jarcast2
Janitor Raccoon
As gwennog noted, mod References do not work with 100% certainty, so the only way to solve the mod order issue is to add a SQL trigger.
Hokath's Tweaks
- Thread starter hokath
- Start date
I think I'll clear the cache every time but I'll test again on occasion. Thanks.
If cache is cleared they have always worked (for me). If cache is not cleared they don't seem to work at all! 
Edit:
In other news, having played now a good dozen+ games with the Pikeman Rework, I have come to a more nuanced understanding.
1. A Pikeman-like unit does have to be available earlier (and 1 CS weaker) at Metal Casting. If Knights start knighting then you go Formation II and defend to Xbow, plays fine. It also smooths barbarian unit curve a bit which is also good.
2. Tercio is better than the Matchlock promotion, which has unfortunate interactions with older melee (Longsword and their UU), in contrast to Explorer, and for general readability.
3. Greatswordsman--Tercio split is really good and works well. Fusilier definitely where two lines should converge.
Given that, we can simplify rework significantly. This is still more than @azum4roll's minimalist proposal, because we add the Greatsword, but "less revolutionary" than before with no special promotion.
I think ultimately Knight should have this window of dominance, but we just need to be careful about what happens when the tech leader gets them (or someone beelines them) and you are 2 techs away from Pikes. At the moment this is basically an instant loss, which I think is unnecessarily harsh considering how swingy early game science can be.
Edit:
In other news, having played now a good dozen+ games with the Pikeman Rework, I have come to a more nuanced understanding.
1. A Pikeman-like unit does have to be available earlier (and 1 CS weaker) at Metal Casting. If Knights start knighting then you go Formation II and defend to Xbow, plays fine. It also smooths barbarian unit curve a bit which is also good.
2. Tercio is better than the Matchlock promotion, which has unfortunate interactions with older melee (Longsword and their UU), in contrast to Explorer, and for general readability.
3. Greatswordsman--Tercio split is really good and works well. Fusilier definitely where two lines should converge.
Given that, we can simplify rework significantly. This is still more than @azum4roll's minimalist proposal, because we add the Greatsword, but "less revolutionary" than before with no special promotion.
I think ultimately Knight should have this window of dominance, but we just need to be careful about what happens when the tech leader gets them (or someone beelines them) and you are 2 techs away from Pikes. At the moment this is basically an instant loss, which I think is unnecessarily harsh considering how swingy early game science can be.
Last edited:
Do you mean (1) moving it earlier without reducing CS by 1? Or do you mean (2) moving it earlier without introducing Greatswordsman?
For (1) it is simply because they interact a lot more with Swordsman/Comp Bow/Horseman/Elephant, so -1 CS avoids having a problem where only Pikemen get built. You can beeline Metal Casting easily so this ought to be avoided. Here I have also increased the CS of Horsemen independently because in VP right now they are super-weak to, I think, the detriment of the early game.
For (2) there is no reason, in principle you don't need the extra strategic unit.
The opposite isn't true though. i.e. introduce Greatsword without making Pikeman come earlier. Because Greatswordsman is at Chemistry you can, in principle, obtain it early. Pikemen (rather than Tercio) will then get absolutely destroyed by it. This is ok if Pikemen are at Metal Casting because in some sense they are supposed to be outdated, but its less cool if they're at Steel (or Machinery how I had it before) because it feels like they are getting "obsoleted" too quickly.
I would also note that, on top of making the new unit at Chemistry, it has the effect that you keep the Formation--Field Works split into the Renaissance. So you drop Field Works from Tercio (and adjust UUs accordingly) such that there is still the "strong Iron-using" Unit and the "weak, resource-free" unit. This is, again, in principle independent of moving Pikeman earlier, but having Pikeman at Steel makes more sense if they don't upgrade into the same unit as the Longswordsman. So, on point (2), if you introduce Greatswordsman and do the Formation--Field Works split, there is less reason to move Pikeman earlier. However, even then, on balance I think it would still be desirable, just because Knight-versus-Spearman is so awful.
Sorry for long post. I had the morning coffee.
For (1) it is simply because they interact a lot more with Swordsman/Comp Bow/Horseman/Elephant, so -1 CS avoids having a problem where only Pikemen get built. You can beeline Metal Casting easily so this ought to be avoided. Here I have also increased the CS of Horsemen independently because in VP right now they are super-weak to, I think, the detriment of the early game.
For (2) there is no reason, in principle you don't need the extra strategic unit.
The opposite isn't true though. i.e. introduce Greatsword without making Pikeman come earlier. Because Greatswordsman is at Chemistry you can, in principle, obtain it early. Pikemen (rather than Tercio) will then get absolutely destroyed by it. This is ok if Pikemen are at Metal Casting because in some sense they are supposed to be outdated, but its less cool if they're at Steel (or Machinery how I had it before) because it feels like they are getting "obsoleted" too quickly.
