Late Game War Tedium Discussion
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
does anyone have teh population to supply formula? Because yeah it never works out like I expect it to when. When it says 10% of my population as supply and I have 10 pop in the city, I expect to get 1 supply....but its always less than that in my experience. So I honestly have no idea how supply from pop is actually calcualted.
If the AI starts folding in wars we can just give them more supply (free building for AI that gives them extra supply) or more buffs.
Less clicks for wars = happier humans, whatever has to be tweaked around that is worth it imo
While obviously I've expressed my desire to totally overhaul the supply system, you are probably right that it wouldn't be necessary to make good progress towards making late game combat more enjoyable.
For me, I think a comprehensive yet still relatively simple (i.e. only changes numbers) solution to late-game combat would involve a three pronged approach of 1) changing how units scale, 2) changing how units interact with and compare with one another, and 3) reducing supply caps, with the goal of keeping total army strength the same, just spread over fewer units that are more distinguishable from one another. This should ideally help with both balance and player experience.
1. By changing how units scale, really I just mean making them scale harder. Currently, as a relatively stereotypical example, the melee infantry line, in terms of CS, scales a total of 1000% between its first tier and final tier, averaging a 43% increase in CS per upgrade. However, the first four upgrades average +48% per upgrade while the final three average just 28%. Obviously the later-game units also gain some promos and other extra attributes, but it still stands that generally speaking the later in the game the unit upgrade, the less impactful it is on gameplay. There are a few notable exceptions to this, such as the siege unit line, but in general this holds true. Even just minor increases to upgrades compound over time to have much stronger units. Like if the final three upgrades averaged +35% instead of +28%, mechanized infantry would have 94 CS instead of 80, an 18% increase, meaning 5 units have nearly the same total CS as 6 do now. And if you did +40%, then mechanized infantry would have 105 CS, a 31% increase, thus making 3 units have nearly the same total CS as 4 do now. However, it isn't quite this simple as how units with different CS values interact doesn't change linearly with changes to CS values, but I think that's largely immaterial to the point I'm trying to make. Proportionate increases to production cost and gold maintenance would necessarily have to follow as well.
2. As a lot of people have said, the Tank line is just kind of busted. Sure, doing stuff like making them cost 2 supply slots or use 2 copies of oil might address that, but it would only do so indirectly and superficially. The fundamental problem with Tanks is that they are just wholesale stronger versions of Infantry. Though not perfect, I think that the distinction between ranged units and siege units is a good model. Field Guns gain Indirect Fire while Gatling Guns gain Covering Fire, sharply pushing the two branches into different directions. And then Artillery gets range but a smaller increase to RCS and Bazookas get Anti-Tank Rounds, further differentiating the two branches. On the other hand, the only meaningful difference between Armor units and Infantry units, beyond the former simply being stronger, is that Armor units are faster (even though railroads often diminish the importance of this bonus). Once both types of units are in the same position, they operate the exact same way, but Armor units just happen to have way more CS. My thinking is to overhaul/remove the Armor Plating promotion, and instead of having Tanks get a bonus defending, have them get a bonus to attacking. After all, Armor Plating does essentially the exact same thing as Entrenchment/DFPs, even though Armor units are ostensibly supposed to be your shock units that bust through enemy lines and create holes your infantry fill in. Possible replacement Armor promotions could be one that gives ranged attack before their melee attack (like the Impi), one that gives area damage on kills or ending your turn next to the unit, or even just a simple +x% CS modifier while attacking like Commandos.
3. This is the most simple one. If you increase the strength and cost of the final tier of units by say 33%, then to help keep everything else in the game in balance you would also need to decrease supply. I also think this is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, in the sense that any changes we make to decrease late-game supply should disproportionately affect large empires, as currently I think large empires have way too big of a supply advantage. Thus, taking away flat supply from the Military Academy and decreasing the supply from population on the Military Base are probably good ways to reduce supply.
Also, re: air combat, I've just started using the air unit action shortcuts and that has dramatically improved my experience with air combat, though healing/upgrading is still pretty annoying and en masse attacks are definitely not strategically optimal all the time.
For me, I think a comprehensive yet still relatively simple (i.e. only changes numbers) solution to late-game combat would involve a three pronged approach of 1) changing how units scale, 2) changing how units interact with and compare with one another, and 3) reducing supply caps, with the goal of keeping total army strength the same, just spread over fewer units that are more distinguishable from one another. This should ideally help with both balance and player experience.
1. By changing how units scale, really I just mean making them scale harder. Currently, as a relatively stereotypical example, the melee infantry line, in terms of CS, scales a total of 1000% between its first tier and final tier, averaging a 43% increase in CS per upgrade. However, the first four upgrades average +48% per upgrade while the final three average just 28%. Obviously the later-game units also gain some promos and other extra attributes, but it still stands that generally speaking the later in the game the unit upgrade, the less impactful it is on gameplay. There are a few notable exceptions to this, such as the siege unit line, but in general this holds true. Even just minor increases to upgrades compound over time to have much stronger units. Like if the final three upgrades averaged +35% instead of +28%, mechanized infantry would have 94 CS instead of 80, an 18% increase, meaning 5 units have nearly the same total CS as 6 do now. And if you did +40%, then mechanized infantry would have 105 CS, a 31% increase, thus making 3 units have nearly the same total CS as 4 do now. However, it isn't quite this simple as how units with different CS values interact doesn't change linearly with changes to CS values, but I think that's largely immaterial to the point I'm trying to make. Proportionate increases to production cost and gold maintenance would necessarily have to follow as well.
