Getting Started

[Joneill]

I think the Unit_Techtypes Parameter could be used to achieve a similar effect without changing the techtree, by adding Tech-Requirements directly to the units (Rifling for Infantry etc.).

 

[Ahriman]

If you were willing to go that way, there are a number of units that could use multiple tech requirements; chariot archers and archery, battleships and dynamite, mech inf and combustion, ship of the line (if we added it) and chemistry, GDR and Robotics, maybe a few others.

 

[Sneaks]

I am not against that idea whatsoever. The Seven Ancient Wonders mod (which is pretty awesome) already does this.

 

[Txurce]

I would definitely not have chariots require archery. That would make the choice between them and horsemen a no-brainer.

Jorge

 

[Thalassicus]

@Ahriman
The image is missing the third Dynamite link? Adding an upward link creates a four-way crosslink scenario, if that makes sense. The link would overlap either replaceable parts or dynamite. Rifling would have to link to steam power, dynamite to replaceable parts, or buff artillery back to release-version state with only two links.

What do yall see as the main balance concern with current military unit paths, if it could be put it in a sentence?

 

[Txurce]

What do yall see as the main balance concern with current military unit paths, if it could be put it in a sentence?

I would say that what we're talking about now - tech prerequisites - isn't so much about balance as about "feel." For example, rifling feels like it should be on the infantry path.

I also don't feel it's a problem that there is an upper tree beeline that skips rifling and artillery en route to a diplo victory, because the gap between rifling and infantry (not to mention cannon and rocket artillery) is long enough. However, my own preference is to slow down late-stage upper-tree progress, and this would help.

I think we've agreed to discuss air power imbalances separately. Are there any unit imbalance concerns that jump out at me? Destroyers, but like air power they're not really part of the main game.

With regard to land units, we've worked on the classical era, and are in the process of balancing horse units vs pikes and muskets. Part of the problem there is that lancers and cavalry lose effectiveness with the coming of rifles (as they should). In the industrial era, the big issue is the value of tanks, and that's also been addressed. I haven't had any issues in the Modern era with land units.

In general, I'd say that there are no major remaining balance issues regarding land units, except with the lancer (which singularly overlaps another similar unit, cavalry).

 

[Ahriman]

The image is missing the third Dynamite link?

The image is adjusted from vanilla; I can't run at the moment (for a few more days) because my graphics card is busted.

Adding an upward link creates a four-way crosslink scenario

Right, but thats not that big a deal IMO.
It would be easy enough to have the vertical line bow out slightly rightwards when it crosses the horizontal line, to make it clearer that its crossing "over" the horizontal line.

Rifling would have to link to steam power

If you just added a link from rifling to steam power, that would also solve the problem, since steam power is required for replaceable parts.

What do yall see as the main balance concern with current military unit paths, if it could be put it in a sentence?

I think its that there is too much ability to ignore large parts of the tech tree in a way that is seriously disruptive to a sense of immersion.
It just feels massively wrong that I could have ww2 infantry or mechanized infantry without having ever developed Rifling. It feels massively wrong that I can have rockets without ever having combustion. Its bizarre that I can have battleships and rocket artillery without having ever developed 19th century artillery.

The problem is compounded by the fact that tech cost increases for each tier are relatively minor, so for example an extra modern era tech costs less than 2 industrial era techs. So I can advance further in late 20th century technologies without having a 19th century foundation. Its one thing to be able to ignore older techs if doing so doesn't really save you more than a couple of turns, its another thing when ignoring key older techs saves you half a modern tech.

However, my own preference is to slow down late-stage upper-tree progress, and this would help.

Yes, probably. If the gain from skipping those early techs is relatively smaller, then there is less incentive to do so.

In terms of unit balance, I think the main balance issues are still that some strategic resource units are not powerful enough, that naval balance is off, and that air units are weak.

 

[Thalassicus]

Thanks for the feedback! This will help me determine priorities for the next testing cycle. If anyone else has thoughts about current unit balance please share them.

It would be easy enough to have the vertical line bow out slightly rightwards when it crosses the horizontal line, to make it clearer that its crossing "over" the horizontal line.

This completely makes sense and I agree it'd be great to have, but would be very difficult to implement.

How things work is we tell the (X,Y) grid location for a tech and what its prerequisites are. The links are then automatically drawn by analyzing those positions and combining various image files. To get these links to deal with overlap we'd need new images, and some rather complex code to determine if one link is crossing another, or if a line is attempting to overlap a tech, and which direction lines should go in.

It's feasible though I'd estimate it'd be about three-four days of work. I think it might be useful so I'll put it on my todo list as a future possibility if I have the time.

This is actually why Theocracy still only shows a partial/buggy link to Mandate of Heaven. There's a bug in the vanilla game code for displaying policy links that I haven't wanted to hassle with yet.

 

[Ahriman]

but would be very difficult to implement.
How things work is we tell the (X,Y) grid location for a tech and what its prerequisites are. The links are then automatically drawn by analyzing those positions and combining various image files.

