noodles. Theoretically this is also a buff to TALL, who relies on strong defense more than other styles.

In terms of increasing the desire to build these buildings in more cities I don't think this will change anything. Like before, you want to build these on your fringes....now its just both for offense as well as defense.

 

[pineappledan]

In terms of increasing the desire to build these buildings in more cities I don't think this will change anything. Like before, you want to build these on your fringes....now its just both for offense as well as defense.

Oh I disagree, I think people will find themselves wanting these buildings quite badly now.

This fixes a few issues, the aforementioned lack of power from city attacks, it cleans up the tech tree a bit, and it makes these buildings more "active". I would wager only the most insulated cities would forego these buildings now, since the 1-tile range on any city can be very frustrating.

Big fan of the change, G. Can't wait for next patch

 

[tu_79]

I'm not convinced. The idea is fine, but city ranged attacks are so weak that I wonder whether extra range means anything in practice.

 

[Legen]

I'm not convinced. The idea is fine, but city ranged attacks are so weak that I wonder whether extra range means anything in practice.

Maybe these castles need an extra 100% power then.

The extra 25% doesn't look strong on paper, we don't value Tradition's +50% much in the first place. Let's see how it performs.