Land Combat Balace Poll 'M'

[Angel-Julia]

Good job everyone, this is definutly the way to go to get changes into the main game.

This is a perfect example on how to get a suggestion considered seriously:
1: a poll shows what the general population thinks, this means much more than threads full of arguments which are normally dominated by only 2-3 peoples oppinions

2: making .XML modmod's, this enables people to test this for themselves in the game, and see from their own experiances how the game really works with these changes. first hand experiances means a lot more than some assumption like "In theory weaker warriors will mean we get over run by barbarians". now we can experiance what it's like with the need to get achers or hunters early on to help with defence instead of just hanging on to warriors right into the clasical age.

This type of thread means a lot more than simple logical discussions between a handful of people. And infinutly more effective at getting changes implemented than starting a thread saying something like "th1s gamz suxx. it needz XYZ changed cuz i knowz more aboutz dis gamez dan u n00bz".

Irrespective of if this change is best for the game, or actually a bad idea that will unbalance the game, the approach that Tlalynet took in setting up this topic deserves some respect. beyond that, the polls can speak the voice of the community.

I'm sure a discussion like this will get noticed by the developers. Good luck in getting the changes implemented.

 

[Jabie]

Your poll missed the option of removing buildings requirements for units. E.g. No Training Yard for axemen. The requisite buildings could then be cheapened and provided bonus XP to the relevant combat class.

 

[Angel-Julia]

IMO building requirements do not directly change the land combat balance. if warriors are really better bang for the buck then axemen then training yards or no training yards will not chance it.

IMHO actually as stated, i dont really see warriors as better value. sure 24 warriors vs 10 axemen would mean that the warriors will win, though in the end upkeep and WW play a large role. also 1 more strength means a LOT in this game when promotions and healing is considered between battles. 1STR it means the difference between winning and losing a battle, so the difference between the unit being wasted hammers, or a stronger promoted unit. if the barbarians are sending a str 4 or 5 unit every few turns then the warrior might die, and so in the end be lost hammers. while a axeman with just a bit more strength will win the battle, and continue fighting while getting stronger. thus i am prepaired to pay the 2.4 times the price for 33% more STR if it means that my elites will live longer and stronger.

anyway, i guess building requirements does play a role if warriors are no longer buildable after BW is researched, as that means people can build their axemen defender off the bat in a new city.

BTW, i noticed the poll had an option "Axemen don't need Mithril weapons" what about "Axemen don't need Iron weapons " or was this just a mistake in the poll options?

 

[Emptiness]

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?

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.

2: making .XML modmod's, this enables people to test this for themselves in the game, and see from their own experiances how the game really works with these changes. first hand experiances means a lot more than some assumption like "In theory weaker warriors will mean we get over run by barbarians". now we can experiance what it's like with the need to get achers or hunters early on to help with defence instead of just hanging on to warriors right into the clasical age.

That's why I suggested it. Although I don't agree with the proposed changes, actual testing is the best way to find out if I am right or wrong about the damage they can do. However, 9 possible test files (3 unit, 1 building, and 5 tech) useable in various combinations with one another (and the base, unmodified versions of those files), means that the community is split by the choice of which of ((4x2x6)-1)=47 different tests to perform. This is certainly more versatile than one test (consisting of 1-3 files, distributed together), but in no way is it simpler. Still, with properly reported feedback it is possible that useful information could still be collected. I attempted to help increase the quality of feedback by calling attention to the importance of having testers report which of the files they are using (which is vital if we are to know which changes people think are good and which if any they think are not).

Arguing about whether Tlalynet's alternative to my system (ie modular testing vs a single test package) meets some qualification of "complicated" is irrelevant. (I never claimed his system was "complicated", anyway - I said it was "more complicated" than my suggestion. It is frustrating when your words are constantly misrepresented simply to provide an opportunity for someone to pointlessly attack the false version of them - but I digress.) Failing to support my suggestion of accurate data collection from test participants is counterproductive and endangers the usefulness of the entire test. Considering the effort that proponents of these changes have been puting forth to see them reach the main mod, I would think that endangering the test would draw criticism, not praise.