I would also note that, on top of making the new unit at Chemistry, it has the effect that you keep the Formation--Field Works split into the Renaissance. So you drop Field Works from Tercio (and adjust UUs accordingly) such that there is still the "strong Iron-using" Unit and the "weak, resource-free" unit. This is, again, in principle independent of moving Pikeman earlier, but having Pikeman at Steel makes more sense if they don't upgrade into the same unit as the Longswordsman. So, on point (2), if you introduce Greatswordsman and do the Formation--Field Works split, there is less reason to move Pikeman earlier. However, even then, on balance I think it would still be desirable, just because Knight-versus-Spearman is so awful.
Sorry for long post. I had the morning coffee.
jarcast2
Janitor Raccoon
That's why SQL triggers are the best choice anyway.
Pikeman is barely stronger than Swordsman unlocked much earlier. It's a fair 1v1 against Composite Bowman, and naturally beats Horseman and War Elephant in defense as intended. Still can't beat Knight, Heavy Skirmisher, and Longswordsman, and is endlessly harassed by (light) Skirmisher.
Rushing and spamming these early Pikemen isn't going to win you any war.
Cannon uses Iron, so now you suddenly have a bottleneck with two Iron-using units in Renaissance. It'll be hard to upgrade Trebuchets.
I tried both 16 and 17 CS and found 17 to feel too strong. This was particularly the case with Spearman UU. I tried Greece and also Persia and both time felt very unfair. In both these test games, rushing and spamming early Pikemen did win me a war.
In terms of Iron, yes you will have competition between Cannon and Greatswordsman. This is also how it is done in Enlightenment Era and it feels fine to me. Note you will have competition with the Cruiser in an era's time, so it's not like Iron is reserved for the Siege line anyway.
In terms of Iron, yes you will have competition between Cannon and Greatswordsman. This is also how it is done in Enlightenment Era and it feels fine to me. Note you will have competition with the Cruiser in an era's time, so it's not like Iron is reserved for the Siege line anyway.
They're UUs and both civs have additional combat bonuses in their UA. They're supposed to win wars when committed. The time frame for the rush is small enough.
Cruiser is post-colonial, while you're still stuck in your initial continent when Cannons unlock. No extra iron sources you can settle.
Yes of course the UU should be strong. But I already win my first war with the UU. Then I win the second war with the upgraded UU on the basis of only the bonuses that are kept on upgrade.
Now, keeping bonuses on upgrade is part of the point, so this is perhaps not so surprising. But again, we are only arguing over 1 CS here so it's quite subjective. This is why I prefer my experience of test games to theoretical arguments, eh?
Consider, you have Knights and Heavy Skirmishers at the same time. Would you argue to remove Heavy Skirmisher because there are two units at the same time that use Horses? No, of course not.
Now, keeping bonuses on upgrade is part of the point, so this is perhaps not so surprising. But again, we are only arguing over 1 CS here so it's quite subjective. This is why I prefer my experience of test games to theoretical arguments, eh?
Well when Cannons unlock you have Astronomy, and you might even have Banking. So no, I think it's around the time frame I would settle islands near my capital.
This is also a mapscript-dependent line of reasoning. If I'm on Pangaea then it is a moot point. Then, perhaps one would argue that you don't need so many ships and, fair enough, but 9/10 times you do want a medium sized navy, especially to attack the other side of the continent. Also the nicer scripts (like Oval) often create large oceanic inclusions or in-land seas. Just this game I have Cruiser and also Field Gun attacking the same enemy on Pangaea.
Consider, you have Knights and Heavy Skirmishers at the same time. Would you argue to remove Heavy Skirmisher because there are two units at the same time that use Horses? No, of course not.
Both lines start requiring horses at similar techs. There's way less cost of saving a couple of horses to wait for the other the unlock. But you're not going to save Iron for a couple of eras for the eventual Cannon upgrades.Consider, you have Knights and Heavy Skirmishers at the same time. Would you argue to remove Heavy Skirmisher because there are two units at the same time that use Horses? No, of course not.
This is also subjective! I play with my own tweaks and pikes still can't hold their ground on the battlefield, especially when attacking.
I'm absolutely not making those if they're the same CS as swords but more expensive.
Yes, that's what I said! Our experiences have brought us to different points, and that is why we differ (this sounds like a quote from somewhere but I don't know where).
Now, which one is healthier for the mod overall and its general audience? Well that's what the democracy is for. Drawing those lines.
On the other hand, frontline Swordsman-type units have a much higher fatality rate. So the churn is there to open up resources.