2. As a lot of people have said, the Tank line is just kind of busted. Sure, doing stuff like making them cost 2 supply slots or use 2 copies of oil might address that, but it would only do so indirectly and superficially. The fundamental problem with Tanks is that they are just wholesale stronger versions of Infantry. Though not perfect, I think that the distinction between ranged units and siege units is a good model. Field Guns gain Indirect Fire while Gatling Guns gain Covering Fire, sharply pushing the two branches into different directions. And then Artillery gets range but a smaller increase to RCS and Bazookas get Anti-Tank Rounds, further differentiating the two branches. On the other hand, the only meaningful difference between Armor units and Infantry units, beyond the former simply being stronger, is that Armor units are faster (even though railroads often diminish the importance of this bonus). Once both types of units are in the same position, they operate the exact same way, but Armor units just happen to have way more CS. My thinking is to overhaul/remove the Armor Plating promotion, and instead of having Tanks get a bonus defending, have them get a bonus to attacking. After all, Armor Plating does essentially the exact same thing as Entrenchment/DFPs, even though Armor units are ostensibly supposed to be your shock units that bust through enemy lines and create holes your infantry fill in. Possible replacement Armor promotions could be one that gives ranged attack before their melee attack (like the Impi), one that gives area damage on kills or ending your turn next to the unit, or even just a simple +x% CS modifier while attacking like Commandos.
3. This is the most simple one. If you increase the strength and cost of the final tier of units by say 33%, then to help keep everything else in the game in balance you would also need to decrease supply. I also think this is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, in the sense that any changes we make to decrease late-game supply should disproportionately affect large empires, as currently I think large empires have way too big of a supply advantage. Thus, taking away flat supply from the Military Academy and decreasing the supply from population on the Military Base are probably good ways to reduce supply.
Also, re: air combat, I've just started using the air unit action shortcuts and that has dramatically improved my experience with air combat, though healing/upgrading is still pretty annoying and en masse attacks are definitely not strategically optimal all the time.
Rick Drayson
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2020
- Messages
- 74
We have had this discussion before
The fault lies with one unit per tile
Late game war tedium is just one of many player negative symptoms
Players simply cannot kill enough units fast enough to break stalemates caused by unit production speed > unit loss rate. Ranged units only partially reduces this tedium.
We need to be able to concentrate forces which means unit stacking by tile supply unit.
This community is just too stuck on "things are the way they are because they are the way they are"
The fault lies with one unit per tile
Late game war tedium is just one of many player negative symptoms
Players simply cannot kill enough units fast enough to break stalemates caused by unit production speed > unit loss rate. Ranged units only partially reduces this tedium.
We need to be able to concentrate forces which means unit stacking by tile supply unit.
This community is just too stuck on "things are the way they are because they are the way they are"
Anarcomu
King
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2022
- Messages
- 794
Allowing stacking of units in one tile won't reduce amount of units to move on the map, and since the enemy can do the same, it just solve nothing.
Reducing overall amount of unit on the map as a concept is straightforward, the precise implementation might be hard to come with, but you can hardly fail to reduce micro (number of clicks).
Reducing overall amount of unit on the map as a concept is straightforward, the precise implementation might be hard to come with, but you can hardly fail to reduce micro (number of clicks).
Yeah unit stacking is just one way to make the strength per tile ratio, which itself is a proxy for the production cost per tile ratio, higher. You can accomplish the same goal in a pretty effective manner by just making units scale in strength and cost more.
frktest
Warlord
Please coudl you let me know how can I get the debug panel?
Rewrite the AI from the ground up using a unit stacking system and you have my ear...
I agree too that the CS : prod ratio currently is good. I'm saying that both CS and production cost should be increased.
Last edited:
Press "~"
But it’s somehow not easy to do anything using the panel.
Check out the 'Ingame Editor' mod
Steam Workshop::Ingame Editor
Is the problem the general cost, or the specific war tree bonuses from autocracy and imperalsism that make them too good?
If its the latter that should be addressed in the policies not as a general nerf.
usadefcon1
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 588
I think they're the best because because the AI makes war decisions with full knowledge of everyone's military size. So therefore everyone needs a big army no matter what your strategy is, thus making these policies very useful.
I think that war is a fun part of the game when it makes some kind of sense, strategically or diplomatically. For example, if I propose and then use 16 World Congress votes to sanction Civ A whilst Civs A, B and C each use 5 votes against, then it would make sense that Civs A, B and C would team up and attack me.
