Hokath's Tweaks

I have placed a reference to the Camels and Quartz in this modinfo so if you are using a new version (and you cleared the cache), the load order should be correct and you don't need to make the changes Jarcast gave above.
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.
 
If cache is cleared they have always worked (for me). If cache is not cleared they don't seem to work at all! :D

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:
Clear cache always works, unless Steam Workshop mods are involved.

Can you explain why moving pikeman earlier alone isn't enough, outside of thematic reasons?
 
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.
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.
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.
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.
 
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.
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.

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.
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?

you're still stuck in your initial continent when Cannons unlock
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.
No extra iron sources you can settle.
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. :)
 
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.
This is why I prefer my experience of test games to theoretical arguments, eh?
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.
 
This is also subjective!
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.

But you're not going to save Iron for a couple of eras for the eventual Cannon upgrades.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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
Spoiler :

Siege Rework
I really don't think Siege Units are where they need to be. With them Cities fall (at the correct rate imo), but without them you are in for a slog. Sadly until Field Gun many Cities just cannot be hit due to Terrain, or can only be hit from limit spots that sometimes you can't even get a Trebuchet to in the first place. Not to mention if you don't take the City none of these are coming home. But then, if you get Range, all issues are solved. There's a similar problem in the Field line where what you really want is Splash+Logistics. Early (and most of mid game) if you can't get highly promoted Siege (because the closest enemy Cities were in forests/hills/etc.), they feels borderline useless, might as well just build more Archers. Domination just got way harder than if you came away with 3 range Trebs and there wasn't anything you could do. This is no fun.
Thanks to FlamingCheesePie for discussion on this
Spoiler :
Code:
Promotions
  Range
   -- no longer available to Siege
      (still on Archers, but I think the "Azum tweak" would be healthy, i.e. no promo below max hp)

  Repair (March)
   -- Replaces Range at Siege III
   -- Also has +5 Healing
     still "unfair" against Cities but allowing counterplay instead of shooting from far

  Siege Engine
   -- now also grants "Shoots over Obstacles"
    
  Indirect Fire
   -- not granted to Field Gun and Artillery for free
     note the -% RCS on this promo is also lost

  Siege Inaccuracy
   -- increased to -50% (from -33%)
    to compensate increased indirect fire indirect buff ;)
    and larger number of hits from siege

  Field Line
   Siege that are for combat, but don't want to just feel like Archers
   -- No longer grants +RCS against Open Terrain
   -- Now grants 5 Splash at each level

  Splash Line
   -- No longer available to Siege

  Spotters
   -- New promo at Field II
   -- +2 Visibility Range
   -- 5% Attack and 20% Defense per adjacent owned land unit

  Resourcefulness
   -- New promo at Siege I
    to mirror the new naval cannon promo
   -- +5 XP and +15 HP when pillaging
     so you can go in with this guy first and sneak in another turn vs a city
     should be good in the early game especially and an alternative/supplement to Cover II
Note: I also tried making Range baseline instead. It's quite game-warping and results in lots of hits from the fog and high death rates (not unhealthy but can feel unfun), so I opted for Indirect Fire.

 
@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.
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.
 
Small Ideology Balance update to harmonize (ha ha) with the updates to the Harmony Ideology.
A few more sources of Tourism to the "Culture Victory" Ideologies that were short on them.
Spoiler :

Code:
Order
 Communism
  -- Removed +20% Production to Wonders
    small bonus, especially for how late it comes: wonders aren't usually a prod race anymore
  -- +10 Tourism from Courthouses
    bonus for annexing, go wide!
    eventually links up with iron curtain
  -- +1 Tourism per 4 non-Specialist Citizens
    lacking Tourism options on T1

  Workers Faculties
  -- Added % Tourism to the Factory also
    again, there is basically not culture victory in T1
  -- Reduced to 5% modifiers (reverted old buff)
    this policy is very strong anyway for T1 imo
    even with post-my-nerf Factories, this is 5 coal

Autocracy
  New World Order
  -- Name semi-reverted to Secure Borders
  -- Added Mine Fields
    under used building gets a bit of love. makes good sense
  -- Changed yields to +3 Production, Culture, and Tourism (from +3 Culture, +5 Production)
    Autocracy lacking some T1 Tourism options

  Mare Nostrum
  -- Added +2 Tourism to the Fishing Boats/Offshore Platforms/Atolls
    A little weak for T2 tile boost and we are still missing Tourism bonuses
 
Last edited:
Recon Rework
Recently scout units have changed to address movement concerns, but I think there are two big problemos still remaining:
1) The map is revealed too early. Your starting Pathfinder explores too much of the world by itself too soon. (There is a concomitant 'super scout' problem)
2) The Trailblazer line is required for scouting but results in a much weaker unit. This is especially a problem for an AI with a Recon-line UU.
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!
 
Top Bottom