History Rewritten (Original Thread)

[Simon_Jester]

This, while undoubtedly true, is perhaps too narrowly drawn. The more educated the population, the greater the pool of talented individuals: artists, entrepreneurs, soldiers, statesmen, etc. And yet the truly great among them would surely find ways to put their talents to use, formally educated or no...

Eh. I think you could justify modeling schools as increasing GPP... the problem, though, is that they are then useless in cities that aren't otherwise GPP sources.

Whereas by the same argument, you could make schools contribute to research, literate populations and widespread support for mathematical and technical training have a huge impact on the spread of technological innovation. And culture, in that schools play a large role in inculcating the citizens with the values and traditions of their society. Which is exactly what they do.

Sure, schools aren't themselves major research institutions, but then, neither are libraries when you get right down to it. So I'm afraid I disagree with you, Azoth; I think schools are just fine the way they are, and I submit that Xyth shouldn't change them. Though he might want to move them around in the tech tree, I don't know.

You could give them small across-the-board bonuses, but in my opinion that violates the principle of specialized buildings. In general I favor having buildings do only one or two closely related things, rather than many different things. You can make an argument for schools helping with nearly any field of human enterprise, but I don't think you should therefore turn schools into buildings that give a +5% bonus to everything the city does or anything.

I can't argue with this, except to note that "The Scientific Method" is a rather Eurocentric concept already. (Can you tell that I'm training to be a lawyer by profession? )

To an extent, that may not be a coincidence- the boom in science and technology of the 18th and 19th centuries only happened in Europe. The fact that Europe stumbled on a useful philosophical model for thinking about knowledge may well have a lot to do with why they were the ones to come up with all this powerful stuff that catapulted them into a military and economic lead over the rest of the world.

It's perfectly possible for any nation to apply the techniques of rational inquiry to scientific problems; the fact that Europe was pushing it a lot in the Age of Colonialism doesn't make it an intrinsically Eurocentric idea, any more than steam engines are a Eurocentric idea because they were invented in Europe.

Well, I'm sorry to say that none my ideas are quite as elegant. But here they are:
1. Per Simon Jester's suggestion, add health and happiness penalties to various buildings and civics. Possibilities include: Markets (-1 health), Jails (-1 happiness), Forges (-1 health with Copper, Iron), Caste System (-1 happiness in 5 largest cities), Fundamentalism (-1 happiness per non-state religion), Authoritarianism (-2 health), etc.

Well, let's be careful.

One thing we should do is plot the max health and max happiness of a 'reasonable' city that's built all its infrastructure and has good trading access for its era, as a function of time. That tells us how many of these penalties we want to pile up; we don't want to create a situation where it's impractical to build forges anywhere without choking your cities to death. Or where hammer-producing centers (with lots of mines and, often enough, relatively poor food production) can't build industrial buildings without poor health leaving them with too small a maximum population to work the mines.

No! I love Redistribution!
But, seriously, I think you may have a point.
Rather than remove the +1 commerce bonus on Camps (especially now that Cottages have been moved to Employment), might I suggest a penalty to balance it out? How does -25% culture sound?
(How does that fit with Redistribution? Uh, let me think. How about: state redistribution offends elite culture makers. In the ancient age? Well...)

Well.

Redistribution, in ancient times, reflects... well. Here's the civilopedia entry I drafted for the civic:

"He set a guard on your granaries, securing the weak from the strong;
He said- "Go work the waterwheels, that were abolished so long.""
-Kitchener's School, Rudyard Kipling

Many of the great riverine civilizations of ancient times- particularly around the Mediterranean- were dominated by the economic power of the central government to distribute goods. Grain and other key staples were kept in granaries owned by the elite, and the state taxed property-owners heavily, taking payment in chattel goods such as livestock. Many workers were employed directly by the palaces and the temples.

This served to maintain a large reserve of valuable property in the direct hands of the government, and served as one of the main sources of a ruler's power. The storehouses' stockpiles could be kept in reserve for times of famine, or used to feed armies or labor battalions as necessary. Other forms of property, such as fabric, pottery, and precious metals, served as a source of income for the monarchs, allowing them to fund public works and pay specialist laborers.

Think in terms of the Mycenean records about property of the palace and craftsmen employed by the palace, things like that, not Soviet communism- which had a pretty drastically different set of strengths and weaknesses, though a lot of that would depend on other factors.

What tends to suffer in societies like that? Hmm...

[In general, I think it's a good idea, when thinking about civics, to ask ourselves how we'd use different civics to model different cultures. How would we model ancient Athens, or a "hydraulic empire" like ancient Egypt, or a modern command economy like the USSR, or a modern hyper-capitalist democracy like the US?]

I'm not sure a culture penalty fits but I agree that a penalty is the way to go. The easiest choice is to raise its upkeep to High (makes sense, all that redistribution requires a lot of bureaucracy and transport costs) but I worry that doing so would partially defeat the point of the civic as an early source of commerce. As an alternative, maybea penalty to GPP? (state is firmly controlled, discouraging individualism and entrepreneurship). Let me know what you think.

Hmm. A GPP penalty could work. How about... increased maintenance cost for distance from capital or number of cities? That would matter relatively little in ancient times, but become quite a burden for large empires- but then, it would also make sprawling Soviet-esque empires rather difficult to run.

I agree that a School would provide broader benefit than just research. I'd like to leave this as is for now, my todo list for 0.9.4 is already massive, but we can revisit the idea later.

Again, I question the wisdom of designing buildings that do too many different things- I like being able to prioritize depending on what I want a city to be particularly good at.

Education: Schools should have an ETA of the 6th Century because that is when monastic and cathedral schools arouse (in Mediaeval Europe religion and science went hand in hand). Universities started rolling in the 12th century teaching arts, law, medicine, and theology, but mostly theology. So you're probably wondering why if it didn't teach science it should get a science bonus, but au contraire it did because to get a theology degree one needed to learn mathematics and sciences (like I said in Mediaeval Europe religion and science went hand in hand).

But there were firmly established schools in classical Greco-Roman civilization, and in the Middle East, and China, and... you get the idea.

Industrialism: I personally feel it should come at Steam Power because Steam Power provided the power of industrialism (literally and metaphorically).

Well, there were a lot of industrialized concerns that relied on water power or did not use heavy machinery driven by steam in the early to mid-19th century. But you're basically right, steam engines provided the trigger- between the expansion of railroads, the improved efficiency of steam powered riverine shipping, the ability to power machine tools, and so on, it had a huge impact on the organization of industrial labor.

Naval: I agree with Simon Jester's naval commentary

Aww. Thanks.

I still think Xyth should use that image of the Pallada-class cruiser for the job, too...