1: a poll shows what the general population thinks, this means much more than threads full of arguments which are normally dominated by only 2-3 peoples oppinions

I'm confused because actually the idea of making this into a poll was your idea:

maybe someone should make a poll on this.

So #1 was your idea and #2 was my idea, but you give credit for both ideas to someone else:

Good job Tlalnet <snip>
the approach that Tlalynet took to this topic deserves some respect.

Are you are trying to rewrite (very recent) history? To what purpose? You might have more success if the counterproof was not a matter of record. Whatever the reason for your post, it is certainly very strange.

 

[Senethro]

jesus christ emptiness chill what made you take this personally

 

[Angel-Julia]

You have some very good points emptiness.

I wasn&#8217;t directing criticism at anyone, my sincerest appologies if it was taken that way. I also was not trying specifically give credit either. The whole community collectively derserves the credit of caring about this game enough to put in the effort of giving feedback to try to improve it.

in my previous post I was meerly praising how well this whole process is going, and was trying to highlight it in the forums as an example for other people wanting to make future changes to the game.

I think we are all trying to achieve the same goal, that the final game is better balanced, and so more fun.

The challenging thing with games like this is the balance is VERY delicate, changing one unit/tec/building/aspect will impact the whole balance and may cause other side effects.

Yes I get your point about there bieing too many tests to perform, especially since everyone plays different races, difficulty levels etc.

It&#8217;s actually kind of funny, I&#8217;m personally not that passionate about this topic, though I&#8217;m a researcher, and like well balanced games, so I cant help but think of this in a logical way that will show what variation the general population prefers.


anyway, here are my humble thoughts on how this could proceed, i'm sure many other people will also have very valuable ideas;

As in any scientific experiment it is best to control only one variable at a time and compare it to a control group. Changing all elements at once will not give any meaningful comparison.

I&#8217;m just looking at the results now at the top responces from something like 100 votes. These numbers will change as more people vote, though will probably remain proportionatly similar.
37.7% No Bronze warriors
36.5% Cheaper animal handling and bowyers
36.5% Pie.
35.3% Axemen don't need Mithril weapons
30.6% Iron Working is a fair price as it is
24.7% Axes +25% (or more) vs Warriors
23.5% Senthro's 50%tech and 33% Lodge Hunter adjustments are just right
21.2% Warriors are fine as they are

Now for simplisticy of the experiments we can simplify them into different tests:

First test: combat balance for potentially overpowered warriors.

No Bronze warriors
Vs
Axes +25% (or more) vs Warriors
Vs
Warriors are fine as they are



This can be run with a modmod with only these aspects changed and nothing else. Then reported in a poll that people can only answer if they have played a game with the modmod.

It could even be better just to select the one change: bronze weapon or not on the warrior.

Which is best:
1: No Bronze warriors
2: Axes +25% (or more) vs Warriors
3: Warriors are fine as they are
4: I have not tested the modmod but am here anyway



Experiment 2: Tech/other adjustments.
Cheaper animal handling and bowyers
Vs
Senthro's 50%tech and 33% Lodge Hunter adjustments are just right
Vs
The techs are fine as they are.

This should also be done via experiment with people only responding after playing with the change.

I think that the first experiment on combat balance should take precedence as that was the whole point behind the original threads that started this all.

If we run these tests, and get a significant % of the people that have played both original and modmod all agreeing that the version with warriors not having bronze weapons being better than that is scientific proof about it improving the balance.

Balance changes that are scientifically tested by the population and proven to improve the gameplay will undoutably warrant implementation into the main mod. statistics from these test results will mean a lot more than what any of us can write in a post about our oppinion on what is best.

If we wish to change other aspects then we should similary run separate tests accordingly with only changing one variable and then comparing responces.



P.S. can i please have some pie?

 

[Tlalynet]

It should be noted that both the poll and the .XML changes where Angel-Julia's idea.

does anyone know where bronze weapons are in the .xml? i might try a game with no bronze for warriors.

was said way back in the warriors to axeman thread. I had the xml changes done the next morning. Handing those changes, and the other changes people apparently want out is primarily a mater of courtesy.

