Land Combat Balace Poll 'M'

[Tlalynet]

This is the land combat balance poll that a lot of people have contributed options too. It primarily covers the topics http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=353060 and http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=352482 but it also touches on other, older topics concerning hunter\ranger balancing.

I hope I got everyone options in here.

 

[Senethro]

Alright, I know not everyone has read those threads or is even interested in them, so I'm going to give a short summary of my opinions. If you want the long version or to discuss them then please bring it to one of the linked threads.

Why do Warriors need a nerf?
Warriors don't need a nerf, but Bronze Warriors do. 25 hammers will get you 4Strength unit with 25% city defense. That immediately makes Hunters useless and Archers doubtful. Its generally better to defend by building two Warriors and attacking than one Archer and defending, and it'll get you more XP too. They don't quite beat Axemen by the same degree until you remember that you have to build a Training Yard to get Axemen. A Training Yard is 4 Warriors, so by the time you've build 8 Axemen from two cities, an opponent could have built 24 Warriors from two equivalent cities. Who do you think will win that fight?

Over short distances Bronze Warriors make Axemen redundant by being 25 hammers for 4Str compared with 60 hammers for 5.

Why take Mithril away from Axemen?
Its the same logic again. Do you pay 60 hammers for a Str 8 unit or 120 hammers for a Str10 Champion? Honestly though, this is less of a problem as Mithril Working is 10000 beakers even by lowish difficulty levels so anyone researching it has likely won already. Its just tying up a loose end.

Why not obsolete warriors at bronze working/make them more expensive?
If warriors obsolete then any new city built will be unable to build its own defenders until its build a Training Yard. If they're more expensive then I wouldn't put good odds on anyone surviving Raging Barbarians. In case its not clear, I think these are bad things.

Why make Hunting cheaper?
Two reasons: First, I want animal capturing to become part of the game again. Second, if warriors never get higher than Str 3 then you need a unit to clear out animals and barbarians in the field. Cheap Tech:Hunting and a slightly cheaper Hunting Lodge will let Hunters be this unit and have a role in the game again.

And why make Animal Handling, Poisons and Bowyers cheaper?
Look at Stirrups. Thats the tech for the Tier 3 Mounted unit. Its half the price of AH and Bowyers, so no wonder Horse Archers see a lot more play than Rangers or Longbows. Its not particularly fair! Poisons I feel less strongly about but its certainly an expensive price for a dead end tech that gives one unit.

 

[Tlalynet]

Thank you, very nice writeup Senthro.

I would like it if warriors dissapeared off my list at some point, but even with the Dolevio its pretty harsh when they do as soon as you get BW. TBH I wish warriors dissapeared when you had HBR, BW, Construction, Trade, and Archery, because that covers all their main upgrade paths and would be late enough that you don't need them.

 

[Senethro]

I don't suppose that you can edit "Senthro's 50%tech and 33% Lodge Hunter adjustments are just right" to something simpler like "Cheaper Hunting and Hunting Lodges". People don't seem to be voting for or against Hunting related options and I think its because the way its said in the poll requires them to have been reading previous threads.

 

[Tlalynet]

You have a point, I should have lumped the hunting cost reductions into one vote.

Unfortunately you can't edit a poll once its up, thats why I took a couple days planning before I actually made one.

I also should have put, Animal Handling, Bowers, and Poisons are fine as they are instead of simply puting 'other T3 techs' because now that I read it the Other is very ambiguous.

Oh well.

 

[DaveGold]

I seem to remember that hunting was cheaper at one stage so the reason it was made more expensive could still apply.

 

[Senethro]

I seem to remember that hunting was cheaper at one stage so the reason it was made more expensive could still apply.

Tech: Tracking was cut and the cost associated with it shuffled around. Except, its almost as if its full cost was put on Hunting AND Animal Handling each. That whole line is just a bit too expensive.

Regardless of what actually happened I think there are good reasons to want Hunting cheaper now.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Alright, I know not everyone has read those threads or is even interested in them, so I'm going to give a short summary of my opinions. If you want the long version or to discuss them then please bring it to one of the linked threads.

Why do Warriors need a nerf?
Warriors don't need a nerf, but Bronze Warriors do. 25 hammers will get you 4Strength unit with 25% city defense. That immediately makes Hunters useless and Archers doubtful. Its generally better to defend by building two Warriors and attacking than one Archer and defending, and it'll get you more XP too. They don't quite beat Axemen by the same degree until you remember that you have to build a Training Yard to get Axemen. A Training Yard is 4 Warriors, so by the time you've build 8 Axemen from two cities, an opponent could have built 24 Warriors from two equivalent cities. Who do you think will win that fight?

Over short distances Bronze Warriors make Axemen redundant by being 25 hammers for 4Str compared with 60 hammers for 5.

Why take Mithril away from Axemen?
Its the same logic again. Do you pay 60 hammers for a Str 8 unit or 120 hammers for a Str10 Champion? Honestly though, this is less of a problem as Mithril Working is 10000 beakers even by lowish difficulty levels so anyone researching it has likely won already. Its just tying up a loose end.