Aqueduct Baths should come off Aqueducts because that's how it worked, but Aqueducts got their water from rivers, not wells so wells don't make sense (plus wells come after aqueducts).

Can we make Baths require Aqueducts or Wells?

That's one candidate if/when Labour Unions is shifted later. Remember though that Industrialism is a Labour civic and thus is primarily about the workers in an Industrial society.

Yes, but to a large extent the social organization was driven by the technology. You didn't see masses of workers being employed to dig canals, build railroads, and man factories in a system that might be called 'industrial capitalism' until certain basic technologies were in place, and steam power was one of the big ones.

I'll try get it [the naval reform] in for 0.9.4 but it will depend how long all other stuff takes. My todo list is getting quite long ><

Heh. Well, all you'd really need to do is insert that one unit into the tree and tweak the destroyer, so that it becomes a specialist anti-air and anti-submarine-warfare ship instead of the "general-purpose ship for whenever I don't happen to have a battleship handy and sometimes even when I do."

War Elephants: I apologize for extending your to-do list with every post, but this issue has surfaced in so many games that I feel it deserves mention. Simply put, the War Elephant is a seriously imbalanced unit. Let's review its abilities. At Strength 8 and with +50% against mounted units it (a) is stronger than any contemporary unit, arriving much earlier and at a lower cost than the Strength 8 Maceman; (b) requires the Elephant happiness resource, which is not distributed fairly or widely; and (c) handily defeats the Spearman "counter" unit...

The war elephant is readily countered by pikemen- it's worth reflecting that war elephants really were a dominant combat arm during the late ancient period, so having them be somewhat overpowered may not be unreasonable as long as their period of dominance is limited.

That said, it should be limited. In particular, maintaining elephant armies was costly; if they are to be rebalanced, making them very expensive might be a good idea.

On a wackier note, I don't know if there's any way to implement something to reflect the fact that wounded elephants were bad for an army's cohestion; you might be able to code something (like a unique promotion elephants are 'born' with), but it'd be more trouble than it's worth. On the other hand, it would also be a good way to balance them- imagine if losing an elephant unit did collateral damage to all the units stacked with it on your side. That would discourage people from building up large stacks of them, and impose a real cost on large stack armies that wanted to bring them along into battle.

Then again, while that sounds cool it's probably more trouble than it's worth.

Edit: Scratch that, my math was wrong. A Combat I Spearman can't reliably beat even a Strength 7 Combat I/Shock Elephant:
Combat I Spearman: 4 + 110% = 8.4
Combat I/Shock War Elephant: 8 + 35% = 10.8
Combat I/Shock Strength 7 War Elephant: 7 + 35% = 9.45

Wait. Why does one spearman have to beat one elephant, if one spearman is a lot cheaper than one elephant (note that we can make this happen, and probably should)?

Remember:
-The spearman can use defensive terrain to his advantage and the elephant can't, which is probably smart- historically, a lot of victories over cavalry involved use of terrain, even when specialist pike/phalanx units were available. Spearmen caught on the flat should not be totally invulnerable to cavalry, though they should be very cost-effective against cavalry.
-The spearman is cheap, the elephant is (or should be made) expensive. This acts as a balancing factor in its own right, when armies of significant size collide. The elephant might win the battle, only to be finished off by enemy reserves or a cavalry raid (yes, bearing in mind that even the wounded elephant is strong against cavalry).

-25% GPP was what my instincts were telling me too so I'll go with that.

I have my own notions, but this works for me too.

Makes sense to me. I also want to remove the +1 food to workshops that Professionalism has (it was there to counter the -1 food), what do you think it should be replaced with?

...+1 health per workshop?

Hmm, revising the War Elephant was on my todo list at one point but it seems to have fallen off accidentally at some point. Completely agree it needs doing. I'm tempted to just give it the same requirements as the Horseman (Iron Working, Riding, Copper or Iron, Elephants instead of Horses) and adjusting its stats to make it similar in power to that unit, just with different strengths/weaknesses/purpose. Suggestions welcomed.

Hmm. I really think you could keep it as an expensive 'tank' unit. As long as it costs enough that its ability to overwhelm a lone spearman unit defending on level ground doesn't make it a cheap way to overpower fortified cities or troops fighting in difficult terrain, I don't mind the idea of it being disproportionately powerful- at least until pikemen come along. Maybe pikemen should be moved up the tree; I can't remember when you make them available.

 

[Xyth]

I'm enjoying the discussion about Schools, the relevance of education, Scientific Method and such. I have no plans to make any changes in these areas at this time though.

One thing we should do is plot the max health and max happiness of a 'reasonable' city that's built all its infrastructure and has good trading access for its era, as a function of time. That tells us how many of these penalties we want to pile up; we don't want to create a situation where it's impractical to build forges anywhere without choking your cities to death. Or where hammer-producing centers (with lots of mines and, often enough, relatively poor food production) can't build industrial buildings without poor health leaving them with too small a maximum population to work the mines.

With health there is the advantage of also having new several new health buildings to help overcome some of this new unhealthiness. At the moment I favour a few strong changes than a bunch of little ones. We'll see how the big changes work out and then it's easier to do smaller tweaks in either direction after that. Unhealthiness is a lot less punitive than unhappiness too.

Redistribution, in ancient times, reflects... well. Here's the civilopedia entry I drafted for the civic:

Think in terms of the Mycenean records about property of the palace and craftsmen employed by the palace, things like that, not Soviet communism- which had a pretty drastically different set of strengths and weaknesses, though a lot of that would depend on other factors.

Your pedia description is primarily what I'm going for with the civic. Redistribution was certainly a significant part of communism but realistically communism (and capitalism for that matter) is so much more than just an economic system. That's what I love about civics; it's the combinations that make them interesting and specific.

Hmm. A GPP penalty could work. How about... increased maintenance cost for distance from capital or number of cities? That would matter relatively little in ancient times, but become quite a burden for large empires- but then, it would also make sprawling Soviet-esque empires rather difficult to run.

Hmm, I quite like the distance option. It's realistic and doesn't hurt too bad in the era where the civic is most useful. The main caveat I can see is that it's easily cancelled out by also taking Confederation - but that's not available until Guilds.

Can we make Baths require Aqueducts or Wells?

Annoyingly no.

The war elephant is readily countered by pikemen- it's worth reflecting that war elephants really were a dominant combat arm during the late ancient period, so having them be somewhat overpowered may not be unreasonable as long as their period of dominance is limited.

There's quite a large gap between War Elephants (Riding) and Pikemen (Land Tenure), which is part of the problem. Giving War Elephants a second tech requirement will close that gap a bit. I don't want to shift Pikemen earlier, I feel they fit well where they are. Historically I think the War Elephant should be more or less contemporaneous with swordsmen and horsemen.

