Goths (BtS 3.19; V1.0)

[kochman]

All combat bonuses (except the Combat promotions) are applied to the defender. This means that when this guy attacks a spear, the Spear is 4 with a bonus of 70%, defending against a 7 Gothic Lancer.

Sine 70% of 4 is ~3, that comes out to a 7 unit against a 7 unit.

Numidian Cavalry are 5 against 4 with a 50% bonus against the numid cav.

Which comes to 5 against a 6 spear.

Hope thats clearer.

Yes, I am starting to get it...
So, the attackers bonus is actually applied to the defender, while defender bonuses stay with the defender. It's weird Firaxis made it that way, but I am sure I am not the first to call shenanigans on such a weird system...

My goal here is that I wanted to make it beat the Praets, per history. However, I don't want it to have no counter!
So, correct me if I am wrong... I can make the bonus versus just swordsman, right?
So, probably I would have it be +50% versus Swordsman, +10% versus melee, and strength goes back to 6.

That would mean, vs Swordsman...
Lancer 6 vs Swordsman 6 - 50% = Lancer 6 vs Swordsman 3
Lancer 6 vs Praet 8 - 50% = Lancer 6 vs Praet 4... that's more like it...
and...
Lancer 6 vs Spearman 4 + 100% - 10% = Lancer 6 versus Spearman 7.2

I think this may be the fix. I want to be as specific as possible, so I only have to change this once.

 

[The Capo]

My goal here is that I wanted to make it beat the Praets, per history...

I would call foul on this one. They didn't really defeat the Roman Legions (which the Praetorians represent) they defeated a Roman army that would have been utterly routed if they had faced their ancestors. The Roman army the Goths faced were, firstly not even Roman for the most part, and secondly completely under-equipped, under-trained, and had horrible discipline. It's fine if you want the Goths to be a formidible opponent to Rome, but the Roman army they defeated couldn't hold a candle to the Legions of the late Republic and most of the Empire's history.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Yep, if you really want to make them better then the Romans I get it, but than make it only slightly better. What you wrote 6 vs 4 means at about 80-90% chance to win
Too much IMO

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure what mechaerik wrote can't be completely true
Some vanilla units have +100% attack against certain units (Quechua vs Archer), this would mean 2 vs 3 - 100% (= 0) the way you calculated those numbers...
It must be 2 + 100% vs 3 based on my experience


EDIT: of course if this really work this way (which is much more logical too) than +50% vs melee for a 6 strength lancer means: 9 vs 8, that's not bad.
But don't add the extra +10% vs melee, that would be additional to this. Also keep in mind that preatorians are more expensive than normal swordsman, this is actually another 'bonus" for the lancers

 

[AbsintheRed]

UB
*effects obsolete relatively early
*forces build of generally unnecessary building type at early stages of game hammers: could be spent elsewhere for better infrastructure early on)
*bonuses apply to a period when they are not actually providing much bonus overall due to smaller city sizes (compared to the 10% mod the shale plant gives)
*production bonus ONLY applies to military units, unlike shale plant

These guys took down the Roman Empire at their peak... they were a warlike culture how basically conquered large swathes of land at relative will.
They are definitely not built to last.

I have to admit you also have some good points here
Shale plant gives bonus for all your production, not just units, I was wrong in that
So this means for this UB 20% unit production would be also good to me. I still won't give 25%, early advantage and bonuses are way more important than later ones.
But I would drop the war weariness. Or if you think that's the more appropriate bonus for the Goths, then keep that one and drop the production boost, but both are too powerful IMO

 

[kochman]

I would call foul on this one. They didn't really defeat the Roman Legions (which the Praetorians represent) they defeated a Roman army that would have been utterly routed if they had faced their ancestors. The Roman army the Goths faced were, firstly not even Roman for the most part, and secondly completely under-equipped, under-trained, and had horrible discipline. It's fine if you want the Goths to be a formidible opponent to Rome, but the Roman army they defeated couldn't hold a candle to the Legions of the late Republic and most of the Empire's history.

This is an interesting argument. You are basically saying, the previous legions were better than the later legions...

The Romans came up with the awesomely organized unit, the legion, hundreds of years before anyone else knew how to deal with them. Hundreds of years later, people started to learn how to deal with them... first in the Black Forest, and later in the open battlefield.

There may have been somewhat of a degredation of the quality of the units, but when you say it was no longer made up of Romans... well, no, it wasn't, it was made up of a lot of germanic fighters, which given the same tactics, were bigger, better soldiers. Overall quality may have declined a bit, but failure to really make big tactical/strategical changes after the Marius realignment, for hundreds of years... in my opinion, had much more to due with them getting weaker.
In other words, it's not so much that they got weaker, but everyone else got stronger and the romans didn't adjust properly. In the East, they adjusted better, I think we can agree on that, right? They were still never like the Legions of old, despite being fully funded, trained and disciplined. They faired better against the Goths as a result. They advanced, in the west, the advances really didn't occur.

Now, in an attack, the Praets will still beat the Lancers if I make the lancer bonus vs Swordsman on the attack only. I think this is fair. Thoughts?

Before I make that adjustment (bonus on attack only vs swordsman, in which case, it will perhaps stay a 7 but cost more)... can we get the final word on how bonuses are calculated? Maecherik says one thing, but Absinthe is saying another...

 

[The Capo]

If you compare the equipment the armies had (most notably the armor), the money and supplies they had backing them up, the morale of the soldiers, and the size of the armies themselves there is NO comparison. AT ALL.

Seriously, look into it, it is pathetic how the Romans fell. The army in the time of Augustus or Marcus Aurelius would have easily trounced the Roman army when they had to deal with the Goths.

