New Hotfix Version (12-15)

[CrazyG]

That's a bit vague; what about them?

some of us want there to always be a non-domination option available (as well as domination)

 

[IcyAngel]

some of us want there to always be a non-domination option available (as well as domination)

Right, I definitely agree with that.

 

[Gazebo]

If you had to choose between the following nerfs to gold purchasing units, which would you prefer?

1. Greatly increasing unit gold cost (my personal least favorite)
2. A 'conscripted' promotion that expires after x turns (i.e. 30) that reduces combat CS/RCS by x% and/or reduces XP gain
3. Units purchased with gold gain half of the XP of units created with production (so Barracks units would gain 7xp if purchased).
4. Some amalgam of these?

G

 

[ElliotS]

If you had to choose between the following nerfs to gold purchasing units, which would you prefer?

1. Greatly increasing unit gold cost (my personal least favorite)
2. A 'conscripted' promotion that expires after x turns (i.e. 30) that reduces combat CS/RCS by x% and/or reduces XP gain
3. Units purchased with gold gain half of the XP of units created with production (so Barracks units would gain 7xp if purchased).
4. Some amalgam of these?

G

#3 sounds best. Only units built (or faith bought) get bonuses from the city. Money is mercenaries, who obviously weren't trained there.

Also if units late are same cost to production as early buying units late is bad play unless you're investing in 100% of buildings. Investing in a building and building a unit is the better play early.

 

[IcyAngel]

If you had to choose between the following nerfs to gold purchasing units, which would you prefer?

1. Greatly increasing unit gold cost (my personal least favorite)
2. A 'conscripted' promotion that expires after x turns (i.e. 30) that reduces combat CS/RCS by x% and/or reduces XP gain
3. Units purchased with gold gain half of the XP of units created with production (so Barracks units would gain 7xp if purchased).
4. Some amalgam of these?

G

3 for sure. Maybe mixed with 1, as there really is too much gold available late game most of the time.

 

[Asterix Rage]

#1 and #3

 

[Padre19]

1&3

 

[Blue Ghost]

some of us want there to always be a non-domination option available (as well as domination)

Mostly this. We also talked about moving the VC unlock back an era or two. I would prefer that, but always having a non-domination option is more important.

 

[bigcat88]

*1 option. Less XP will break Venice games.

 

[Deadstarre]

#3 sounds best. Only units built (OR FAITH BOUGHT) get bonuses from the city...

very subtle how the zealotry lover slipped that in there! I lol'd

 

[Deadstarre]

1. Greatly increasing unit gold cost (my personal least favorite)

G

could also just greatly increase some building maintenance to slough off a little extra gold and tamper down the ability to buy like crazy, if not nerfing gold sources themselves. i was going to say for example whatever a train station costs in maintenance doesnt matter im still going to build it ASAP, but then i remembered that train stations are giving a %10 bonus to gold and just adding to the problem =) love those yield modifiers!

 

[Infixo]

If you had to choose between the following nerfs to gold purchasing units, which would you prefer?
1. Greatly increasing unit gold cost (my personal least favorite)
2. A 'conscripted' promotion that expires after x turns (i.e. 30) that reduces combat CS/RCS by x% and/or reduces XP gain
3. Units purchased with gold gain half of the XP of units created with production (so Barracks units would gain 7xp if purchased).
4. Some amalgam of these?
G

Is this to help or weaken? AI or human?
In history, if somebody spent money to buy warriors, they were usually Better than owned ones. Otherwise, what would be the point? So, giving them less XP is the worst idea. Unless we assume that they fight worse, but then they have to be cheaper than normal units. Cannot have more expensive units that fight worse.

Option: differentiate a little
- Make them cost little more initially (e.g. 15%) but also apply extra maintenance cost equal to base unit cost. So, in the long run they will cost 2x as trained unit.

Option: differentiate more
- introduce some mercenary mechanics: same as above plus unit disbands after X turns but fights better e.g. +15% cs
- real conscription: unit costs LESS, but fights worse e.g. -15% cs, also disbands after X turns

 

[CrabHelmet]

Be careful with 1. The Warrior cost on Deity is placed almost perfectly to come online in time for when Barbarians start raiding cities. If the cost of the Warrior rises, and the player has to build a Warrior over infrastructure, when the AI has Warriors already and big barb combat bonuses, it will really tilt towards the AI in the early-game again, which we were trying to avoid. If anything, I think some of the early units (especially Spearmen) are maybe slightly too expensive for what they are. The problem starts kicking in around Renaissance, I wouldn't do anything before then.

I'd go with 3, and take it further. EXP bonuses only apply to built units full stop. Doesn't matter if you have a Barracks, if you purchase that unit, it doesn't get any XP. It's a mercenary unit from elsewhere, why would it get any experience from your barracks?

And no, @Infixo, you're not right. Mercenaries were typically worse than professional armies - that's why mercenaries aren't used any more. If you look at the states which predominantly used mercenaries, such as the Italian city-states, they weren't chosen in preference to a domestic army, they were chosen because there wasn't the option for a domestic army - Florence was not going to be able to stand up to the German emperors in a straight fight purely on the disparity of the available manpower. If you look at the Eastern Roman Empire, they only started using mercenaries on a significant scale when they lost the eastern territories that provided the lands used to uphold their semi-feudal cavalry class. It was a sign of decline, not of strength. A professional standing army could be expected to be drilled together constantly and work fluidly as a unit, be provided and trained with standardized equipment, fit into a functional command structure, and was significantly less likely to defect - an age-old problem with mercenary armies. It's a real misconception that mercenaries were preferable to a standing army.