That said, it should be limited. In particular, maintaining elephant armies was costly; if they are to be rebalanced, making them very expensive might be a good idea.

Higher cost is easy to do, atm they cost the same as a Horseman (60). Spearman is 35. I don't have a clear plan for how to change the unit yet so please keep this discussion rolling to see if we can come up with some consensus.

On a wackier note, I don't know if there's any way to implement something to reflect the fact that wounded elephants were bad for an army's cohestion; you might be able to code something (like a unique promotion elephants are 'born' with), but it'd be more trouble than it's worth. On the other hand, it would also be a good way to balance them- imagine if losing an elephant unit did collateral damage to all the units stacked with it on your side. That would discourage people from building up large stacks of them, and impose a real cost on large stack armies that wanted to bring them along into battle.

I think there are a few mods out there that have such mechanics. I'll check them out at some point to see if anything is feasible.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Raising the cost of War Elephants would be good.
If there is a second tech that makes sense but is still in the right time period so that it still allows Hannibal to have his Elephants cross the Alps, that would also be good.

I do not know whether they still would work at strength 7 rather than 8.

"There's quite a large gap between War Elephants (Riding) and Pikemen (Land Tenure), which is part of the problem. Giving War Elephants a second tech requirement will close that gap a bit. I don't want to shift Pikemen earlier, I feel they fit well where they are. Historically I think the War Elephant should be more or less contemporaneous with swordsmen and horsemen.?"

I have attached a game save where I am Nebuch. of the Amorites.
A losing isolated position. A challenge to get happiness and health even at Monarch. However, even though I had no trade routes and not much in the way of resources (fish provided health with harbor), I still managed to grow my capital to size 13 by 750 AD, and it is quickly growing bigger.

Please bear this in mind when you are trying to rebalance the health and happiness after the revision.

 

[Azoth]

Slavery: To discourage players from founding cities on resources (especially Marble and Stone) or ignoring the resources altogether (by building Cottages or Mines on the weaker Plantation resources) I suggest adding +2 commerce per Quarry and Plantation with the Slavery civic. It fits very well thematically and solves a number of problems without being too strong: resources feel 'special' again, even as Quarries pick up a health penalty; and bonus Plantation commerce from Slavery comes at the expense of bonus Plantation hammers from Agrarianism.

Redistribution: Thanks for the primer on the Redistribution civic, Simon. Could you tell I had no idea what I was talking about? That said, I still prefer a GPP penalty over a distance maintenance penalty from a pure gameplay perspective. The problem with a distance penalty is that it swaps commerce for commerce, not making for a very interesting tradeoff. (Will you make more commerce from Camps and Mines than you lose in city maintenance? Then switch to Redistribution. Every time you found a new city, revise your calculations. If you're ever losing more money then you make, switch back to Reciprocity. What a bore!) A GPP penalty is different: GPP has no obvious commerce equivalent, so the choice of civic is determined by play style. Do your short-term plans involve a steady supply of Great People? If yes, then stick with Reciprocity in the early game. If not, adopt Redistribution and try to work around the penalty (prioritize Baths and the National Epic; build Wonders; or simply capture foreign cities with Holy Shrines and settled Great People.) A GPP penalty leaves you may options.

War Elephants: In answer to your question, Simon: I would prefer that one Spearman beats one War Elephant because that's the way it works for every other unit. BtS takes a Rock-Paper-Scissor approach to military tactics: Axeman beats Spearman, Spearman beats Chariot, Chariot beats Axeman. Different stack compositions and terrain defenses add a second layer of complexity but at the basic level, every unit has a counter. In medieval times, it goes: Maceman beats Pikeman, Pikeman beats Knight, Knight beats Crossbow, Crossbow beats Maceman. You'll note that these units are all available at roughly the same time and cost roughly the same. War Elephants are the one exception to the rule. In other games, there's a choice to made between stronger more expensive units and weaker but cheaper units; in BtS, it's always better to build fewer stronger units because of lower support and supply costs and less war wariness. With that in mind, I agree that War Elephants should be moved forward to the era of Swordsmen and Horsemen. Might I further suggest adding a +50% attack bonus against War Elephants to Swordsmen? Historically, the best way to counter War Elephants was to close to melee range and disrupt their focus (by severing their trunks, slaying their trainers, etc.) Standing in formation and allowing the elephants to charge at full speed was less effective. More importantly, adding the bonus creates a new unit triangle (Swordman-War Elephant-Horseman,) gives players another reason to build the oft neglected Swordman unit, and allows you to keep War Elephants at Strength 8.

Chariots: On a related note, you should be able to build Chariots for as long as Axeman are around. At the moment, they go obsolete once you discover Riding and Ironworking because they upgrade into Horsemen. I would return to the Chariot -> Knight upgrade path so that they stick around until Axeman -> Maceman.

Workshops: I agree with Simon Jester: if you remove +1 food/Workshop from Professionalism civic, it would be best to replace it with "No Unhealthiness from Workshops." If this proves too strong, you can always change it in a later patch. Right now, Workshops need all the bonuses they can get!

 

[Keinpferd]

BtS takes a Rock-Paper-Scissor approach to military tactics
[…]
War Elephants are the one exception to the rule.
[…]
Might I further suggest adding a +50% attack bonus against War Elephants to Swordsmen? Historically, the best way to counter War Elephants was to close to melee range and disrupt their focus (by severing their trunks, slaying their trainers, etc.) Standing in formation and allowing the elephants to charge at full speed was less effective. More importantly, adding the bonus creates a new unit triangle (Swordman-War Elephant-Horseman,) gives players another reason to build the oft neglected Swordman unit, and allows you to keep War Elephants at Strength 8.

Exactly. The Rock-Paper-Scissor-principle is just the right means to take away of the elephant's strength 8 scariness. But I wouldn't say, swordsmen can be part of that Rock-Paper-Scissor relationship. In Rome Total War, skirmishers are the counter to elephants, which makes more sense to me. Their projectiles scared the elephants off and hurt them more than spearheads, causing them to run amok much likelier than a line of melee fighters that were trying to cut them their trunks off. Of course, the "experience" of a video game is no evidence, but if you "witnessed" the way, "elephant behavior" was modeled in Rome Total War, it had at least a degree of plausibility.


Looking forward to HR, this weekend!

 

[Master_Chaz]

Is there an alternative download link for 0.9.3 for mac? The Megaupload keeps timing out on me

 

[Xyth]

Slavery: To discourage players from founding cities on resources (especially Marble and Stone) or ignoring the resources altogether (by building Cottages or Mines on the weaker Plantation resources) I suggest adding +2 commerce per Quarry and Plantation with the Slavery civic. It fits very well thematically and solves a number of problems without being too strong: resources feel 'special' again, even as Quarries pick up a health penalty; and bonus Plantation commerce from Slavery comes at the expense of bonus Plantation hammers from Agrarianism.

