Late Game Conquest

@Aristos
I would be okay with reducing damage to make battles slower. Vem cannot scale up hitpoints further at this time because the variable which controls minimum damage is in the game core only Firaxis has access to. Raising hitpoints without altering that variable would produce the wrong effect, by making steamrolling easier against tech-inferior forces. Firaxis scaled up hitpoints and damage further than Vem can because they have access to that variable. The principle is the same, however.

Well, I am not convinced that the cited side-effect is bad... I am seeing that in my present experiment, and I like it; for example, a promoted swordsman fights a promoted pikeman (and yes, I am seeing the AI promoting correctly), and the fight is very close, although a little in favor of the swordsman (as it should be), but the pikeman lives to fight another day, even if barraged by arrows before the charge (something that you would not see in vanilla or in VEM with 20 HPs and increased damage). Also, when same said swordsman charges an archer, the archer gets almost wiped out (as it should be, and an effect of the core variable you are mentioning).

Bottom line, I am not sure that what you say is really a problem for the combat side of the game... my first impression is quite the opposite, I am finding this crazy 50/100 HPs experiment quite fun.
 
After thinking this over for some time, I decided I'd like to try shifting :c5war: XP from early to late game, and consolidate the military training facilities. (I slightly buffed Elizabeth's trait and left Dojos unchanged.) This shift has several advantages:

  • Less necessary to start conquest victories in the classical/ancient eras. Units built later start with more xp, allowing them to somewhat catch up to players who started earlier.
  • Higher xp gives us more combinations of fun promotions to choose from.
  • Increases the importance of barracks/armory/academy, which were not built often.
  • Coastal military training cities are now more valuable.
  • The cost of promotions scales exponentially, so armies with high xp are more similar. Going from 0 to 40 xp gains 2 promotions, while going from 100 to 140 gains 0 promotions.



 

Attachments

  • Promo Cost.PNG
    Promo Cost.PNG
    5 KB · Views: 1,066
  • Experience.PNG
    Experience.PNG
    18.8 KB · Views: 333
Hello!

I agree that the main problem for the steamrolling effect is the human players nearly never loses units, instead they only get better. With some changes to the promotions and units the AI could get more competitive in war.

Promotions
1. Abandon promotions that are only or at least much more benefiting the human like blitz (so absurdly imbalanced for ranged units/ships and the AI never gets it), +1 range and march.

2. Another big problem is the ground based system of the promotions. The human player is clever enough to kill the AI units with 2-3 heavy ground promotions in the open, where they effectively have no promotion at all. So I would suggest to go back to civ4 promotion system (if possible). Instead of ground based bonus (open/heavy ground) give +10 % combat strength per promtion. This would benefit AI and human alike and not only the human.

3. A Unit that is upgraded should lose some exp (so it needs longer to get new promotions) and perhaps the latest promotion. (I have no idea if such a mechanism is possible.)

Units
1. Weaken all ranged units ranged damage severly (perhaps halved), but increase their melee a bit. So an adequate part of the damage has to come from melee units, which would lead to losing more units. And no range 3-unit before rocket artillery.

2. Because of the bad ressource management of the AI its to easy to prevent them from using the ressource based units effectively. I think it would be a good idea if there would be a weaker version of some of the resource based units at the same tech. (Example: A strength 10 unit without need for iron and for exact the same costs as swordman.) This would make effective war without the ressource units easier. In some situations it will help the human player, too, but it will more often benefit the AI.

3. Ships before Destroyer/Battleship should have only melee range. The AI has absolutly no idea how to use a fleet (if it feels to build one), so this would give the AI a chance to defend coastal areas. And wooden ships firing up to 3 fields inland is only annoying from a realistic point of view. (Should be possible with the addon.)

The suggested changes will obviously not transform the AI into a strategic genius, but they will make some of the human players too easy strategies/tricks to conquer the AI weaker.
 
3. A Unit that is upgraded should lose some exp (so it needs longer to get new promotions) and perhaps the latest promotion. (I have no idea if such a mechanism is possible.)

I did something similar to this for v131.41. Instead of old units losing experience, new units get more experience. Both approaches make old units less effective against new ones. :)

Part of the challenge with a topic like this balancing AI effectiveness with fun gameplay. Some things are difficult for the AI to manage, but still very fun for the human player. Removing them might make the game a more challenging but less interesting. Examples of this are complex promotions (terrain specific, range, blitz, etc). Removing these would simplify the game, so it's easier for the AI to handle, yet would also make combat less interesting. I'd like to focus on finding things that help the AI, and provide exciting gameplay.
 