The only two .xml files pertinent to the warrior discussion have only 5 hammers difference between them, and that is just for flavoring up scouts. Is there any particular reason to expect significantly different feedback on those changes no mater how else the person plays? Weather they make hunting cheaper or not the point of it is to make people get a teir 2 unit or have a weaker military for not. The tech price changes are just to give people that made various votes a chance to try their votes if they like. It gives other people a chance to see if they would like to make a case for those changes or now.

The only practical thing left to show is that it's not hard to beat off barbarians without bronze warriors.

The only other standing objections are Emptiness's assumptions that warriors are not supposed to obsolete and that weaker units are always supposed to be able to win swarming, I dealt with both of those by explaining things about the game mechanics Emptiness did not know, so I consider those objections dealt with. If there is something else to discuss the thread is still there. Beyond that the constant 'I think everything is fine' dogma is just wasted posts. The 'I'm tired of discussing it' line is just an excuse to re-iterate ones opinions while trying to avoid going back to discussions that are going badly for you because you're dealing with arguments that are based on mechanics you apparently don't quite understand.

@ Angel,
Not a bad suggestions but some options are not mutually exclusive. Cheaper hunting and animal handling can go together, or they can be separate. I don't mind asking Sen to try a raging barb game because I don't play them often and it could provide some information I don't have, but asking people in general for extensive play-testing of these little changes is a bit unrealistic, not even the main mod has every change playtested one by one.

Other than that specific request to Senthro the changes are provided for fun rather than for some plan to have them extensively playtested.

 

[Angel-Julia]

go to the Assets\XML\Units\civ4unitInfos.xml file

the variable you need to change is
iWeaponTier>
it is at the end of the unit info list for each unit
0=no weapons
1=bronze
2=Iron
3=Mythril
you'd need to change it for all warrior variations aswell.


I changed it a long time ago when these discussions started to test the impact. i have suceeded fighting off the raging barbs on diety with no bronze weapons enabled. though it did provide me an incentive to get hunting sooner than i normally would have instead of the usual mining. it is possible to fight off the barbs with STR3 warriors, though not as economical as opening up a better defender (hunters, achers). of course there is always the question of priority with all the other important worker techs

 

[Zifnab]

After thinking about this for a while I've changed my mind from how I initially voted which was basically to not change much except make techs cheaper.

I'd really like to see the metal resources moved off of the melee research line. I've always thought that copper and iron fit better thematically in the construction-engineering line with mithril working perhaps branching off of engineering and arcane lore. The melee techs could be cheapened with these gone.

Additionally if the weapons promotions were tied to warfare, getting a force of bronze warriors is going to take a while. Meanwhile, someone could rush straight for bronzeworking (it would have to be renamed, as would the other melee techs), get axemen and have a melee advantage. As they should.

I'd also like to see warriors lose their city defence bonus. It would make archers have more than novelty value.

This would especially be helped if axemen and champions had their bonuses boosted a bit. Perhaps +25% city attack for axemen and +25% versus melee and +10% city attack for champions?

Basically I think that weapons promotions should be harder to get. Ideally I'd like to see warriors be able to get iron and mithril promotions again, but right now those promotions are too strong. What I think should happen is this:

When you meet the conditions to get any of the weapons promotions your existing units do not get upgraded to them automatically. Instead they may steal weapons promotions. They can only steal a better weapons promotion, and doing so erases their present one.

When you build a unit, it has a chance to be created with a weapons promotion. This chance is controlled by how many of a resource you have compared to how large your empire is. More resources or smaller empire means a higher chance to get weapons. Helps simulate scarcity. Also makes it harder to steamroll the entire world if you get a tech advantage.

Have bronze weapons give +25% strength.
Have iron weapons give +1 strength, +35% strength
-both can keep their lightning weakness
Have mithril weapons give +2 strength, +50%strength



Swarming should be a viable strategy. It is just that right now, there are not enough negative consequences for using it. I propose increasing the amount of war weariness from losing units by attacking to the point where your citys will start having massive unhappiness problems if you send stack after stack of units away to die.


Addressing some of the other poll options, I think hunting and bowyers should be cheaper. I'd prefer some of the other techs be buffed by coming up with things to add to them, not by cheapening them.

It would be nice if FFH followed some of the modmods examples and split the barb civs. Animals could spawn later into the game, and give hunters, rangers, and the most worthless unit in the game given its requirements, the beastmaster more of a point again.