I like the idea, it fits the theme very well, but I worry that it makes Slavery too strong and only solves the problem when one particular civic is chosen. +1 commerce perhaps? Increase Slavery's penalties? Part of the Quarry/Plantation regardless of civic?

Redistribution:The problem with a distance penalty is that it swaps commerce for commerce, not making for a very interesting tradeoff. (Will you make more commerce from Camps and Mines than you lose in city maintenance? Then switch to Redistribution. Every time you found a new city, revise your calculations. If you're ever losing more money then you make, switch back to Reciprocity.

As much as I like the appropriateness of a distance penalty I have to agree with what Azoth is saying here. It's impractical as a game mechanic in this situation. I'll stick with -25% GPP.

War Elephants:I agree that War Elephants should be moved forward to the era of Swordsmen and Horsemen. Might I further suggest adding a +50% attack bonus against War Elephants to Swordsmen? Historically, the best way to counter War Elephants was to close to melee range and disrupt their focus (by severing their trunks, slaying their trainers, etc.) Standing in formation and allowing the elephants to charge at full speed was less effective. More importantly, adding the bonus creates a new unit triangle (Swordman-War Elephant-Horseman,) gives players another reason to build the oft neglected Swordman unit, and allows you to keep War Elephants at Strength 8.

That sounds reasonable. So, +50% bonus against War Elephants to Swordsman, second tech requirement (Iron Working or nearby, which do people prefer?), and higher cost (70? 80?). Should they also require a metal resource (feels like they should if we choose Iron Working as second tech)? And are we intending to leave them at strength 8 with these other changes?

Chariots: On a related note, you should be able to build Chariots for as long as Axeman are around. At the moment, they go obsolete once you discover Riding and Ironworking because they upgrade into Horsemen. I would return to the Chariot -> Knight upgrade path so that they stick around until Axeman -> Maceman.

Can do.

Workshops: I agree with Simon Jester: if you remove +1 food/Workshop from Professionalism civic, it would be best to replace it with "No Unhealthiness from Workshops." If this proves too strong, you can always change it in a later patch. Right now, Workshops need all the bonuses they can get!

Workshop
+1 production
+1 unhealthiness
+1 production with Investment
+1 production with Chemistry
+1 commerce with Professionalism

I'd like to leave the unhealthiness intact but improve the workshop in some other manner. Should it have an extra production or commerce, either baseline or via a tech/civic?

Exactly. The Rock-Paper-Scissor-principle is just the right means to take away of the elephant's strength 8 scariness. But I wouldn't say, swordsmen can be part of that Rock-Paper-Scissor relationship. In Rome Total War, skirmishers are the counter to elephants, which makes more sense to me. Their projectiles scared the elephants off and hurt them more than spearheads, causing them to run amok much likelier than a line of melee fighters that were trying to cut them their trunks off.

That would require a significant redesign of Skirmishers (they're only strength 2). I want to reexamine the unit in terms of an overhaul of Siege and Archery units but at this stage I don't think that's going to happen in 0.9.4. Swordsman is probably a better choice for the moment.

Is there an alternative download link for 0.9.3 for mac? The Megaupload keeps timing out on me

Check your private messages

 

[Howard Mahler]

There does not seem to be a reasonable tech to add to the requirements for War Elephant.

I think spearman at 4 times 2 = 8 are currently OK versus War Elephant at 8.
Who has the edge depends on terrain and promotions.
Fortified in good terrain, the spearman can defend well.

I see no harm in giving Skirmishers plus 100% versus War Elephants.
It makes some sense.
However, the skirmishers will only be 2 times 2 = 4 versus 8.
So while a bunch of cheap skirmishers will do a lot of good versus War Elephants, they would not be a one to one counter.

Doing this instead with the swordsman is not a good idea.

War Elephant currently costs 1.5 times a Swordsman, 1.2 times a Horse Archer,
and the same as a horseman.
I could see bumping up the cost of a War Elephant to 7/6 times that of a Horseman. One could also bump up the cost of horse archer to equal a Horseman.

Bottom line, in my opinion, a few tweaks when time permits would be worthwhile.

Exactly. The Rock-Paper-Scissor-principle is just the right means to take away of the elephant's strength 8 scariness. But I wouldn't say, swordsmen can be part of that Rock-Paper-Scissor relationship. In Rome Total War, skirmishers are the counter to elephants, which makes more sense to me. Their projectiles scared the elephants off and hurt them more than spearheads, causing them to run amok much likelier than a line of melee fighters that were trying to cut them their trunks off. Of course, the "experience" of a video game is no evidence, but if you "witnessed" the way, "elephant behavior" was modeled in Rome Total War, it had at least a degree of plausibility.


Looking forward to HR, this weekend!

 

[Howard Mahler]

I suggest for Quarries: +1 commerce with Engineering , and +1 commerce with Gunpowder.

I think at least +1 commerce for those Plantations whose buildings come in later, such as Sugar and Spice, would be good. It might be fine for all plantations.

Do not go overboard on workshops.

 

[Azoth]

Workshop
+1 production
+1 unhealthiness
+1 production with Investment
+1 production with Chemistry
+1 commerce with Professionalism

I'd like to leave the unhealthiness intact but improve the workshop in some other manner. Should it have an extra production or commerce, either baseline or via a tech/civic?

I thought you'd already agreed to an extra +1 hammer/Workshop with Caste System?

I like the idea, it fits the theme very well, but I worry that it makes Slavery too strong and only solves the problem when one particular civic is chosen. +1 commerce perhaps? Increase Slavery's penalties? Part of the Quarry/Plantation regardless of civic?

I like the fact that it works only when Slavery civic is chosen. It encourages players to pick civics that complement their environment. Empires rich in Plantation resources will tend to adopt Slavery; those working mostly farms and pastures will stick with Agrarianism. I don't think it makes Slavery too strong, either. Slavery has been weakened with the changes to the Granary (+50% food requires two buildings); the changes to production improvements (that -1 health against +2 health from Agrarianism is worth three extra mines); and, if you agree to it, the bonus +1 hammer/Workshop for Caste System. Reducing the benefit to +1 commerce/Quarry+Plantation is always an option, but it might be too weak (you get +1 commerce for settling on a Plantation resource anyway, and you can plant a cottage on the tile you didn't settle on.) Reassigning the commerce bonus to later civics or technologies is also less effective: the issue is that settling on resources is too attractive in the short term. Quarries already provide +1 hammer with Railroads, after all.

That sounds reasonable. So, +50% bonus against War Elephants to Swordsman, second tech requirement (Iron Working or nearby, which do people prefer?), and higher cost (70? 80?). Should they also require a metal resource (feels like they should if we choose Iron Working as second tech)? And are we intending to leave them at strength 8 with these other changes? [...]