Promotions
1. Abandon promotions that are only or at least much more benefiting the human like blitz (so absurdly imbalanced for ranged units/ships and the AI never gets it), +1 range and march.

2. Another big problem is the ground based system of the promotions. The human player is clever enough to kill the AI units with 2-3 heavy ground promotions in the open, where they effectively have no promotion at all. So I would suggest to go back to civ4 promotion system (if possible). Instead of ground based bonus (open/heavy ground) give +10 % combat strength per promotion. This would benefit AI and human alike and not only the human.

Units
1. Weaken all ranged units ranged damage severly (perhaps halved), but increase their melee a bit. So an adequate part of the damage has to come from melee units, which would lead to losing more units. And no range 3-unit before rocket artillery.

3. Ships before Destroyer/Battleship should have only melee range. The AI has absolutly no idea how to use a fleet (if it feels to build one), so this would give the AI a chance to defend coastal areas. And wooden ships firing up to 3 fields inland is only annoying from a realistic point of view. (Should be possible with the addon.)

Promos
1) Have to agree with Blitz; alternatively just grant it (the +1 attack version, of course) to tanks as a native promotion and make it CannotBeChosen. +1 Range is what I always rush my sea units towards, granting them huge advantage vs. other shipping and cities.

What to do with March?? It's granted to all units by the Pentagon, which I WILL get if at all possible. Also, March grants healing to naval units without Recon2 even in enemy territory (or Recon1 in neutral). Addendum: Evil thought -- Grant all Barbarians March promotion. /Addendum

Do you use the Medic promotion? I have NEVER seen the AI have it (not that the AI would know how to use it). Yet another unfair player advantage.
I have taken to have Medic require Shock/Drill_3 instead of Trenches/Guerrilla_1.*

2) While the AI concentrate all their non-horse/armor/siege promos on heavy terrain, it leaves them wide open on the flats, where I put half or more of my promotions. I have tried altering open terrain OrderPriority but it has had no affect.

What DOES work to a quite satisfactory extent is: Drill_1 requires Shock_1 and Guerrilla_1 requires Trenches_1; reduce requirements of promos requiring Shock/Guerrilla_3 to ... _2 as desired. The AI mixes some of their promotions among open & heavy, and you also see some strong open-terrain units. Strong player advantage essentially neutralized.

Another problem I have with Thal's promotion philosophy is the strengthening of so many promotions; e.g., adding +1 sight or movement to several vanguard & naval promos, in addition to anti-fortification/city promos becoming so powerful that being fortified or a city can be a BAD thing! I find it 'wrong' that a frigate has such sight-range that a fighter on a carrier is no better.

I intend to reduce Drill, Barrage, Siege & Volley strengths by 10-15%, but add +5% vs. fortified to Drill & Barrage (problems of rough, fortifications & cities are similar).

Units
1) Could work (re-envision the siege unit as siege-supported melee), but a player will still (if necessary) wait until there's only 1HP left before finalizing the assault. City assaults should not be lossless, regardless of city condition. The effectiveness of an area-effect weapon should decrease as the target density (i.e., hit points) decreases so it would be bleepin' DIFFICULT to destroy a unit with ranged units!

3) I have toyed with the naval 1-hex range, and in conjunction with reduced sight-range I just MIGHT do so. Surprises (even disasters) are a GOOD thing!
(And I play on LARGE maps (epic speed), but at Prince difficulty). :)

--
* My alterations to VEM suspended during the Beta versions

I remind those who disagree with my philosophy to read my sig. I prefer immersion to fun, I play much of my games in role playing mode, and I suffer from Rommel Syndrome.
 
Promos
1) Have to agree with Blitz; alternatively just grant it (the +1 attack version, of course) to tanks as a native promotion and make it CannotBeChosen.
Would this really net help the AI? I haven't really seen it use Blitz all that effectively, compared to my/human use.

+1 Range is what I always rush my sea units towards, granting them huge advantage vs. other shipping and cities.
Yes, I agree. Maybe make it +1 range, but -40% strength? This would be interesting to try out for Blitz, too.

Addendum: Evil thought -- Grant all Barbarians March promotion. /Addendum
I'd support this if it were limited to +1 or maybe +2 HP per turn.

Units
1) Could work (re-envision the siege unit as siege-supported melee), but a player will still (if necessary) wait until there's only 1HP left before finalizing the assault. City assaults should not be lossless, regardless of city condition. The effectiveness of an area-effect weapon should decrease as the target density (i.e., hit points) decreases so it would be bleepin' DIFFICULT to destroy a unit with ranged units!
Yeah, it'd be great if siege/ranged weapons could only reduce a City to half HP or something like that.
Or just nerf them hugely against Cities, but add a Great General-like combat bonus against Cities for any unit within 1 tile of a siege weapon (preferably set-up ones only).
 