Why not obsolete warriors at bronze working/make them more expensive?
If warriors obsolete then any new city built will be unable to build its own defenders until its build a Training Yard. If they're more expensive then I wouldn't put good odds on anyone surviving Raging Barbarians. In case its not clear, I think these are bad things.

Why make Hunting cheaper?
Two reasons: First, I want animal capturing to become part of the game again. Second, if warriors never get higher than Str 3 then you need a unit to clear out animals and barbarians in the field. Cheap Tech:Hunting and a slightly cheaper Hunting Lodge will let Hunters be this unit and have a role in the game again.

And why make Animal Handling, Poisons and Bowyers cheaper?
Look at Stirrups. Thats the tech for the Tier 3 Mounted unit. Its half the price of AH and Bowyers, so no wonder Horse Archers see a lot more play than Rangers or Longbows. Its not particularly fair! Poisons I feel less strongly about but its certainly an expensive price for a dead end tech that gives one unit.

I agree with most of this, except for AH/poisons and obsolescence. Poisons is fine, AH will become fine if its prereq is made cheaper and more attractive, and nothing should ever obsolete, including warriors - you should always be able to build them.

 

[Emptiness]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't agree that there is a problem. If something absolutely had to be done, then I suggest forced obsolescence for Warriors and Scouts. I feel that it would be the most balanced (forced obsolescence of Warriors is already a fact for the Doviello, which one might say is a disadvantage) and least disruptive (Hunters easier to research, prep, and produce? Seriously? Do you never have Svartalfar in your games, or do you just always play them? But I digress...) change.

I was going to write up an opinion on each of the suggestions, and try to explain why I though each would be bad, but I decided not to bother. I'm just weary of discussing this topic.

My advice would be to take the two or maybe three top vote-earning suggestions and work up a modmod that implements them, so that the community can try them out and test how they impact mod balance.

 

[a_civilian]

I think that would be among the more disruptive solutions. Research bronze working and you're suddenly unable to produce any military until you can get training yards up?

 

[Calavente]

Well, after a bit of thinking I chosed :
-hunter are fine, it has been demonstrated that warriors are the issue, not hunters.
-rising the cost of warriors is dangerous in the early game, even for the AI (as barbs gets units for free)and you're doomed if Orthus comes nearby : it would induce that more AI civs get destroyed by him.
-no bronze is also dangerous, especially versus lizardmen or skeletons.(saying you don't have the problem only reveals an AI issue, lone barb attacking you instead of grouping before attack)
-make axemen cost less ? it would move the issue to the axes vs champ.
-obsolet unit ? and how do you build your first defender ? + always nice to have cheap defender to calm your population.


I have 4 proposition : (those are a bit late, coming after the poll but.... worth a try.) :
1) reduce bronze weapons effects.
-make bronze weapons gives +20%str instead of +1str.
for axes and champs or promoted units it would still be better to have iron than bronze. (especially with the bonus against bronze weapons...)
-bronze weapons would still help the warriors but give them a +20% that adds to promotions instead of a flat +33% that is multiplied by promotion.
(issues : change in the way metal weapons works.... ; for phalanx, bronze might be better than iron)=> bad one

2) nerf the warriors power in attack :
-make them 2 units able to get bronze weapons :
same cost as scout so same power ! (replace the 50% vs animal and 2mvt by a 25% city defense + bronze weapons ability. )
I know that skellies would be overkill in that case : BUT A SKELETON army should rout warriors anytime !==> they are thier II units !

For balance issues maybe give them a compensation :
-homeland type caracteristic : +30% in civ borders (make them 2.6 before bronze and 3.9 with bronze, but only inside the civilization borders. (issue : barbs warriors would become non-entities)
-or +25%vs melee (should help to face skellies)
-or give them back iron ... (the same issue discussed before would appear : iron warrior (4, 25) vs iron axes (6, 60)... but only really late game, bronze axes being (5) way better than bronze warriors (3)

3)"bronze working" ups the cost of warriors
make it so bronze working, while giving you bronze weapons makes that warriors costs now 35 instead of 25.
bonus : early defense with warriors is still doable but when you transform them into killing machine with bronze, they have a more balanced cost.
how to justify it ? :
"to make warriors, now, you have to build weapons for them instead of just picking a stick in the woods so it is more expensive".

how to do it : "bronze tech" obsolets "warriors (25)" and replace them by "warriors II(35)"
issues : have to make 21 more unit_NAMES just for a balance issue.
or just : "bronze tech" adds "-30% building rate of warriors".
issue : is it feasable ?

global issues : it would induce micromanagement, people delaying "bronze working" 1-2 turns to have more cheap warriors.

4)change the warrior strength distribution :
-either make them 2/3 or 3/2 ....
strange proposition I know but it would make them worse than axes either in attack or in defense.
It would still help you defend against barbs : either by attacking or by defending.
Both options can have logical explanations.
(I'd rather have 3/2...)


I know those are bad compromise, but as said before I was not really convinced by most propositions about warriors.