That would require a significant redesign of Skirmishers (they're only strength 2). I want to reexamine the unit in terms of an overhaul of Siege and Archery units but at this stage I don't think that's going to happen in 0.9.4. Swordsman is probably a better choice for the moment.

Note that I originally suggested a +50% attack bonus against War Elephants, similar to the Chariot bonus against Axeman. The idea being that Swordmen could be effective against War Elephants if they took the initiative and engaged at melee range, but Spearmen would still be better at repelling a charge on defense. Of course, a generic +50% bonus would work as well. Iron Working as the second tech requirement sounds fine: War Elephants would then require Elephants and one of either Copper or Iron. If you don't want a metal resource requirement, then Mathematics or Fortification could be substituted for Iron Working. With all these changes, I think you can keep Elephants at Strength 8. Increasing their cost might also be unnecessary; Swordsmen are only 40 hammers. What do you think of reducing the cost of Horsemen from 60 to 55 or even 50 hammers? (Horse Archers, with one higher base Strength, cost 50 hammers.)

Edit: Don't forget to add the bonus to the Swordmen UUs: Legionaries, Maccabees, and Jaguar Warriors.

 

[Simon_Jester]

There's quite a large gap between War Elephants (Riding) and Pikemen (Land Tenure), which is part of the problem. Giving War Elephants a second tech requirement will close that gap a bit. I don't want to shift Pikemen earlier, I feel they fit well where they are. Historically I think the War Elephant should be more or less contemporaneous with swordsmen and horsemen.

Not sure I agree. Historically, you saw men equipped with iron weapons in the Mediterranean world c. 1000 BC, and horse cavalry starting to show up and supplant charioteers not long after, whereas war elephants didn't become prominent until the Hellenistic era.

India is a bit different, mind- they had more easily tameable elephants, so they seem to have developed the concept first and may have gotten into the game before the Iron Age began in India.

And those are about the only two major civilization-areas that had access to both useful elephants and iron and became early adopters of the technology.

Hmmm. I wonder. Could you make elephants demand elephants or mammoth? War mammoths would be cool, even if they don't get any special unit graphics...

By the way, my compliments on the woad-and-tartan war elephants the English get. I loved that stuff.

Higher cost is easy to do, atm they cost the same as a Horseman (60). Spearman is 35. I don't have a clear plan for how to change the unit yet so please keep this discussion rolling to see if we can come up with some consensus.

Because of their brute firepower, elephants hit so hard in combat that they're arguably worth considerably more than horsemen. Speed is less strategically important in this game than combat power because of the way the engine works- a highly mobile unit that can't beat its enemies in head to head combat loses more battles than a less mobile unit that can. And most wars are positional and revolve extensively around city sieges, or at least that's my experience.

I think there are a few mods out there that have such mechanics. I'll check them out at some point to see if anything is feasible.

Then again, the Ai probably wouldn't figure this trick out and might still spam elephants anyway, resulting in armies that more or less self-destruct if you can get the right counter-units in position to fight them.

Redistribution: Thanks for the primer on the Redistribution civic, Simon. Could you tell I had no idea what I was talking about?

You knew what you were talking about... you just didn't know what Xyth was talking about. When people talk about redistribution in economics they generally mean socialism and (in the English-speaking world) they generally assume it's a bad idea.

The ancient economic systems, which were totally alien to capitalism as we know it today, are simply so much less well documented, and often known only to specialists.

That said, I still prefer a GPP penalty over a distance maintenance penalty from a pure gameplay perspective. The problem with a distance penalty is that it swaps commerce for commerce, not making for a very interesting tradeoff. (Will you make more commerce from Camps and Mines than you lose in city maintenance? Then switch to Redistribution. Every time you found a new city, revise your calculations. If you're ever losing more money then you make, switch back to Reciprocity. What a bore!) A GPP penalty is different: GPP has no obvious commerce equivalent, so the choice of civic is determined by play style.

Good point

War Elephants: In answer to your question, Simon: I would prefer that one Spearman beats one War Elephant because that's the way it works for every other unit. BtS takes a Rock-Paper-Scissor approach to military tactics: Axeman beats Spearman, Spearman beats Chariot, Chariot beats Axeman. Different stack compositions and terrain defenses add a second layer of complexity but at the basic level, every unit has a counter. In medieval times, it goes: Maceman beats Pikeman, Pikeman beats Knight, Knight beats Crossbow, Crossbow beats Maceman. You'll note that these units are all available at roughly the same time and cost roughly the same. War Elephants are the one exception to the rule. In other games, there's a choice to made between stronger more expensive units and weaker but cheaper units; in BtS, it's always better to build fewer stronger units because of lower support and supply costs and less war wariness. With that in mind, I agree that War Elephants should be moved forward to the era of Swordsmen and Horsemen. Might I further suggest adding a +50% attack bonus against War Elephants to Swordsmen? Historically, the best way to counter War Elephants was to close to melee range and disrupt their focus (by severing their trunks, slaying their trainers, etc.) Standing in formation and allowing the elephants to charge at full speed was less effective. More importantly, adding the bonus creates a new unit triangle (Swordman-War Elephant-Horseman,) gives players another reason to build the oft neglected Swordman unit, and allows you to keep War Elephants at Strength 8.

Ooooh. Interesting, though I do see problems with it.

Give that bonus to the associated UU's of course, like the Roman legions (probably history's most famous elephant-counterers), but yeah. Yeah, that's good, though a S6 swordsman with +50% may still lose a fair fraction of the time to a S8 elephant if whoever built the elephant has stables and can give the elephant extra promotions.

Though really, I think a big part of the elephant's "counter" should be expense. In that they have a fair chance of winning even against their dedicated counter unit... but it is bloody stupid to exchange them for their counter unit at one to one odds.

Chariots: On a related note, you should be able to build Chariots for as long as Axeman are around. At the moment, they go obsolete once you discover Riding and Ironworking because they upgrade into Horsemen. I would return to the Chariot -> Knight upgrade path so that they stick around until Axeman -> Maceman.

Agreed. Also, charioteers hung around longer in some other parts of the world, well into the iron age- China comes to mind.

Exactly. The Rock-Paper-Scissor-principle is just the right means to take away of the elephant's strength 8 scariness. But I wouldn't say, swordsmen can be part of that Rock-Paper-Scissor relationship. In Rome Total War, skirmishers are the counter to elephants, which makes more sense to me. Their projectiles scared the elephants off and hurt them more than spearheads, causing them to run amok much likelier than a line of melee fighters that were trying to cut them their trunks off. Of course, the "experience" of a video game is no evidence, but if you "witnessed" the way, "elephant behavior" was modeled in Rome Total War, it had at least a degree of plausibility.