Ahh. Frustrating. So they basically hardcoded this stuff to make it easy for people to make simple tech trees, but hard for people to make more complex ones.
Makes me wish we could go back to Civ4 style, where you only needed a single visible link and could just have secondary pre-reqs without an arrow.

Thanks for explaining.

It's feasible though I'd estimate it'd be about three-four days of work

Ok, low priority then.

The other alternative that would have a similar effect would be to make it so particular advanced units required a particular predecessor tech (eg infantry and mech-inf require rifling tech) even if they advanced tech didn't require the predecessor tech.

 

[aatami]

History in the Making II. Thal's balance mods. Echoes of Ages.
Does someone know if it is possible to use those three at the same time, or is there interferance with each other?

 

[Sneaks]

They certainly would interfere. Quite a bit at that. HitM should be considered a CORE mod like PWM, Thal's Combined, or Proc's CtP

 

[aatami]

So I can either only use HitM or Thal's Combined? Is there any chance this could change in the future?

 

[Ahriman]

So I can either only use HitM or Thal's Combined?

Yes.

Is there any chance this could change in the future?

No, they both change the same sets of files, and make different design decisions about the same variables.

One mod says the cost of a particular tech is X, the other says its Y.
One mod says that a particular social policy does A, the other mod says it does B.

There is no way to reconcile these.

Someone could create an entirely new mod that picked and mixed various changes, but there is no way to simply merge two balance mods. Mods can only merge if they aren't trying to change the same stuff.

 

[Thalassicus]

I'd recommend trying out each of the two mod packs for a while, see which you like more and play with that one.

I've put secondary tech requirements for units on my todo list for the next testing cycle.

 

[ChrisTheMean]

It seems that when I brought up the nuke defense issue, a few other issues were stirred up. First some thoughts on the original subject.

As someone pointed out, nukes are proportionately much more devastating to a small, well developed civ. As another person pointed out, the later techs delve in to the realm of 'future' and therefore should be open to the possibility of ICBM counter for an advanced civ. Perhaps not even a physical counter if people find interception too unrealistic. A comparison could be made to a recent event in which suspected hackers badly damaged computers related to Iran's uranium enrichment program, delaying its progress. One proposal could be a project tied to the computers tech which temporarily delays or blocks the researching of nuclear fission, or the buildings and units associated with it. It would have to be quite expensive (maybe 2x the hammers as a nuke?). That's just an idea. I do feel that there needs to be some way to either delay, prevent or lessen the impact of them for a civ willing to devote hammers and beakers to defense.

I would also like to address the comments regarding 'to rifle or not'. To me, this is a very important divergent path in the tree and I like it that way. On one hand you can go to rifling and dynamite, which allow two huge military advantages immediately. Alternatively, you can hunker down with muskets and cannons with oligarchy for home field advantage and push in to economics and scientific theory. Either side is a gamble. You take artillery and you are deciding to crush them now at the expense of delayed economic and scientific growth. You take the upper route and you will not be effective offensively, and may struggle defensively against a powerful neighbor. Each has its merits depending on the immediate need and long-term goals of the civ. I also don't think its unrealistic that if my scientists didn't focus on discovering rifles and artillery in the 16th century that they couldn't invent modern rifles and rockets without that prior knowledge.

Just my 2 cents.

edit: another thought on the nuke defense topic would be to allow that project I described to pillage one players uranium once without being at war. This could still create a negative diplo modifier (like that of a culture bomb).

 

[SSgtDuke]

If anyone else has thoughts about current unit balance please share them.

I personally think air power is currently balanced. I think if they were any more powerful they would quickly become unfun wrecking machines. It's true that each one doesn't deal large amounts of damage on its own. But at the same time they have quite long range, virtually can't be lost unless you are fairly reckless, and heal very quickly (when stationed in cities).

Though I do think that destroyers and battleships need to be differentiated more in order to make battleships worth building. We've already had a decent amount of conversation on this and I think it should be revisited and further developed for the next major version.

 

[Txurce]

I personally think air power is currently balanced. I think if they were any more powerful they would quickly become unfun wrecking machines. It's true that each one doesn't deal large amounts of damage on its own. But at the same time they have quite long range, virtually can't be lost unless you are fairly reckless, and heal very quickly (when stationed in cities).

Though I do think that destroyers and battleships need to be differentiated more in order to make battleships worth building. We've already had a decent amount of conversation on this and I think it should be revisited and further developed for the next major version.

No doubt about destroyers and battleships.

I would add that, despite the AI's predilection for AAG, I recently saw Persia decisively end a stalemate with evenly-matched Japan by developing fighter planes and sending about six per turn to soften a city. They marched right through Japan. It was a great example of a tech breakthrough paying huge instant dividends.

 

[Seek]

New patch notes - seriously Thal, you deserve a check!

 

[Txurce]

New patch notes - seriously Thal, you deserve a check!

And after cashing the check, you may want to take a break and see how the specifics affect TBC. The patch is due in February.

 

[Sneaks]

Holy Liberty buff, Batman.