However, my impression is that the above scenario never happens. The AI civs seem to mostly care about the size of my military when they make their war decisions. I generally feel like I need to maintain artificially many (i.e. many more than I need to defend my territory and assets) units to avoid getting attacked. This feels kinda unrealistic; I don't think it has so often been the case in the real world that countries get attacked for having a modest-sized military. Moreover, these "your army is weak" attacks generally fail, i.e. they make the attacker less likely to win the game.
More generally, I think that there are simply way too many units in the game (even on Prince difficulty). I generally prefer to start a new game rather than play out a tedious war. Sometimes I try to kill as many AI units as possible to encourage them to make peace but the number of units that I need to kill to achieve this often seems unreasonably high.
However, my impression is that the above scenario never happens. The AI civs seem to mostly care about the size of my military when they make their war decisions. I generally feel like I need to maintain artificially many (i.e. many more than I need to defend my territory and assets) units to avoid getting attacked. This feels kinda unrealistic; I don't think it has so often been the case in the real world that countries get attacked for having a modest-sized military. Moreover, these "your army is weak" attacks generally fail, i.e. they make the attacker less likely to win the game.
More generally, I think that there are simply way too many units in the game (even on Prince difficulty). I generally prefer to start a new game rather than play out a tedious war. Sometimes I try to kill as many AI units as possible to encourage them to make peace but the number of units that I need to kill to achieve this often seems unreasonably high.
Last edited:
Little Billy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2021
- Messages
- 37
I am going to make the case here for actually being able to use about 80 units to successfully carry out a large scale late game war. The key here is that you need lots of backup units to fill in gaps.
This is my current war against Sweden and only Sweden:
This front has a total of about 80 units in it. I also have a navy a bit to the south sieging Uppsala. Almost every single one of the ranged units in this shot is used every turn. Those infantry in the ocean are cannon fodder that Im using to draw fire away from my actual good units I have on land. Theres about a 40% chance that if I land one of those guys on the coast near Stockholm he will die in 1 turn. Those infantry I have by Birka are reserves for rotating into the kill-zone north of Stockholm and specialty Forlorn Hope infantry for the actual seige.
Point being, if I were forced to have less units, I don't think I could successfully carry out this invasion. (Or it would take a lot longer and be more risky) Even now, the game is trying to get me to stop this war by making me 30 units over the cap, but Im guessing Sweden is doing worse, so I think it is more advantageous for me to power through it.
Also Sweden's army used to be roughly equal in size to mine. Ive just been wearing him down for about 20 turns now.
This is my current war against Sweden and only Sweden:
Spoiler :
This front has a total of about 80 units in it. I also have a navy a bit to the south sieging Uppsala. Almost every single one of the ranged units in this shot is used every turn. Those infantry in the ocean are cannon fodder that Im using to draw fire away from my actual good units I have on land. Theres about a 40% chance that if I land one of those guys on the coast near Stockholm he will die in 1 turn. Those infantry I have by Birka are reserves for rotating into the kill-zone north of Stockholm and specialty Forlorn Hope infantry for the actual seige.
Point being, if I were forced to have less units, I don't think I could successfully carry out this invasion. (Or it would take a lot longer and be more risky) Even now, the game is trying to get me to stop this war by making me 30 units over the cap, but Im guessing Sweden is doing worse, so I think it is more advantageous for me to power through it.
Also Sweden's army used to be roughly equal in size to mine. Ive just been wearing him down for about 20 turns now.
I agree that 80 units is a needed amount of units if you are fighting a war, especially a two front war.
It's just even later when supply starts hitting 100+ when things get ridiculous.
Also keep in mind if supply is lowered across the board your enemies will have less units too, so you will need relatively less units as well.
Stop killing AI units. Leave them little health, but don't kill them. Then the AI will not replace killed units with new ones every turn. These wounded units will retreat to the left and eventually end up in the ocean, freeing up some land for your troops. In addition, wounded units will prevent the AI from rotating troops, occupying free tiles.
I'm playing version 3.0.4 and a screenshot from it. I don't know if there were any changes.
Religious buildings give me +10% food. There is also a monopoly on olives, which provides another 10% of the food. Each city has frequent WLTKDs, which adds up to another 15% (I might be confusing) population growth. There is a food caravan going to every city in my empire, except Yekaterinburg.
The spread of religion by missionaries provides food for the capital. I often complete CSs quests about trade caravans.
Hanoi receives 1 caravan, Yekaterinburg is far away on the island and independently obtains food. Without the caravan, Hanoi would be smaller than Yekaterinburg.
31+29+26+27+30+22+25=190 citizens, without a captured and burned city, which gives +163 supply. Tech level -159.
By comparison, CSs have between 15 and 18 citizens.
Japan has 32 citizens in the coastal city, which is more than my capital. Although my empire has many food bonuses.
If we reduce food bonuses and population growth bonuses, I would expect around 17 citizens without caravans and up to 23 citizens with caravans in non-capital cities.
23*7=161
161/190=0.8473 , the population would be almost 15% smaller.
0.8473*163=138.1099 would be supply from the number of citizens
163-138=25 this is how many units are obtained from the excess population.
The unit limit would not be 71, but 46.
Perhaps the decrease of unit supply would not be so dramatic. The formula is unknown to me. But the effect must appear.
Spoiler :