Would this really net help the AI? I haven't really seen it use Blitz all that effectively, compared to my/human use.

I think Jaybe was agreeing that Blitz should be removed.

So are you guys talking about ranged blitz or melee blitz? The AI IME uses ranged blitz very effectively (check China's military expansion in the medieval era some time) and melee blitz is not *that* powerful on normal melee troops, though it is moreso on mounted/armor units, so perhaps we could eliminate the option for that line and/or ships.

Maybe make it +1 range, but -40% strength?

I was going to suggest something similar!:) It would make for more varied/interesting decisions wrt which promotions to choose.
 
Yes, I agree. Maybe make it +1 range, but -40% strength? This would be interesting to try out for Blitz, too.

I like this if it only pertains to firing from the +1 range. It's a very realistic mechanism.

So are you guys talking about ranged blitz or melee blitz? The AI IME uses ranged blitz very effectively (check China's military expansion in the medieval era some time) and melee blitz is not *that* powerful on normal melee troops, though it is moreso on mounted/armor units, so perhaps we could eliminate the option for that line and/or ships.

Eliminating blitz on mounted units definitely crosses the "fun" line for me, especially given how relatively little effect it has on easy victories overall. Reducing the impact also doesn't make sense to me; the unit is fresh at the start, and is automatically banged up prior to its second charge.
 
I like the idea to make the barbs regenerate hp ( 1 hp always and 2 when idle would be perfect ).
Human will find a way and AI can simply get his strength vs Barbs increased.

However that would only make early game harder - and if u ask me way more interesting - but have no effect on the human vs AI civ conquest problem.
 
Some of these proposals have been made recently. They make sense... and make the game less fun.

I think what is more fun is a very subjective decision. I don't like the absolute domination of ranged units in human players armies, but other may disagree.:)

Part of the challenge with a topic like this balancing AI effectiveness with fun gameplay. Some things are difficult for the AI to manage, but still very fun for the human player. Removing them might make the game a more challenging but less interesting. Examples of this are complex promotions (terrain specific, range, blitz, etc). Removing these would simplify the game, so it's easier for the AI to handle, yet would also make combat less interesting. I'd like to focus on finding things that help the AI, and provide exciting gameplay.

I generally agree with you. But not in this. Blitz on ranged units seems to me a no-brainer. It is the best decision in every situation. The worth of the unit with blitz is more than double of what it was without blitz. Thats too much for me.

Same goes with the ground based promotions. A unit with drill 3 on a hill is extremly strong (~+100 %). The same unit in the open will be a pushover (-20% for being attacked in the open). And to play against someone (AI) who is absolutely not aware of this, feels wrong for me.
Clever unit placement was a crucial part of combat in all civ games, but the differences between a player who is aware of this and an AI who is not, were never so big.

By the way I never liked the malus for being attacked on flat tiles. Get a def bonus on hills and woods good, but to get no bonus on plains would be enough handicap without an extra malus.

What DOES work to a quite satisfactory extent is: Drill_1 requires Shock_1 and Guerrilla_1 requires Trenches_1; reduce requirements of promos requiring Shock/Guerrilla_3 to ... _2 as desired. The AI mixes some of their promotions among open & heavy, and you also see some strong open-terrain units. Strong player advantage essentially neutralized.

I intend to reduce Drill, Barrage, Siege & Volley strengths by 10-15%, but add +5% vs. fortified to Drill & Barrage (problems of rough, fortifications & cities are similar).

I would prefer the non-ground dependent system, but this seems a good compromise.:goodjob:

So are you guys talking about ranged blitz or melee blitz? The AI IME uses ranged blitz very effectively (check China's military expansion in the medieval era some time) and melee blitz is not *that* powerful on normal melee troops, though it is moreso on mounted/armor units, so perhaps we could eliminate the option for that line and/or ships.

Problem is that the AI never gets its units so experienced to get blitz or the other advanced and powerful promotions (except China of course). Even the AI can make devastating attacks with blitz on crossbowmen. If the AI can use blitz effectively it must be imba...:lol:
 
Problem is that the AI never gets its units so experienced to get blitz or the other advanced and powerful promotions (except China of course).