There was a brief period of history when mercenaries were particularly effective. European states used not to have the taxation to afford standing armies. Armies were raised for war and promptly disbanded afterwards. You had a semi-professional class of soldiers, knights, who were expected to remain familiar with the use of weaponry and the command structure, but how well that was actually understood was limited, since in reality they were rarely called. The rest of the army was filled in by peasant levies, who were largely unskilled. Mercenaries, by virtue of constant exposure to warfare, did tend to have an advantage on these 'amateur armies'; particularly the Swiss pikesmen because they were among the first forces to practice drilling with the pikes, whereas peasant pike units tended to scatter under pressure.

However, this period of advantage was a small window. It existed in the period where European states had enough revenue to commission mercenary forces frequently enough that mercenary units were profitable for mercenaries, but not so much revenue that they could finance their own standing armies. The decline of the mercenary era begins in the early 1500s, and you can see what happened when a standing army was pitted against mercenaries in the Battle of Ravenna (1512).

I can cite this with some literature if you like, I have tonnes of books on military warfare.

 

[Infixo]

I can cite this with some literature if you like, I have tonnes of books on military warfare.

Haha, not necessary, you’ve convinced me. But I certainly enjoy such informative posts
It gave me an idea, thou. Maybe their effectiveness could be related to your army’s size. I mean, if you have a big trained army, you get horsehockey unis for gold. If you have a small army, you can buy better units. Could be helpful for peaceful play and tall play. There is or was similar mechanic in the game, where a civ fights better if an invader has more cities.

 

[Gokudo01]

If you had to choose between the following nerfs to gold purchasing units, which would you prefer?

1. Greatly increasing unit gold cost (my personal least favorite)
2. A 'conscripted' promotion that expires after x turns (i.e. 30) that reduces combat CS/RCS by x% and/or reduces XP gain
3. Units purchased with gold gain half of the XP of units created with production (so Barracks units would gain 7xp if purchased).
4. Some amalgam of these?

G

I prefer the option 3.
But what's the point of gold outside of maintenance ? what is the final goal ?
I'm currently finishing a Denmark game 33 cities, Atomic era, 3.5k gold per turn, 3 super taxed (25%)vassal with ironfist. I get -33% for purchase with military industrial complex and -10% from industry.
I literally rule over the world in 10 turns, the game will end.
With -43%, my modern tank cost me 1.3K. isn't it normal that my 33 CITIES economy can purchase two tank per turn ? in Copenhagen, modern tank is out in 3 turns. (Imperialism + Denmark )
with - 10%, investing in stock exchange costs me 3530 gold. I have to invest the gold from 33 cities to get half production in a building.

Is it the final destination of balance ? I can do one thing with my gold per turn and I have to hard-build 99% of my units.

 

[ElliotS]

very subtle how the zealotry lover slipped that in there! I lol'd

The belief would be dumpster-tier if it didn't grant city bonuses OR have a unique promotion. (Zealous: +10% CS, +10% CS against other religions and +faith equal to 2x CS of units killed.)

You couldn't benefit from barracks, armory, heroic epic or orders. Then as time goes on you miss out on more and more. It would go from being a good belief to near-worthless imo.

Also Spain would cry. Don't make Isabella cry.

investing in stock exchange costs me 3530 gold. I have to invest the gold from 33 cities to get half production in a building.

This is the other part of the problem. Late game building costs are very high. I'm not sure of hammer/gold benefit ratios, but intuitively I think it skews towards units late game. That's the root of the problem if it's true.

Maybe drop building invest cost and raise unit costs and you don't need anything else?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

And you run in circles and circles and circles.
I see always only make it more expensive, raise that, raise that....
Why not the most simple solution, reduce the insane high gold and science production, forcing the player to simply PRODUCE UNITS CAUSE HE DONT HAVE 4K gold every turn!

 

[Enginseer]

Option: differentiate more
- introduce some mercenary mechanics: same as above plus unit disbands after X turns but fights better e.g. +15% cs
- real conscription: unit costs LESS, but fights worse e.g. -15% cs, also disbands after X turns

Pretty sure this is how @JFD 's Mercenary mod work.

 

[pineappledan]

I would go with option 3, but with some complications. I think this option is in danger of making barracks/armoires, etc much less valuable.

• Half XP on purchase should only deduct XP from buildings and wonders. I don’t think it should affect XP gained from policies.
• I agree that zealotry should not be affected, only gold purchases
• I think that mercenary unit’s should be unaffected (landsknecht,etc.) it is implied they have been fighting elsewhere before you paid for their services
• I like @infidel88 idea that purchased units should have some XP gaining benefit until they hit the normal max XP they would have gotten had they been produced
  • 2xp per turn when garrisoned until they Are at parity with produced unit. ie. if a unit is purchased from a city with barracks, it gets 7XP and 2 XP per turn for 4 turns if garrisoned
  • +50% xp from combat until they reach parity with produced unit
  • 1xp every turn, regardless of action until they reach parity with produced unit. ie. if a unit is purchased from a city with Barracks, gain 1 xp per turn for 8 turns

Seriously though, this would be a major hit to the utility of the barracks line and orders. It is worth considering upping the XP granted by these buildings if some method of quick XP gain is not granted to bought units

 

[Jarula]

Me thinks they should stay as is instead you should maybe make victory in individual skirmishes swordsman attacks pikeman count towards war weariness...