 

[Senethro]

Do you never have Svartalfar in your games, or do you just always play them? But I digress...) change.

When I play Svarts I use Mounted and Satyrs, and then fill out the ranks with city taking stacks of Iron Champions backed by Illusionists and Assassins. If a lot of the Nyxkin die I'll replace them with Rangers but otherwise I don't use the recon line until Beastmasters.

My advice would be to take the two or maybe three top vote-earning suggestions and work up a modmod that implements them, so that the community can try them out and test how they impact mod balance.

Thanks, this is a good idea. Have you any suggestion what the easiest way to distribute a balance modmod is that is also easily reversible?

 

[readercolin]

For all the proposals that you are making, all you need to do is modify the XML. As such, you could just attach a zip file to your post and tell people to make a new version of FFH (just copy their old one) and import your files. You could make an executable, but thats rather overkill for modifying just 1-2 xml files.

-Colin

 

[DaveGold]

Hunters easier to research, prep, and produce? Seriously? Do you never have Svartalfar in your games, or do you just always play them?

As it's stands at the moment hunters are balanced for one race, the Svarts, and out of balance for the all the rest. I'd even go as far as to say that if the Svarts have access to bronze & horses they should build horsemen and axemen and ignore their wonderful hunters altogether.

 

[Senethro]

Fair enough, I guess I was hoping for a magic bullet that wouldn't require people to make their own backups and stuff.

Commenting on the results so far, I'm surprised that over 50% of participants think Warriors need an adjustment but very few think there is a problem with Hunting being expensive. Less than half of particpants have even voted for or against something related to Hunting, so maybe its a non-issue or needs its own thread.

 

[Emptiness]

Thanks, this is a good idea. Have you any suggestion what the easiest way to distribute a balance modmod is that is also easily reversible?

Absolutely - just release 2 'modmods'. One with the changes, the other with the original versions of all those files. Run the first to change to the test version, run the other to undo the changes.

 

[Tlalynet]

I could just post my unit and tech XML files as it is, mind I haven't playtested my hunting mod and I've only made the tech 33% cheaper so far (I haven't changed Hunting lodges yet either). I also reduced the cost of IW slightly.

I suppose I could mod and upload the changes once the poll has some clear winners, so long as people know how to put the file in the right folder in the FFH directory, I don't plan on making an installer for such small changes.

As it sits No Bronze Warriors and Axemen don't need mithril weapons are well ahead. 26 people voted for some kind of warrior change (If I'm counting names correctly, give me a margin of error of 2) while 5 voted for them to stay the same. IW is a fair price has a 1 vote edge (11vs 10) over making it slightly cheaper, but no one wants any major cost reductions. 4 people want the line split which not bad either.

There are 6 in favour of some kind of hunting adjustment and 7 against it, and quite a few votes for cheaper animal handling and bowyers.

Less people are talking about hunting but there are quite a few votes on the mater.

I guess if I released a minor mod at this point it would be no bronze warriors for normal hammer cost, no mithril axemen, and cheaper animal handling and bowyers.

 

[SurahAhriman]

I voted for warriors to lose Bronze, but I think the reduction to hunting would be a good off-set for barb-related reasons. As it is, I almost never bother with hunting until I'm looking for hawks for war scouting. It's just prohibitively expensive for what you get, and how early it's available. I loved capturing animals in AoI, but scouts get eaten by most animals (Damn bears), and by the time I have hunting, there are no animals left.

Edit: Just a thought, but having Hawks earlier if the cost of Hunting were reduced by a significant may be overpowered. Maybe bump hawks to a later tech? Though, admittedly, I can't think of anywhere off-hand it might be better.

Would it be possible to limit hawks to the number of units with subdue animal? That might be an appropriate limiter.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

having the recon line get bonuses vs the barbs would be cool indeed. also add a cheap tech that allows camps please.

also melee and metals being 2 different paths is great, since right now you'll be getting melee techs anyway to get metals, so why should you bother with other lines? also needing Iron Working to get animal mastery is ABSURD!!! why do I have to get T3 melee in order to get T4 recon? either allow recon ( and maybe mounted ) as well to use metals, or it doesn't make one bit of sense.

I also voted for no bronze warriors, but I'm no big fan of the "you don't need metals for axe/swords" ... a +25% against warriors for T2 recon, melee and mounted would be nice.

damn, forgot to vote for: "Axes +25% (or more) vs Warrior"

 

[Tlalynet]

@ Surah
I wish there was a good way to deal with hawks, but tieing them to unit promos like that is beyond what I'm going to do, it is possible as that's how skeletons work. It probably wouldn't be that hard, though if someone really wanted to do it that way they should just make hunters have the 'summon hawk' ability to prevent any potential problems with production.

I've considered bumping them to animal handling just because they are so good, but if I did that it would be just for my own game.

@ Gekko
Removing IW as a tech prerequisite for beastmasters is simple enough, creating a different tech for camps is beyond my scope as I don't do anything with graphics. When I put up modded files I could put one up with IW not as mandatory a tech.