Though, my Knights have a fairly high fatality rate if I can 1 or 2 turn them lol.
Just tried and Authority feels too underpowered as you get it, then jumps to its old power once you have enough units to garrison/tribute/hunt barbs around the latter half of early game.
Also I think Mongolia's 4UC building, "The Yassa", is getting blocked somehow since I'm not getting the yields on city capture. Might be some other mod though.
Also I think Mongolia's 4UC building, "The Yassa", is getting blocked somehow since I'm not getting the yields on city capture. Might be some other mod though.
Yes the no-yield-on-kill Authority has to get Tributes from the City States at the start. 2 Warriors is enough for good yields I find. If you are coastal Galley seem *really* good, I don't exactly know why since it's same CS as Spearman, maybe some observation bias.
The Yassa doesn't work in the base 4UC at the moment afaik.
The Yassa doesn't work in the base 4UC at the moment afaik.
Nightmare Dusk
Warlord
Might be observation bias but boats do phenomenally for tributes. Best use for boats imo, cause they easily can payback the cost of making them. 3 uu trimere were getting me 80-100% tribute last game which pays for them in 2 tributes
Updated the OP
Many small tweaks. Changelogs should all now be up to date.
Highlights people here will like
@Agiwan I lowered Fort yields in Imperialism (was just too much Science I felt) and moved it later, so you might see less of that spam (let me know if you try it!) Added some Great Admiral Points (!) to Citadel and Manufactory to compensate.
@azum4roll I put Pikeman (Halberdier) up to 17, but moved up 1 row to Engineering so they can't come out quite so early. Hopefully this is a good compromise. It already feels better to me.
Also added a new module trying a different approach for Siege Units, here is the log from the OP
Many small tweaks. Changelogs should all now be up to date.
Highlights people here will like
@Agiwan I lowered Fort yields in Imperialism (was just too much Science I felt) and moved it later, so you might see less of that spam (let me know if you try it!) Added some Great Admiral Points (!) to Citadel and Manufactory to compensate.
@azum4roll I put Pikeman (Halberdier) up to 17, but moved up 1 row to Engineering so they can't come out quite so early. Hopefully this is a good compromise. It already feels better to me.
Also added a new module trying a different approach for Siege Units, here is the log from the OP
Spoiler :
I'm not against it, but I've also put Composite Bowman there...
Now that Indirect Fire is unpickable, the -10% CS when attacking really shouldn't be there anymore.
Overall, what does this achieve? Instead of hitting one land unit softer than the archer line, you split this already low damage to two units instead (you aren't going to hit 3 without losing a unit to counterfire)? Bear in mind that the splash damage cannot be higher than the targeted damage. That isn't going to make me use siege units against land units.
Yes we can remove the -10% with this. Not sure what the state of Atlatist balance is but some change there also, I suppose.
So I find Splash is quite a fun mechanic that feels distinct. Here's a list of times it works really well
a) Defending a City. You can hit many units with the Splash if the opponent pushes in, sometimes like 5(!)
b) Similar to the above but for attacking Naval units. Often Naval melee come near the coast (City) and they cannot counter fire on you anyway.
c) When attacking a defensive front (incl. City/Fort/Citadel), although you might not hit the full number, it seems more tile-efficient than archers
d) Uncommon but sometimes you can kill a unit with Splash, so its great damage efficiency and feels sneaky and cool
e) Just feels good with Logistics. People probably haven't tried Logistics+Splash II very often since you need 6 promos. This cuts it by 2 so its a boost to fun!
This is also goes to 15 now.
So I find Splash is quite a fun mechanic that feels distinct. Here's a list of times it works really well
a) Defending a City. You can hit many units with the Splash if the opponent pushes in, sometimes like 5(!)
b) Similar to the above but for attacking Naval units. Often Naval melee come near the coast (City) and they cannot counter fire on you anyway.
c) When attacking a defensive front (incl. City/Fort/Citadel), although you might not hit the full number, it seems more tile-efficient than archers
d) Uncommon but sometimes you can kill a unit with Splash, so its great damage efficiency and feels sneaky and cool
e) Just feels good with Logistics. People probably haven't tried Logistics+Splash II very often since you need 6 promos. This cuts it by 2 so its a boost to fun!
This is also goes to 15 now.
HeroOfTheSword
Warlord
I've just recently played with this alternative to scouts and I am pleased to say that it is a fantastic addtition as you actually have to think about where you are moving your scouts now. Plus I see a huge benefit in one of Brazil's unique units, forget the name of it now, but you get science and culture I think from revealing tiles but because of the super scout problem early game by the time I get to this unit on the tree it's almost completely useless. Any inclination to have it added into the base vp? I think it's a great solution to the super scout issue!
