New Beta Version - Feb. 9th (2-9)

[kenneth1221]

That kind of mentality is what leads to power creep which leads to endless cycles of rebalancing every year. I will agree that archers could be cheaper but Gazebo is definitely making the right call with the range nerf, however unpopular they might be.

Conversely, if you consistently nerf everything that humans can exploit, you'll end up with a game that anyone who isn't a powergamer finds tedious to play.

Also, what? Powercreep? That argument shows up in games-as-a-service, but for a mod it doesn't hold water.

 

[tu_79]

Conversely, if you consistently nerf everything that humans can exploit, you'll end up with a game that anyone who isn't a powergamer finds tedious to play.

This is part of the development policy. For more casual players, easier difficulties exist.

 

[tothePAIN]

Making cities range 2 hurts all ancient units, but leaves archers top tier. Bringing archers down to range 1 only makes archers weaker, thus leveling the playing field for all other units.

If a Civ is profoundly good at something, we don’t change the game mechanic enabling their power and thus affecting all other civs, we just nerf the civ.

G

1 range archers feel bad. End story. The arguments about 2 range being powerful apply throughout every other era.

It sounds like you perceive the archers as presenting two problems.

1. The archer rush cs vs. Cities.

2. Archers vs other ancient units.

There are other ways to solve this than 1 range archers.

Instead of keeping archers nerfed at range 1, add a -50% city malus, or -75% city malls (to archers only) and reduce their rcs by 1. The CS needs to stay at 6, per Pineapple, so that they don't die to a hit from one horseman, but you decided to change the game mechanic (2 range), rather than just nerfing archer power.

Keep on reducing rcs until its sufficiently balanced.

 

[kenneth1221]

This is part of the development policy. For more casual players, easier difficulties exist.

In BNW, I can drop down a few difficulties if I don't want to be forced into 4-city Tradition to win. If I drop down to Settler in VP, I'm still stuck with 1 range archers. At that point any 4-unit rush could probably capture a capital, but I wouldn't build Archers to do it. If I want to get 2 range archers back and early warfare balanced around 2-range archers, I could either go back a version, download a modmod, or god forbid, play Brave New World.

 

[Randomized]

There is an archer nerf to city that would likely do the trick, but its not -25%....its probably more like -66%.

What's wrong with a -66% penalty though? We could do it just for archers, but honestly, as it is, siege units feel totally optional. I thought one of the goals was for each unit type to have it's own niche. I'd be in favor of making siege units more of a necessity by giving the entire ranged line a large malus vs cities.

Honestly I think the problem with Archers wasn't just the rush, they were much too brainlessly the "good unit" of Ancient in general.

I think "brainlessly good" is a bit of an exaggeration. They are a little too strong (I would support nerfing their CS by one, and/or giving them a large penalty vs cities) but reducing them to 2 move chariots is too far.

that destroyed the niche of the Warrior as a useful unit; if you need to fight at all why not just research Trapping?

Warriors had a niche as early barb killers - especially since you now start with one, making it more attractive to build a second and go barb killing. I don't really see the need carve out a sizeable niche for a unit unlocked at farming. Especially when it comes at the cost of destroying the niche of a unit you actually have to put turns into researching.

I like the Archer more as a Warrior alternative with a different upgrade path

It offers almost nothing over the warrior, yet it comes at the cost of more hammers and of researching a tech. I don't buy the argument that they are useful for taking barb camps either. Warriors in their new buffed state do this perfectly well. Why would I invest in such a unit, especially when it becomes obsolete as soon as people get spearmen. Even if you made it cheaper I probably still wouldn't build it. So far the best route for early warring seems to me to be prioritizing spearmen, and going on the offensive with them. You want spearmen quickly anyway as a warmonger since you need them to tribute effectively. And even if archers are a good alternative to warriors, then you have two units doing the same thing. In principle I don't think one unit type should be an alternative to another.

 

[Gazebo]

1 range archers feel bad. End story. The arguments about 2 range being powerful apply throughout every other era.

It sounds like you perceive the archers as presenting two problems.

1. The archer rush cs vs. Cities.

2. Archers vs other ancient units.

There are other ways to solve this than 1 range archers.

Instead of keeping archers nerfed at range 1, add a -50% city malus, or -75% city malls (to archers only) and reduce their rcs by 1. The CS needs to stay at 6, per Pineapple, so that they don't die to a hit from one horseman, but you decided to change the game mechanic (2 range), rather than just nerfing archer power.

Keep on reducing rcs until its sufficiently balanced.

2 range is uniquely powerful in the ancient era because it is unanswerable, particularly with the archer's placement in the tech tree relative to the warmonger sections of the tree. Reducing the archer's attack power versus cities but keeping 2 range wouldn't stop players from exclusively building archers and ignoring the bottom of the tree. This is a healthy change, you'll all get used to it.

G

 

[Kim Dong Un]

I went to update Dan's Nubia, and the update tab with info on the new changes simply says, "Nubia sucks now". I don't think he likes the range change... lol

I'm willing to let it play out for a bit, but just in case, does anyone know which file / line I can manually change in order to slightly lower the archer hammer cost?

 

[pineappledan]

I went to update Dan's Nubia, and the update tab with info on the new changes simply says, "Nubia sucks now". I don't think he likes the range change... lol

Nubia is designed for an archer rush.

I'm willing to let it play out for a bit, but just in case, does anyone know which file / line I can manually change in order to slightly lower the archer hammer cost?

Unitcost.sql
Search for UNIT_ARCHER

 

[Blue Ghost]

2 range is uniquely powerful in the ancient era because it is unanswerable, particularly with the archer's placement in the tech tree relative to the warmonger sections of the tree. Reducing the archer's attack power versus cities but keeping 2 range wouldn't stop players from exclusively building archers and ignoring the bottom of the tree. This is a healthy change, you'll all get used to it.