If what I stated were followed and ignoring city attack, defense bonuses, and building requirements, I believe the following would be true:

Standard:
Warrior 3 strength, 25 hammers 8.33 ham/str
Axeman 4 strength, 60 hammers 15 ham/str
Champion 6 strength, 120 hammers 20 ham/str but 16 ham/str vs. melee

Bronze: +25% str
Warrior 3.75 strength, 25 hammers 6.67 ham/str
Axeman 5 strength, 60 hammers 12 ham/str
Champion 7.5 strength, 120 hammers 16 ham/str but 13.3 ham/str vs. melee

Iron: +1 strength, +35% strength
Warrior 5.4 strength, 25 hammers 4.63 ham/str
Axeman 6.75 strength, 60 hammers 8.89 ham/str
Champion 9.45 strength, 120 hammers 12.7 ham/str but 10.7 ham/str vs. melee

Mithril: +2 strength, +50% strength
Warrior 7.5 strength, 25 hammers 3.33 ham/str
Axeman 9 strength, 60 hammers 6.67 ham/str
Champion 12 strength, 120 hammers 10 ham/str but 8.57 ham/str vs. melee

 

[cabbagemeister]

I'm a huge fan of splitting the metal and melee tech lines. I think this would be the best possible way to reduce the tendency to always go for axemen and champions in the midgame, and would encourage more horseman/hunter armies. However, I believe that splitting metal from melee would only make the warrior/axeman imbalance worse. If I'm going to choose between a Bronze-enabling tech and an Axemen enabling tech, why would I EVER choose the Axemen?

Bronze enabling tech gives you:
Str 4, 30 hammer units with no building prereq

Axemen enabling tech gives you:
Str 4, 60 hammer units that require a building

Even if the Bronze tech was three times as expensive, I would ALWAYS choose it.

 

[Angel-Julia]

splitting the tec lines is an interesting solution. with 21% of the population voting for it.

this option has many side-effects, it means that two lines would be needed to be researched in order to get the full melee advantage, thoughg i assume the research cost will also be divided between the two.

this would strengthen the horse line as getting metal promotions for the horses will become easier due to the reduced cost of getting the metals.

balancing this might be a challenge, as it means deciding where the tech split off, what item is where, and the research cost of each item.

it should also be designed so the best results is from getting good units with good weapons. i.e. it's better to research both lines and get bronze axemen instead of focusing on one line and getting champions without weapons or warriors with iron weapons etc.

as cabbage pointed out, ordinary axemen should trump bronze warriors. thus encouraging moving up the melee line as oppposed to just the metal line.

such a drastic re-design of the tec tree would require significantly more work to implement, meaning we'd have to figure everything out to test such a concept. also getting a more complicated solution accepted when the game is in feture lock is a lot more challenging.

 

[Angel-Julia]

here are the .XMP files for people to test.

the only thing that has been changed is that warriors cant use bronze weapons, and axemen cant use mithril weapons.

Just copy the file over the existing file in your directory:
...\Firaxis Games\Sid Mier's Civilization 4\Beyond the sword\Mods\Fall from Heaven\Assets\XML\Units\

The first file in the zip (CIV4UnitInfos.xml) is for removing bronze weapons from warriors and mithril from axemen

the second file in the zip(titled "Origional copy of CIV4UnitInfos.xml") is the origional patch M units file, you can re-name it accordingly and copy it back to get back to the origional version after testing.

 

[Tasunke]

Perhaps Losing units should increase War Weariness, but Victories should stop gaining War Weariness..... THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH!!!! This is still an era filled with Romanticism about war, and those not focused on the glories of war are already focused on the "glories" of Death or Murder. maybe Liberty or something could give battle WW like normal, I dunno,

But the way I see it, is that Victory on attack = NO WW, Victory on defense = NO WW, any withdrawals = 1 WW. Seige should not cause War Weariness, Undead should not cause War Weariness, Demons should not cause War Weariness, Priests should cause Double War Weariness.