Thing is, it's hard to boost skirmisher units up to the level where they can meaningfully fight elephants without either:

1) Giving them such a huge bonus against elephants that they become ridiculously overspecialized, such that it ONLY makes sense to build them when fighting elephants, which means the AI won't build them at all, giving human players an unfair advantage
2) Making them less overspecialized but giving them a drastically higher strength (say, 5 and +100% against elephants)... at which point they become a significant factor in the rock/paper/scissors calculations of other units in the game.

I'm not sure I approve of rock/paper/scissors as an absolute thing; I like the idea that not every element in the rock/paper/scissors cycle can effortlessly defeat its opposition one on one. Real warfare was never like that, after all; industrial capacity, ease of training troops to do things in different ways, and things like that are hugely important. And arguably, Civ IV should be trying to model the logistical aspects of warfare on the strategic level more than it worries about the tactical details of "how do I counter enemy cavalry?"

 

[Keinpferd]

[…]
1) Giving them such a huge bonus against elephants that they become ridiculously overspecialized, such that it ONLY makes sense to build them when fighting elephants, which means the AI won't build them at all, giving human players an unfair advantage
2) Making them less overspecialized but giving them a drastically higher strength (say, 5 and +100% against elephants)... at which point they become a significant factor in the rock/paper/scissors calculations of other units in the game.
[…]
And arguably, Civ IV should be trying to model the logistical aspects of warfare on the strategic level more than it worries about the tactical details of "how do I counter enemy cavalry?"

Very arguably. I once tried to cook for more than twenty people. That was well above my strategical level and logistical skill… But it makes me respect the effort to feed thousands of people every day. So, it would be great to see a mod dealing more with logistical aspects (which I'm sure mods in the less Mac friendly world already do). It isn't certain, that players prefer battle action and are bored to death by "logistical aspects."

To field skirmishers, ancient generals had to feed them, too, and they ate only little less than an armoured swordsman with heavier load and bigger appetite. That means, they weren't just unskilled soldiers, who picked up their armament from the ground. There must have been a reason to make dinner for them every day… In regard to HR, there could better trained skirmishers developing from very basic slingers. Additionally, they could have access to an interesting elephant fighting promotion.

Xyth: congratulations to the new version!

I get four xml-errors, bonus Cattle be in the wrong info class, and such (screenshot will follow later). They don't seem to cause anything bad, though. Or either I overlooked, this has been reported before, or I screwed up with any of the replacements, when I applied the patches…)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=293015&stc=1&d=1308386984

 

[Simon_Jester]

Very arguably. I once tried to cook for more than twenty people. That was well above my strategical level and logistical skill… But it makes me respect the effort to feed thousands of people every day. So, it would be great to see a mod dealing more with logistical aspects (which I'm sure mods in the less Mac friendly world already do). It isn't certain, that players prefer battle action and are bored to death by "logistical aspects."

Well, yes to an extent.

To field skirmishers, ancient generals had to feed them, too, and they ate only little less than an armoured swordsman with heavier load and bigger appetite. That means, they weren't just unskilled soldiers, who picked up their armament from the ground. There must have been a reason to make dinner for them every day…

Indeed. Of course, mitigating factors- you could pay them less, they were usually drawn from the lower classes which made them more available, their equipment cost less... you get the idea. Granted they were a demand on the army's food supply, but armies of that era tended to rely heavily on foraging and pillaging the countryside to feed themselves in any case.

In regard to HR, there could better trained skirmishers developing from very basic slingers. Additionally, they could have access to an interesting elephant fighting promotion.

Hmmm. Maaaybe. A 'skirmisher tree,' maybe even running up into the modern era with a dedicated "guerilla" or "partisan" unit (remember Civ II Partisans?), would be interesting.

Say... Skirmisher -> Slinger -> Sharpshooter -> Partisan

You might give them bonuses against the bugaboo units of their era, or might not. The strong unifying feature should be relatively inferior strength to pretty much any other unit of the era, one or two first strikes, but also a very good withdrawal chance, good enough that on the attack they will withdraw from battle more often than not. At 50% it's still not really worth maintaining them because you'll lose them half the time and they don't soften an enemy unit up enough to justify that.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Clarification on what I meant by logistics. Basically, I'm talking about the interplay of economic management, military grand strategy (the highest-level decisions like "do we concentrate on beating Germany first, or Japan first?"), and the ability to provide units with which to battle the enemy. Superiority of one's units on the operational or tactical level is mostly covered by XP bonuses, I'd argue; the actual details of operational planning on all but the broadest level ("soften up the enemy position with a naval bombardment before attacking") are below the resolution of simulation provided by Civ IV. Even if they were 'visible' to the player, they'd only bog you down in managing a thousand little battlefields when that's really not what the game's about.

I think Civ IV actually comes fairly close to doing this job properly. There are real costs to maintaining a large army capable of winning major wars quickly, ability to fight wars at long distances overseas is difficult without a steady stream of transports and naval superiority, units may require expensive infrastructure and special resources to be built at a useful rate, and so on.


There are changes that could be made, of course. It might be interesting if unit maintenance costs varied as a function of the unit's power (so that I can afford to maintain 3 infantry for the price of 2 tanks or something)... but it'd be so hard to balance such an arrangement that I don't recommend it for a mod that already has so many other good things going on.

Let's not make this the kitchen sink mod, as Xyth is trying to avoid that.

 

[Xyth]

I suggest for Quarries: +1 commerce with Engineering , and +1 commerce with Gunpowder.

I think at least +1 commerce for those Plantations whose buildings come in later, such as Sugar and Spice, would be good. It might be fine for all plantations.

I do like mechanics like this. I wonder if it's a useful way of boosting a few improvements later in the game when you've (probably) moved on from Slavery/Agrarianism/Caste System.

I thought you'd already agreed to an extra +1 hammer/Workshop with Caste System?

Ooh yes. So, in summary:

Workshop
Requires Artisanry
&#8226; +1 production
&#8226; +1 unhealthiness
&#8226; +1 production with Investment
&#8226; +1 production with Chemistry
&#8226; +1 production with Caste System
&#8226; +1 commerce with Professionalism

I'm a little tempted to drop the Chemistry bonus and bake it in elsewhere: +2 with Investment (that tech does little atm), add it one of the civic bonuses, or just make it baseline. Any further suggestions for improvement of Workshops? How about for Professionalism?:

Professionalism
Requires Artisanry
&#8226; Unlimited Merchants
&#8226; +1 commerce from Workshops
&#8226; +2 happiness from Market

I like the fact that it works only when Slavery civic is chosen. It encourages players to pick civics that complement their environment. Empires rich in Plantation resources will tend to adopt Slavery; those working mostly farms and pastures will stick with Agrarianism. I don't think it makes Slavery too strong, either. Slavery has been weakened with the changes to the Granary (+50% food requires two buildings); the changes to production improvements (that -1 health against +2 health from Agrarianism is worth three extra mines); and, if you agree to it, the bonus +1 hammer/Workshop for Caste System. Reducing the benefit to +1 commerce/Quarry+Plantation is always an option, but it might be too weak (you get +1 commerce for settling on a Plantation resource anyway, and you can plant a cottage on the tile you didn't settle on.) Reassigning the commerce bonus to later civics or technologies is also less effective: the issue is that settling on resources is too attractive in the short term. Quarries already provide +1 hammer with Railroads, after all.

