Going for Gold: Units

Is this item in a reasonable state of balance?

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
hr_oskar said:
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.
Click to expand...
So honestly, I said that and then went hunting through the Promotions section in the Civilopedia to back it up. I can't find whatever I was thinking of, so... I guess I'm full of it?
 
I'm not using archer mainly as medic troops. It's efficient to destroy cities in ancient times, it's efficient at attacking spearmen. I think "relatively weak" range units are fine, as Stalker0 said.
 
hr_oskar said:
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 :c5strength: / 13 :c5rangedstrength:
Vanilla comp bow: 7 :c5strength: / 11 :c5rangedstrength:
VP swordsman: 15 :c5strength:
Vanilla swordsman: 14 :c5strength:

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.
Click to expand...

A few reasons why this argument falls flat. First, the new values aren’t vanilla values, so saying that approaching = is isn’t a valid point. Vanilla balance wasn’t that far off, and a few points makes a difference. Second, unit costs and unit lines have changed quite a bit, so there are more reliable counters to ranged damage. Third, ranged XP was dropped so they’re not as easy to farm up as before. Fourth, rules for targeting naval units make them land power only. Fifth, melee promotion lines are buffed relative to vanilla so they’re more worthwhile and more capable. Sixth, mounted units and supply caps make a mono army of archers a really bad idea now.

G
 
I'm sure this was brought up before, while I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, but
What do you think about unit upgrade costs? Right now I believe they are a bit too high for Naval and Mounted (and ranged, to some extent) units and the bump from Medieval era to Renaissance is a bit too rough to handle and shapes the game for domination civs and expansionists.
 
Cozzolino said:
I'm sure this was brought up before, while I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, but
What do you think about unit upgrade costs? Right now I believe they are a bit too high for Naval and Mounted (and ranged, to some extent) units and the bump from Medieval era to Renaissance is a bit too rough to handle and shapes the game for domination civs and expansionists.
Click to expand...

They're supposed to be too expensive. You're only meant to upgrade valuable units that have promotions. The rest you replace.
 
ridjack said:
They're supposed to be too expensive. You're only meant to upgrade valuable units that have promotions. The rest you replace.
Click to expand...
I can see the point in this but it awfully sound like something you have to work around rather than something you can play with. Ultimately this is a show stopper for early domination snowball and this is fine, gotta balance those yields and make room for mid game bloomers, yet it isn't really working when upgrades are due every 50-60 turns like around Modern era.

ElliotS said:
Well, expensive without cost reducing policies and buildings. Makes those valuable.
Click to expand...

Not many of those to play with, they also come around kinda late for the party.
 
Cozzolino said:
I can see the point in this but it awfully sound like something you have to work around rather than something you can play with.
Click to expand...
What I like with current balance is that you actually have to use production to build units, even when you are winning.

Since you will most likely have to disband some units, it decrease the economic advantage of winning a 0-loss war. (so it is an anti-runaway feature)

In fact, it makes losing units less costly. (It is only costly at short term, because the war will be more difficult, but you are no longer crippled for having lost half your units two eras before)

Though I agree on one point. It is artificial, and it should be written explicitly that "upgrading is costy" because it is unintuitive for new players.
 
Moi Magnus said:
Though I agree on one point. It is artificial, and it should be written explicitly that "upgrading is costy" because it is unintuitive for new players.
Click to expand...

I'm glad this is recognized. Ultimately I'm advocating for smoother upgrade costs, as right now upgrading Frigate into Cruiser costs around 2,5x:c5gold: than upgrading Galleas into Frigate and it just feels wrong and gets only worse from there. I firmly believe a more intuitive and predictable ratio has to be figured out. I agree this is helping balance the game and feels good when you invest in military buildings and get those production/exp bonuses that make you go lol in vanilla and thank you very much in VP but maybe a small tweak should be considered.
 
What are your thoughts about the Caravels? Even though they can be improved by the Great Lighthouse and the Grand Canal (as most of other naval units, though), I almost never build them. I think the Explorer is its worst nightmare: both can explore the ocean at the same time, but only the Explorer earns experience doing so; both have the same cost; one more tech (Astronomy) and they have the same move in the ocean; the caravel can explore only the oceans and the coasts, the explorer can explore (sorry) everything.

Overall, the caravel seems to me a very niche unit for maps full of water and coastal cities, and civs willing to conquer them with a navy, while you can use your explorers in any map to discover other continents or islands and raise their level until they become very valuable units, and worth of upgrading without any doubts.

Maybe increase the visual range of the Caravels by 1 and reduce the Explorers' to 1 while embarked?
 
Chandler said:
What are your thoughts about the Caravels? Even though they can be improved by the Great Lighthouse and the Grand Canal (as most of other naval units, though), I almost never build them. I think the Explorer is its worst nightmare: both can explore the ocean at the same time, but only the Explorer earns experience doing so; both have the same cost; one more tech (Astronomy) and they have the same move in the ocean; the caravel can explore only the oceans and the coasts, the explorer can explore (sorry) everything.

Overall, the caravel seems to me a very niche unit for maps full of water and coastal cities, and civs willing to conquer them with a navy, while you can use your explorers in any map to discover other continents or islands and raise their level until they become very valuable units, and worth of upgrading without any doubts.

Maybe increase the visual range of the Caravels by 1 and reduce the Explorers' to 1 while embarked?
Click to expand...

You're basically saying you'd rather have an Explorer than a caravel to explore. For me, exploration is only the first thing a caravel might do. Its main purpose (like every other military unit) is to fight. Given that it's the most powerful naval vessel of its time, and has the safety of going into deep water vs triremes, dromons and galleys , it is a significant technological upgrade. As a result, I would build an Explorer only if I have interest in exploring a land mass on the other side of the ocean.
 
Hm... True. I guess they might be niche (at least for me), but they are good enough at what they do.
 
Chandler said:
Hm... True. I guess they might be niche (at least for me), but they are good enough at what they do.
Click to expand...

Funny enough I’m the opposite. The caravel is so much quicker, and can handle the barb ships I encounter, that I only buIld a few explorers...or I just build knights to explore the land while the caravels explore the sea
 
I don't use explorers much because most of the benefit of using them is dependent on open borders with other civs, if you are playing continents. Anything that a Caravel can't explore is likely a different civ's property by medieval. The only thing that Explorers bring to the table, then, is free XP on exploring ocean tiles, and you might be able to get a couple ruins on far-flung islands.
 
Bascule2000 said:
That's pretty good though I think. Free double medic promotion!
Click to expand...
And you can move them to hills during wars to see almost the entire army of your enemies (or potential enemies), if not all of it, as well as their movements. And we haven't even started talking about the defensive and movement promotions. Though, once the exploration is done, those seem to be "just" the icing on the cake.

An "overleveled" explorer can be really useful. Yes, I love them.
 
I think the Longsword could use a buff up to 22 CS, the Longsword just feels straight up weaker than the Knight in every way possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
VP Congress 5: Stalker0's Voting Record
Replies
17
Views
1K
pineappledan
pineappledan
saamohod
Unit and building maintenance discussion
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
axatin
A
C
[Idea] Policy Shakeup
Replies
2
Views
789
Stalker0
S
Recursive
VP Congress - Updates & Help Wanted!
Replies
1
Views
992
Recursive
Recursive
S
My Current Pantheon Rankings
Replies
9
Views
1K
rkkn
R
Top Bottom