G

Is ignoring the bottom of the tech tree as a warmonger actually something that people do? The old archers were undeniably powerful for a first-tech unit, but in my experience they matched up very poorly against spears and horses. You could do some early fighting with just archers, but you couldn’t keep that up when your opponents got spearmen up.
What if archers were moved to a second-tier tech? They might need a buff to compensate, but that would solve the problem of 2-range being uncontested.
I maintain that 1-range archers defeat the purpose of the unit. If there’s no way to get 2-range archers, I’d rather archers get removed altogether.

 

[Gazebo]

Is ignoring the bottom of the tech tree as a warmonger actually something that people do? The old archers were undeniably powerful for a first-tech unit, but in my experience they matched up very poorly against spears and horses. You could do some early fighting with just archers, but you couldn’t keep that up when your opponents got spearmen up.
What if archers were moved to a second-tier tech? They might need a buff to compensate, but that would solve the problem of 2-range being uncontested.
I maintain that 1-range archers defeat the purpose of the unit. If there’s no way to get 2-range archers, I’d rather archers get removed altogether.

Yes - innumerable reports exist (and I have direct evidence myself) of players delaying the bottom half of the tree a long time while also conquering with impunity, all thanks to archers.

G

 

[Gazebo]

Nubia is designed for an archer rush.
Unitcost.sql
Search for UNIT_ARCHER

So update their UA or their UU to give them a unique +1 range promo that expires on upgrade. Problem solved.

G

 

[Guynemer]

Nubia is designed for an archer rush.
Unitcost.sql
Search for UNIT_ARCHER

As an alternative, what do you think of keeping Nubia's unique archer at 2 range, and instead drop the strength down to compensate? Or give it a anti-city malus, letting them whip warriors and spears but making you rely on catapults for siege.

 

[pineappledan]

So update their UA or their UU to give them a unique +1 range promo that expires on upgrade. Problem solved.

Except then they are the only civ with a 2 range unit until classical, whereas before their UU only had more RCS and a bonus vs cities. There really would be no counter to them if they could outrange everything, even other archers.

This should be moved to the Nubia thread, but it's not that simple.

 

[Acaerus]

Hmm... it was all ok with 2-9-2b with diplomacy, i had enemies, i had neutrals and i had friends amongst the AI. 10 turns after i installed 2-9-3b all AIs are denounced me and now i suddenly in war with all the world without any doing from my part... So either there is some bug in 2-9-3b or nothing is changed from previous AI hive mind...

 

[bonniepbilly]

I don’t see gold steal nerf, while I thought there was an agreement to do so, did I miss something?

 

[JamesNinelives]

This is a healthy change, you'll all get used to it.

G

G I don't want to dismiss your experience lightly, but this seems pretty condescending. If the game isn't fun for a lot of people, that seems like there's an issue to be addressed.

I'm not saying we should just drop this change without testing it. I intent to give it a try before I give my view on the subject.

I don't think this is something that is just going to go away though. Whether or not the change is good for balance, I think it's important that people feel their experiences playtesting are being taken into account. If the community doesn't feel it is being listened to, that creates resentment and can make it difficult to discuss the subject - or to let it go.

 

[tothePAIN]

2 range is uniquely powerful in the ancient era because it is unanswerable, particularly with the archer's placement in the tech tree relative to the warmonger sections of the tree. Reducing the archer's attack power versus cities but keeping 2 range wouldn't stop players from exclusively building archers and ignoring the bottom of the tree. This is a healthy change, you'll all get used to it.

G

Given that you did not test any of the other proposed changes (weakening RCS, malus towards cities) before fundamentally changing the mechanic - 2 range - you'll have to get used to those of us who hate it continuing to vocally state it and request testing the alternative.

I didn't just propose reducing the archer's power towards cities, I also proposed doing so in general. Would a 6/5 archer with a malus towards cities result in humans exclusively building archers? A 6/4 archer? I don't think so.

That wasn't tested. You just made the change. Despite a vocal segment of players protesting it. Fine. You're the man when it comes to Vox Populi. But it's not a universally popular decision and I'm not just going to shut up about it.

 

[bigcat88]

2 range is uniquely powerful in the ancient era because it is unanswerable, particularly with the archer's placement in the tech tree relative to the warmonger sections of the tree.

Maybe add a unique promo for archers: "crooked bow"
Variants of promo:
1. When fighting in open terrain it get penalty for RCS for 30-50%.
2. Penalty for attacking ring two is 30-50%.
3. There is a chance to miss(33%?) when firing at range 2. Or other...

P.S.: Tested yesterday archers against barbs - they are still good at it. 1 archer + 1 warrior takes camps very quick.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Making cities range 2 hurts all ancient units, but leaves archers top tier.G

I'm not sure why that would be so? Giving cities range 2 from the start only hurts units attacking from 2 tiles away, i.e. only archers and chariots (in the ancient era). It doesn't hurt other ancient units? By the time other range 2 units (catapults, CBows,...) come online, cities have or should have walls and AIs usually have a decent army. And the chariots were never really used for early city rush, especially due to terrain movement cost, horse requirements etc., so this would not have affected them?

This is a healthy change, you'll all get used to it.
G

In the previous thread you said:

The archer change is experimental - it may not stay, so I don't want to make any sweeping changes. Let's leave it as-is (no range, no indirect fire) and see how it goes. Even if the promo tree is off for a bit, let's wait.
G

So if I understand correctly, it's already been decided that this change is healthy and will stay?

 

[AndreyK]

I still think that 2 range cities is the best answer. Now archers just not buildable until c. bows