They no longer used the square-curved shields, they no longer wore the same plated armor (which was created to glance thrown spears, arrows, and the helmet was made to ward off errant sword swipes), they no longer used a pilum, barely employed seige weapons like ballistas, and did not use the same phalanx/testudo/checkerboard style of fighting because of this change in equipment, one could argue this was due to their run-ins with the Parthians in the east, where the battles where on wide-open planes compared to the rougher terrain of Europe, so through adapting to that they lost their old ways. The Romans and Goths didn't fight much different at the time they went to blows, it was basically early-dark-age fighting, which was roughly the equivalent of two gangs of street thugs going at it (albeit the whole gangs, so like a few hundred v. a few hundred rather than a few thousand v. a few thousand) for the most part. Not to mention the fact that the Legion's major advantage, their field-engineering efforts, were basically non-existant at the time.

But that isn't really my main point here, my main point is that the Goths would have advantage over nearly everyone they encountered (much less Rome), which is kind of not really appropriate considering how often the Goths were forced to move. All I'm saying is the unit seems a bit overpowered to me, and probably couldn't be effectively countered until Pikemen arrive on the scene.

 

[kochman]

Hence I have said I am going to change them, so as not to be too overpowered...
Just looking to do it with the right math so I don't over or under correct the issue.

 

[The Capo]

Hence I have said I am going to change them, so as not to be too overpowered...
Just looking to do it with the right math so I don't over or under correct the issue.

I don't know the intricacies of the combat system as well as these guys seem to, but what I normally do is think up some stats (which you have done) and just test them out against spearman (or for whatever other unit, the best unit that will face them) and see how the combat results go. It requires a lot of testing, but I think this usually provides the best results.

 

[kochman]

That's a lot more work than just figuring out the combat system for once and for all... because then I can always apply it in the future as well.

 

[The Capo]

That's a lot more work than just figuring out the combat system for once and for all... because then I can always apply it in the future as well.

Yeah, but you have the added issue of dealing with a unit that withdraws, I'm not sure you can just apply a combat system to that and see how it works. You should also look into how the Goths fought, especially from horseback.

 

[kochman]

Yeah, but you have the added issue of dealing with a unit that withdraws, I'm not sure you can just apply a combat system to that and see how it works. You should also look into how the Goths fought, especially from horseback.

In my book, can withdraw is countered by can't defend well...
All I need is for them to be able to beat Praets/Swordsmen when attacking.
Once I figure out the correct math on this... any help from the experts here?
Once I figure out the correct math on this, I can make the changes pretty easily.

 

[The Capo]

Most of the time a Horseman will beat a Swordsman anyway, and again I don't think your goal should be that they always beat Praetorians. You should probably just increase their strength to be honest, or give them a bonus against Swordsman class units (which would inclue Praets). If they're normally defeating Swordsman anyway this won't be much of a major change. But I don't know about specializing them against one unit.

Out of curiosity why did you choose this to be a horseman unit?

 

[kochman]

By one unit, I only mean Swords/Praet...

I chose the Lancers because the cavalry of the Goths is what really put the screws to the Romans. They had heavy and light cavalry, and some accounts basically say they used them in place of conventional infantry... that was pretty innovative, but fitting for the primary target, which were the Roman legions. The Parthians used cavalry to great success against the legions, and though the tactics were different, the base concept of have, for example, 2 cav per 1 infantry was really hard for the Romans to counter, since they typically had 2-4 infantry per cavalry.

 

[kochman]

Having finally figured out how the math works... here is what I am thinking. Opinions are welcome.
6; +50% attack vs swordsmen; +10% attack vs. melee
Will try to make this change tonight.

Example, attacking versus swordsman
6 vs 6/1.5
6 vs 4 - Lancer wins handily

Attacking Praet
6 vs 8/1.5
6 vs 5.333 - Lancer wins

Defending from Praet
8 vs 6 - Praet wins handily

Attacking Spearman
6 vs 4(2) / 1.1
6 vs 8/1.1
6 vs 7.27 - Spearman wins, but with a couple of promotions, things even out decently

Defending from Spearman
4(2) vs 6
8 vs 6 - Spearman wins handily

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think it's much better this way
Just curious, why did you add the +10% attack vs melee?

 

[kochman]

I think it's much better this way
Just curious, why did you add the +10% attack vs melee?

To give them a bit more of a chance versus spearmen, especially with a couple of promotions.

Enjoy some Beethoven

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think an even better solution would be +25% vs melee and +25% attack vs swordsman
attacking praet: 6 vs 5.33 - odds for lancer
defending praet: 8 vs 7.5 - odds for praet

This way they have better chance against spearman too

 

[kochman]

I think an even better solution would be +25% vs melee and +25% attack vs swordsman
attacking praet: 6 vs 5.33 - odds for lancer
defending praet: 8 vs 7.5 - odds for praet

This way they have better chance against spearman too

Good idea. I will do it that way.
Probably won't get to it until tomorrow though...

Hey, did someone ever make the Huns?

 

[The Capo]

I know I have made the Huns, I know Cool has made the Huns, and I'm pretty sure Amra or someone else did at some point.

 

[kochman]

I know I have made the Huns, I know Cool has made the Huns, and I'm pretty sure Amra or someone else did at some point.

Ok, was just trying to figure out who to do next...
The Scythians maybe...
The Dacians...

Perhaps I could make an American Civ that isn't so lame... our UB the mall? Come on...
UU, navy seals...
How about the GI (infantry replacement) for the UU and the UB could be... I don't know, some kind of factory... Ford did make (massively) mass production a reality.