I forgot about the Granary/Smokehouse change affecting Slavery. How about a compromise:

Slavery
Requires Masonry
&#8226; +1 unhealthiness
&#8226; Can sacrifice population to finish production in a city
&#8226; +1 commerce from Quarry, Plantation

Quarries gain an additional production at Machinery. Plantations gain an additional commerce at Cultivation. Techs could be changed as appropriate.

Note that I originally suggested a +50% attack bonus against War Elephants, similar to the Chariot bonus against Axeman. The idea being that Swordmen could be effective against War Elephants if they took the initiative and engaged at melee range, but Spearmen would still be better at repelling a charge on defense

I was thinking/meaning an attack bonus too. How's this look?:

War Elephant
Requires Metal Casting and Riding
Requires Elephants and (Copper or Iron)
Strength: 8
Movement: 1
Cost: 70
&#8226; +50% vs. Mounted Units

Swordsmen and derivative UUs get a +50% attack bonus against them. I chose Metal Casting as it's a little later than Iron Working (which already unlocks a lot ) but still (up to) 9 techs away from Steel Working (which unlocks Heavy Footmen and Horsemen) and (up to) 17 techs away from Land Tenure (which unlocks Pikemen). I think this will fit well with Simon's comments about when and where War Elephants were used.

I'll leave adjusting the costs/stats of other units like the Horseman til after 0.9.4.

Hmmm. I wonder. Could you make elephants demand elephants or mammoth? War mammoths would be cool, even if they don't get any special unit graphics...

There is a Native American War Mammoth unit out there somewhere and I might have seen a Viking one too.

I'm not sure I approve of rock/paper/scissors as an absolute thing; I like the idea that not every element in the rock/paper/scissors cycle can effortlessly defeat its opposition one on one. Real warfare was never like that, after all; industrial capacity, ease of training troops to do things in different ways, and things like that are hugely important. And arguably, Civ IV should be trying to model the logistical aspects of warfare on the strategic level more than it worries about the tactical details of "how do I counter enemy cavalry?"

Very arguably. I once tried to cook for more than twenty people. That was well above my strategical level and logistical skill&#8230; But it makes me respect the effort to feed thousands of people every day. So, it would be great to see a mod dealing more with logistical aspects (which I'm sure mods in the less Mac friendly world already do). It isn't certain, that players prefer battle action and are bored to death by "logistical aspects."

I'm not at all adverse to exploring new ways of making combat and logistics more interesting and varied. At the moment though lets stick with the formula that works well enough and revisit the idea in the future. 0.9.4 is already big enough

I get four xml-errors, bonus Cattle be in the wrong info class, and such (screenshot will follow later). They don't seem to cause anything bad, though. Or either I overlooked, this has been reported before, or I screwed up with any of the replacements, when I applied the patches&#8230

This was my fault, I put a couple of wrong files in the patch. I've since fixed it so if you redownload and reapply the patch this will clear up.

 

[Simon_Jester]

There is a Native American War Mammoth unit out there somewhere and I might have seen a Viking one too.

Oh, I'm not asking for special graphics. What I mean is, suppose my Russian civilization in the far north has access to Mammoths, and this resource lets me build War Elephants. Now I can think "Oh cool, I have WAR MAMMOTHS! RAAA!"

And that makes me happy, on a certain childish level.

That's all I'm suggesting, both for that silly coolness-reason and because it kind of makes sense- if significant populations of mammoths had survived into the present age, it seems likely that someone would have tried to domesticate them.

Hmmm. Can you make mammoths be more common on Ice Age maps?

Anyway, this is all a side issue. What I really want to see is the Pallada-class graphic for the Cruiser unit. Civ IV needs more Victorianisms!

I'm not at all adverse to exploring new ways of making combat and logistics more interesting and varied. At the moment though lets stick with the formula that works well enough and revisit the idea in the future. 0.9.4 is already big enough

I honestly think the current formula is fine, or nearly fine. As long as units are made balanced-ish, so that you can actually have enough of them to win wars by countering elephants with spearmen (even if you lose some spearmen, or even if you need slightly more spearmen than they have elephants).

If anyone has any brilliant new ideas we can look into them, but I for one am not arguing that they're necessary.

 

[Azoth]

I do like mechanics like this. I wonder if it's a useful way of boosting a few improvements later in the game when you've (probably) moved on from Slavery/Agrarianism/Caste System.

Such mechanics are already in place, for the most part. Farms get +1 food at Cultivation and Genetics; Watermills and Windmills pick up +1 hammer at Replaceable Parts and +1-2 commerce at Electricity; Mines, Quarries, and Lumbermills get +1 hammer with Railroads, while Towns pick up +1 commerce; and Lumbermills get a further +1 commerce at Printing Press. If you want to round out the rest of the improvements, you could add +1 hammer to Pastures at Mechanization and +1 food to Fishing Boats at Nutrition; purely flavour changes, these.

Ooh yes. So, in summary:

Workshop
Requires Artisanry
• +1 production
• +1 unhealthiness
• +1 production with Investment
• +1 production with Chemistry
• +1 production with Caste System
• +1 commerce with Professionalism

I'm a little tempted to drop the Chemistry bonus and bake it in elsewhere: +2 with Investment (that tech does little atm), add it one of the civic bonuses, or just make it baseline. Any further suggestions for improvement of Workshops?

If you want to move the Chemistry bonus, I would prefer +2 hammers at Investment over +2 baseline hammers. The latter might be too strong and encourage players to ignore slow-growing cottages and maximize hammers at every city, building Wealth and Research as necessary. Alternatively, you could move the +1 hammer from Chemistry directly to Guilds.

How about for Professionalism?:

Professionalism
Requires Artisanry
• Unlimited Merchants
• +1 commerce from Workshops
• +2 happiness from Market

Professionalism might not need any further changes, though you could always pair that +2 happiness from Markets with +2 health from Grocers.

I forgot about the Granary/Smokehouse change affecting Slavery. How about a compromise:

Slavery
Requires Masonry
• +1 unhealthiness
• Can sacrifice population to finish production in a city
• +1 commerce from Quarry, Plantation

Quarries gain an additional production at Machinery. Plantations gain an additional commerce at Cultivation. Techs could be changed as appropriate.