Defeat upon attack = 4 war weariness, Defeat upon Defense = 5 War weariness. Or something like that. Death of a level 6 or greater unit should cause an additional 5 war weariness. Loss of a hero should cost an additional 10 war weariness. Use of the Resurrection spell on a hero should negate the WW caused by his/her death. Or something like that, balance it out however you please. The point is that the Current WW makes total sense for our current world, but almost NO sense for the fantasy setting. I think there could be a static war weariness counter for the current percentage of population mobilized for War in Foreign lands, or something. As well as a Static War Weariness for the current size of your opponent's mobilized army, or something. In this way Giant Armies cause more Weariness, and if your able to kill your opponents army your Weariness will go down. And if you must have WW for "battles" then make it temporary WW, which goes away after 10 turns regardless of other factors.

 

[Tlalynet]

If there was a split I would love to see Mining->Smelting->BW->IW where mining revealed both Iron and Bronze so you knew what you had, the costs of Smelting and BW where switched, and having a forge in a city let you build weapons. Then reduce the cost of Axes to 50 and Champs to 100, make Bronze Weapons cost 20 and Iron Weapons cost 30. Mithril would probably be worth about 50, but 40 might be nicer for a pattern.

Then leave the weapon equips as they are, if you want a bronze warrior you got it, for 45 hammers, Bronze axeman 70 hammers (still the best T2 unit str wise so worth it) and Bronze Champs for 120 hammers (The same as rangers, but slower) Then for a little extra cost they get that Iron STR boost to make them top of their teir. Then weapons are worth something and not just a free str boost to the whole army. I suppose you could pick up lost weapons as well, though picking up a different metal weapon would cause you to drop the previous one.

Then swarming would be viable, if you captured enough weapons to equip your warriors.

Smelting and BW would have to be cheap enough to access relatively soon, but not as cheap as the tech that unlocks axemen.

It would be cool, but as we have a feature lock I don't see it happening.

@ Angel
Glad to hear you survived the raging barbs, and I'm glad to hear it prompted you to teir 2s

@Tasunke

WW is weird, I do agree there. Some civs should have war happiness as far as I'm concerned, though aggressive WW is fair for defensive or peaceful civs.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I just got another idea... sort of cheap, but what if axemen got an additional +25% versus Warriors? It would make massed warriors less effective versus axemen, without really weakening either unit. If 25% isn't enough, it could always be increased.

 

[Tlalynet]

I did put (or more) in parenthesis in the poll. If axemen got +50% vs warriors it would obsolete warriors just by the fact the AI spams axeman and the best defender is always on top of the stack. I would make axes better on the offensive vs the AI anyway.

 

[ADHansa]

I would be very carefull with making Axemen to strong against warriors, or else it will be to easy to destroy civs that have gotten a bad start with Axemen rushes. I wouldn't want a game where the only vialble option always would be to rush bronze working/archers every game or you would be screwed.
This is not a pro/con of any change suggestion, just something that should be taken into consideration.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Huh. I missed that poll option.

I would be very carefull with making Axemen to strong against warriors, or else it will be to easy to destroy civs that have gotten a bad start with Axemen rushes. I wouldn't want a game where the only vialble option always would be to rush bronze working/archers every game or you would be screwed.
This is not a pro/con of any change suggestion, just something that should be taken into consideration.

+25% would only matter on the field, or when the warriors are the ones attacking. On defense, the +25% city defense bonus of warriors cancels out the +25% warrior bonus, and warriors are still much cheaper to build.

 

[mcwill123]

Huh. I missed that poll option.



+25% would only matter on the field, or when the warriors are the ones attacking. On defense, the +25% city defense bonus of warriors cancels out the +25% warrior bonus, and warriors are still much cheaper to build.

Not really true. Your proposed +25% for Axemen vs warriors would make it easier for axemen to take a city from some warriors. I just think that we want to keep options open, so players aren't compelled to rush axemen instead of other alternatives.

 

[cabbagemeister]

Huh. I missed that poll option.



+25% would only matter on the field, or when the warriors are the ones attacking. On defense, the +25% city defense bonus of warriors cancels out the +25% warrior bonus, and warriors are still much cheaper to build.

+25% doesn't cancel out +25% when the units aren't equal strength. +25% for a 5str axeman is +1.25 str. +25% for a 3str warrior is +.75 str. That's a big difference.

(Unless the +25% vs Warriors was one of those sneaky modifiers that's actually -25%, like City Raider.)