I saw an AI blitz knight in my last game, on a civ that hadn't been warring much at all, so it does happen occasionally. They often have level-three promotions, if only because VEM gives them a head start. And just about every Vanguard unit has the extra-move promotion. Army to army, I don't think a meaningful promotion gap exists. I certainly wouldn't want to lose the fun of a hard-earned blitz promotion due to an attempt to make warfare more balanced. (And if it's not fun for you, don't choose it! I never use the Vanguard mountain-crossing promotion, which I find much more devastating to balance.)
 
If there was some way for a 2nd blitz attack to not add to XP, I would like that (to whatever extent blitz were retained). Currently for the player, a second attack/turn is a great way to get a POWERFUL unit.


By the way I never liked the malus for being attacked on flat tiles. Get a def bonus on hills and woods good, but to get no bonus on plains would be enough handicap without an extra malus.

It basically means that attack strength is greater than defense (except for vanguard units). I favor requiring open terrain promotion first for the realism aspect: historically (especially ancient & classical periods), forces would generally deploy on the plains for battle and CCC (command/control/communications) are much easier in open terrain. In addition to avoiding the sucker punch the AI gets when caught in the open, of course.
 
Barbarians don't heal so giving them March would not do anything.

I'd like to focus on finding things that help the AI, and provide exciting gameplay.
I generally agree with you. But not in this.

I believe your goal is to make combat harder against the AI? There's two ways to do this:

  • Give more experience to the AI.
  • Remove options from the human.
I like the first approach. :)

This is the main area where I differ with Firaxis. I balance by targeting what's overpowered:

  • Nerfed culture cost reducing effects.
  • Nerfed instaheal promotion.
  • Nerfed great person golden ages.
  • Reduced the power of early specialists.
Firaxis' approach takes choices away from the player:

  • Removed the option to save policies.
  • Removed the option to save promotions.
  • Removed the GA option from great people.
  • Removed early specialists.
I like balancing in ways that keep the game complex and interesting. A great example of a company who recognizes this is Bethesda. They create a fun experience, even if some odd AI behavior slips into the game. It doesn't deter fans... quite the opposite! Look at all the funny Skyrim video parodies out there. Sure we'd like Skyrim to have a better AI... but would it be as charming or memorable? :)

In contrast, I feel this is where Blizzard took a questionable route with WoW. Classic sure did have lots of quirks and imbalances, but years of polishing took somehow away the character, the charm of the game for me. It's quirks that make a game memorable. We can make Civ challenging and keep its complexity.

By the way I never liked the malus for being attacked on flat tiles. Get a def bonus on hills and woods good, but to get no bonus on plains would be enough handicap without an extra malus.

I did extensive autoplay tests on this, and discovered it helps the AI. Autoplays with a high attacker-favor bonus had many more successful AI conquest attempts than autoplays with a low attacker bonus. Larger AI empires produce more science, so they are more challenging for the human to deal with.
 
You get another vote from me as far as adding a -40% attack penalty for the +1 range on ships. That promotion right now is an automatic for me, range is superior to any other upgrade.
 
AI is getting a lot of free promotions at higher diff settings, but almost always use the rough terrain type. How about giving AI promotion to all units that boost their combat strength by 10 % on flat land ? It would make the AI much less vulnerable vs player, and wont effect AI vs AI that much.

If anything it could even be just +10 % defense on flat.
 
I don't see how that would really help. It would just make it slightly harder for the humans to beat the AI but it sure wouldn't stop it from happening.

As well as that, it would hinder offensive AI's, who already have a very hard time managing to win even a single war.
 
If we give the bonus to both defense and offense it shouldn't affect AI vs AI that much.
Ofc it wont stop player from conquering the AI. Nothing will!
But it will improve the performance of AI army vs human quite much, considering the small size of needed modification.
One idea alone wont solve the problem, but many combined can :]

Maybe Thal could make it a stand alone little add-on mod so that we can test it out ( if it isn't to much coding )

GL HF
 
I'm willing to try it out, I'm just a little skeptical. Right now though, wars with the AI have become much, much harder, due to their more intelligent purchasing of units. It's made a big difference.
 
I'm willing to try it out, I'm just a little skeptical. Right now though, wars with the AI have become much, much harder, due to their more intelligent purchasing of units. It's made a big difference.

Indeed the AI is doing much much better now then b4.
I just got rushed by Songhai with upgraded lvl4 swordmans, catapults and lot support units. Tho i was safe as he had only weak warriors few turn earlier.

Was able to hold off the attack after setting 2 defensive positions on hills and shooting hes units on flats. Lost few units and some other just barely survived, and thats when i came with the idea.

With the flat boost i would had still won, but my looses would be much more severe.

GL HF
 
Top Bottom