A fair compromise; and the techs are a good fit, too.

I was thinking/meaning an attack bonus too. How's this look?:

War Elephant
Requires Metal Casting and Riding
Requires Elephants and (Copper or Iron)
Strength: 8
Movement: 1
Cost: 70
• +50% vs. Mounted Units

Looks good to me.

 

[Azoth]

Speed is less strategically important in this game than combat power because of the way the engine works- a highly mobile unit that can't beat its enemies in head to head combat loses more battles than a less mobile unit that can. And most wars are positional and revolve extensively around city sieges, or at least that's my experience.

That's not my experience at all. In single player, wars appear to revolve around city sieges - but that's a consequence of the rather mediocre tactical AI. It isn't inherent in the combat engine or unit design as such.

Consider, for example, the tactical situation in multiplayer. (I have little personal multiplayer experience, but I have been following the many excellent, well-documented Pitboss and PBEM games at Realms Beyond.) In multiplayer, assuming technological parity, speed is king. Any slow moving invasion force, no matter how large or strong, can always be whittled away with Catapults and eliminated before it reaches an important city. So for the most part, players rely on Horse Archers, Knights, and Cavalry to meet their military needs. The best way to defeat a human opponent is to strike deep in his territory: pillage towns and resources; threaten multiple cities to stretch his defenses; and whenever an opening presents itself, attack with overwhelming numbers, taking Flanking promotions to minimize losses. A defending player cannot hope to weather such an attack by huddling in his cities; the only response is to counterattack, defend strategic locations, and slowly clear the countryside of enemy forces. Thus, the most important battles are fought in the field and not in cities.

If you think about it, this applies on a smaller scale to single player. Wars are won not at the gates of the enemy capital but in the contested territory between empires. Once an AI's reserve of mobile units is exhausted, its cities are ripe for the taking. It's only a matter of physically moving an army up to each city and capturing it. Unlike a human, the AI doesn't realize that it needs to engage its enemies in the field to be successful; so it builds city defenders, prolonging the siege but not changing its outcome. This is why I argued for removing the free City Garrison promotions from the Protective trait; it encourages poor play. A city full of Protective Longbows behind a Castle is more painful to capture, but not more difficult.

Hmmm. Maaaybe. A 'skirmisher tree,' maybe even running up into the modern era with a dedicated "guerilla" or "partisan" unit (remember Civ II Partisans?), would be interesting.

Say... Skirmisher -> Slinger -> Sharpshooter -> Partisan

You might give them bonuses against the bugaboo units of their era, or might not. The strong unifying feature should be relatively inferior strength to pretty much any other unit of the era, one or two first strikes, but also a very good withdrawal chance, good enough that on the attack they will withdraw from battle more often than not. At 50% it's still not really worth maintaining them because you'll lose them half the time and they don't soften an enemy unit up enough to justify that.

I suggested much the same thing, together with a rework of Siege units, in an earlier post. It's certainly an idea with potential. In addition to first strikes and a high withdrawal chance, I would give Skirmishers the ability to target certain (classes of?) units in mixed stacks - something that only the Khmer UU, the Ballista Elephant, is currently capable of. Speaking of which, it makes no sense for Ballista Elephants to be able to choose which unit to engage with outside of cities: they're probably the least maneuverable military unit of all. At some point, their function needs to change. Some minor collateral damage on attack or flanking bonuses against catapults and trebuchets would be much more appropriate, I think.

Clarification on what I meant by logistics. Basically, I'm talking about the interplay of economic management, military grand strategy (the highest-level decisions like "do we concentrate on beating Germany first, or Japan first?"), and the ability to provide units with which to battle the enemy. [...]

I think Civ IV actually comes fairly close to doing this job properly. There are real costs to maintaining a large army capable of winning major wars quickly, ability to fight wars at long distances overseas is difficult without a steady stream of transports and naval superiority, units may require expensive infrastructure and special resources to be built at a useful rate, and so on.

I agree with you. Owing to a number of clever design decisions, wars in Civ IV are profitable only if they are well executed. If you launch a war without a clear purpose, or bungle orders at the tactical level, wars can quickly turn sour. You're left with expensive army costs, an enemy who hates you, less than optimal civic choices, and much wasted commerce (culture slider) and production (units and infrastructure.)

 

[Xyth]

Anyway, this is all a side issue. What I really want to see is the Pallada-class graphic for the Cruiser unit. Civ IV needs more Victorianisms!

Cruisers (using the Pallada-class model you suggested) and your other late naval suggestions were successfully added to 0.9.4 just yesterday

If you want to move the Chemistry bonus, I would prefer +2 hammers at Investment over +2 baseline hammers. The latter might be too strong and encourage players to ignore slow-growing cottages and maximize hammers at every city, building Wealth and Research as necessary. Alternatively, you could move the +1 hammer from Chemistry directly to Guilds.

That's a good idea, means you can boost workshops' production a bit sooner than you can currently without making them too strong right from the start. I'll shift the Chemistry bonus to Guilds.

Professionalism might not need any further changes, though you could always pair that +2 happiness from Markets with +2 health from Grocers.

A fair compromise; and the techs are a good fit, too.

Looks good to me.

Excellent! Unless anyone else has any further suggestions that's a bunch of stuff crossed off the todo list

I suggested much the same thing, together with a rework of Siege units, in an earlier post. It's certainly an idea with potential. In addition to first strikes and a high withdrawal chance, I would give Skirmishers the ability to target certain (classes of?) units in mixed stacks - something that only the Khmer UU, the Ballista Elephant, is currently capable of.

I really want to overhaul Siege and Archery/Skirmish units. They need it. Lets do it in 0.9.5.

 

[Simon_Jester]

That's not my experience at all. In single player, wars appear to revolve around city sieges - but that's a consequence of the rather mediocre tactical AI. It isn't inherent in the combat engine or unit design as such.

All right. I have no experience with multiplayer, so yes, I see what you mean.

This is why I argued for removing the free City Garrison promotions from the Protective trait; it encourages poor play. A city full of Protective Longbows behind a Castle is more painful to capture, but not more difficult.

Interesting. What would you replace it with again?

Cruisers (using the Pallada-class model you suggested) and your other late naval suggestions were successfully added to 0.9.4 just yesterday

Hurrah! (and everyone, if we could try to playtest this at some point it'd be good; I'm not sure I'm up to playing a lot of Civ games in the near future. There are periods when I just don't want to play Civ, even though I like talking about it)

I really want to overhaul Siege and Archery/Skirmish units. They need it. Lets do it in 0.9.5.

One thing to bear in mind is that the AI doesn't seem to know how to handle ranged attacks...