Going for Gold: Units
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Txurce
Deity
There.
Working list of light CS/RCS tweaks:
G
Code:
RCS
Slinger 6-> 7
Archer 6 -> 7
Chariot Archer 8 -> 7
Composite Bowman 11 -> 13
Atlatl 11 -> 13
Bab Bowman 13 -> 15
Chukonu 19 -> 20
Crossbow 20 -> 21
M. Bowman 22 -> 21
Longbow 22 -> 23
Minuteman 30 -> 33
Musketman 30 -> 32
Janissary 33 -> 33
Gatling 45 -> 48
Machine Gun 60 -> 63
Light Tank 65 -> 62
Bazooka 65 -> 68
CS
Warrior 6 -> 7
B. Warrior 6 -> 7
Jag 8 -> 9
Slinger 4-> 5
Archer 5 -> 6
War Chariot 8 -> 9
Catapult 4 -> 6
Ballista 4 -> 6
Composite Bowman 8 -> 11
Atlatl 8 -> 11
M. Archer 10 -> 11
Hunnic Archer 12 -> 13
Bab Bowman 10 -> 12
Trebuchet 8 -> 11
Hwacha 8 -> 11
Chukonu 13 -> 15
Crossbow 13 -> 15
M. Bowman 18 -> 15
Longbow 14 -> 16
Camel Archer 18 -> 17
Cannon 14 -> 15
Hussar 28 -> 27
Cuirassier 25 -> 23
Minuteman 20 -> 23
Musketman 17 -> 20
Janissary 20 -> 23
Gatling 25 -> 30
Berber 32 -> 33
Field Gun 20 -> 25
Machine Gun 35 -> 40
Artillery 25 -> 30
Bazooka 40 -> 45
Rocket Artillery 48 -> 56
Helicopter 55 -> 56G
I think this is going overboard. I honestly think the only ranged units of issue are the archer and comp bow. From the crossbow on, the ranged units are fine....I use them plenty. And even just a +1 RCS on teh comp bow accompanied by a little CS boost is pretty nice, again small small changes needed to me. And btw a small CS boost, the comp bowman does not need the same CS as a spearmen to me.
Same with the CS. I also really don't think the siege unit line needs more CS. There entire point is to be a glass cannon, so there dieing to one hit is fine to me.
These are small changes.
My testing comes from the AI - giving siege units enough CS to withstand one attack from a basic melee unit from the era would be a big war boon for the AI.
The other changes are simply scaled increases.
G
chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
Probably just wanted to emphasize that Janissaries don't get a RCS buff although Musketman did.
Yes, just wanted to note I hadn't left it out.
Ultimately, the utility of the ranged mounted units is so great in a human player's hands that my original design (higher RCS/CS than a standard ranged unit) hurts the AI a bit. Bringing rank-and-file RCS/CS for ranged units up to or above mounted range makes them feel a bit more at home across the board. Happy to be corrected on this, but I think that standard ranged units should be better at ranged damage than their mounted or city-attack counterparts.
G
Scaled increases that don't seem to be needed. Again, I'm not hearing any complaints about ranged units past comp bowman, at least not so far. We don't have to change every unit based on some arbitrary formula. Its ok that the upgrade to xbow is not the biggest jump, the xbow is still a good unit for its time.
ElliotS
Warmonger
I agree that we're not complaining, but if G's testing shows better AI performance with the slight changes I think it's worth trying.
It's not necessarily about complaints, it's about you all turning the eye of sauron (me) onto imbalances in ranged units and me doing some AI testing to see if this is systemic or surgical.
G
Mad Madigan
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2016
- Messages
- 403
These adjustments make sense to me. After the melee units were adjusted a few patches ago to balance against horse-based melee it makes sense to do another pass for ranged units. Currently (5-20 and prior) non-mounted ranged units feel like they do so little damage and are killed so easily (until they get a lot of promotions) that they best way to use them was to give them Accuracy and Medic and just have them sit back and support. I pretty much always give Accuracy/Medic/Range to the Archer line of units and Barrage/Logistics to the mounted ranged units because that's where the actual damage output was. By the time you get to Gatling Guns and later the ranged damage output it so low that the Covering Fire promotion and Medic 1/2 were really the only reason to have ranged units at all, and from what I understand the AI doesn't even know how to use Covering Fire. A fortified unit of xbows/muskets/gatling guns/etc shouldn't be a pushover for melee infantry to assault through, and I think these stat adjustments will help to make static ranged units feel a little more useful as offensive/defensive units rather than just support, and tone down mounted ranged units from being the end-all-be-all of ranged damage output in human hands.
The thing to remember is that ranged damage is free damage. I want it to remain low, because big damage is what melee is for, and you pay for that by taking damage yourself.
So a little more ranged damage is good, but it only takes a little. We all remember the days when ranged ruled everything, and it doesn’t take much to get back there.
The concern about ranged being support is unfounded to me....ranged units are supposed to be support. They heal your melee and soften up the enemy. That’s their job. They should not be holding a fortified spot...that what infantry is for.
So a little more ranged damage is good, but it only takes a little. We all remember the days when ranged ruled everything, and it doesn’t take much to get back there.
The concern about ranged being support is unfounded to me....ranged units are supposed to be support. They heal your melee and soften up the enemy. That’s their job. They should not be holding a fortified spot...that what infantry is for.
Moi Magnus
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,868
Well, except it cost you the production of a unit, and still count as a unit for supply (which is really relevant if you have to fight both on land and sea).
Ranged units should not be the first line of your army, but having them be medics as primary role is very unintuitive.
(More precisely, if it is a no-brainer to give medic to ranged units, then there is a balance problem of ranged promotions)
pineappledan
Deity
What is an 'M. Bowman'? Is that a barb unit?
chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
They refer to Skirmishers-Mounted Bowman.
ridjack
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,000
But (at least from a 'historical' perspective), isn't that precisely how it should be? Cavalry were an absolute game-changer when they came onto the scene; if you had them and your opponents didn't, you won the war.
I remember when I first came into VP from vanilla, that was one of my absolute favorite things. Strategics (the early ones in particular) never seemed to matter too much in vanilla unless you had a UC dependent upon them. That's nonsensical from both a historical and a gameplay perspective; they should be stronger relative to everything that doesn't require them.
I'm a bit concerned about these changes because it's taking the ranged units to values comparable to range-dominated vanilla. Ultimately the losers would be a) regular melee and b) mounted ranged, which would then be an even less desirable use of horses relative to mounted melee.
So we'd have:
VP comp bow: 11
/ 13 
Vanilla comp bow: 7
/ 11 VP swordsman: 15
Vanilla swordsman: 14
I must be missing something, cause even the current values aren't that different from vanilla yet ranged damage is a lot lower.... did VP change the ranged damage formula? The suggested buff still seems a tad too much.
ridjack
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,000
There are a lot more ways to mitigate ranged damage in VP than vanilla, and the AI will actually make use of them.
Both vanilla and VP have Cover I & II and they work the same... what other ways are there?
I'm just wondering because writing my previous comment I realized I could not at all explain why VP ranged units are weaker than vanilla's.
