(NEW)Players Guide to the C2C Combat Mod - Size Matters game option VERSION 2.0

A whole can of worms was opened here...

Throwing in my two cents, with regard to the forced splitting idea...

Remember that in Vanilla BtS, "killing" a unit was never intended to mean 100% casualty. "Destroying" (as IIRC is the word they use) a unit meant inflicting enough damage to the extent that the unit could no longer operate as a cohesive fighting force. In other words, destroying a unit in Vanilla Bts already is a forced splitting. Split so much that the force scatters.

(See for example the war game Advanced Squad Leader. Only under the more extreme odds do KIA's result from taking fire. Most commonly "damage" is represented by "broken" units after a failed morale check. Broken units are not dead, but they are forced to flee and hide from enemies, and will not take orders unless a leader/officer can rally them again. They are effectively taken out of combat. I see Civ4 as doing the same, on a much larger scale: a defeated unit is not killed, but it is effectively unable to fight. Obviously these assumptions were introduced to make the game simpler, and I know people at C2C love realism more than simplicity. But ASL doesn't shy away from realism either.)

However, now that individual soldiers can be directly seen within the context of armies, now that there's a clear path from man to squad to regiment to battalion etc, we no longer use our imagination to fill in the gaps of what happens. (Examples: I use to imagine that units healing outside of friendly borders would recruit from the native population. I always assumed the soldiers of a melee unit don't all have swords; only the core force does, and they have auxiliary troops that could draw bows or scout ahead.) By introducing this mod, C2C is taking the responsibility of explaining what actually happens when a unit is destroyed.

I'm playing with this mod off until the team and community works through these issues. Originally I thought it might help save RAM, with fewer units and smaller stacks, but there are too many wildcards. With AI, with promotions and xp, and with these fundamental questions about the simulation. I do agree, that having larger and smaller forces adds to the realism and immersion. But to split all the way down to a single man?
Some of these considerations are also on the Combat Mod plan track. Morale and Route rules are going to be handled in a more direct manner so that will remove the need to consider those factors. As it looks like you've read, we've been discussing forced splitting. And the blend of weaponry may take place to some extent still (this system DOES use fuzzy math) but the equipment project will make that more clear what is being utilized. Furthermore, there is an interesting concept of hybrid unit types that may eventually be implemented that will allow units of different types to merge into a hybrid blend. This may prove to press too far for a 32 bit engine though. However, a Combat Mod option coming up fairly soon will be introducing some synergy bonuses from other unit types that are on the same plot (Strength in Numbers). It's ready to go aside from the XML work required for it. This will account for some of the 'blends' of combat weaponry factors you discuss.

Play with it or not, the Combat Mod as a whole is intended to each include a segment of greater realism. Some of those segments may cause one to feel LESS realism if they don't feel that they can fill in gaps, as you state, until other Combat Mod options are included. Just depends on how far deep you'll want to go. But as a whole, the Combat Mod is a massive work in progress.
 
Play with it or not, the Combat Mod as a whole is intended to each include a segment of greater realism. Some of those segments may cause one to feel LESS realism if they don't feel that they can fill in gaps, as you state, until other Combat Mod options are included. Just depends on how far deep you'll want to go. But as a whole, the Combat Mod is a massive work in progress.

No disagreement here! I'm just pointing out some difficult questions, but it seems like your team has good experience dealing with difficult questions. I'm using Fight or Flight now, and it works beautifully alone imho. I may try Hide and Seek soon, but, as you touched on, its realism is directly tied to Size Matters. How can you hide a whole army? Ah, but if it's only a small group...

One more thing to add, the Size rank seems solid and relatively straightforward. It may help to solve some questionable effects like Asian Elephants getting a defensive bonus from caves. :lol::lol:
 
A whole can of worms was opened here...

Throwing in my two cents, with regard to the forced splitting idea...
I really don't see how the size matters would change anything in that regard.

-Why can't the battalion that is low on manpower recruit from the locals when healing?
-Why can't one imagine that a defeated solo unit didn't die, but deserted or got captured or just got injured and was relieved of duty and free to return to whatever it called home.
-Why can't a company of knights have support units like squires, cooks and hunters tagging along, why can't a solo knight still have a squire along?
-Is it any different to imagine that a solo catapult have the necessary people to effectively operate it?

About forced splitting: Some units would be lost when this happens.
A party becoming 2 solo units, or even just 1 (maybe some randomness here).
 
I always assumed the soldiers of a melee unit don't all have swords; only the core force does, and they have auxiliary troops that could draw bows or scout ahead.)

I don't know about that. It seems like the army only has what you add to the stack. So if you have a group of swordsmen and a group of archers and a scout then now you have bows and swords and a scouts. I am taking the game literally but I thought since we separate them out so carefully and specifically and the fact you can make stacks (unlike say civ5) that each "unit" is all of one type. And the act of making stacks means your army has many type of units in it. If you want an entire army of just axemen go ahead. If you want a diverse army with all sorts of units then that's fine too.
 
Alright, I tried it. The temptation of cool new game mechanics was too great to pass over. And Toffer's comment
Spoiler :
I really don't see how the size matters would change anything in that regard.

-Why can't the battalion that is low on manpower recruit from the locals when healing?
-Why can't one imagine that a defeated solo unit didn't die, but deserted or got captured or just got injured and was relieved of duty and free to return to whatever it called home.
-Why can't a company of knights have support units like squires, cooks and hunters tagging along, why can't a solo knight still have a squire along?
-Is it any different to imagine that a solo catapult have the necessary people to effectively operate it?
makes a lot of sense.

Some issues:
First, AI don't know when to combine their watchmen. Because the crime and investigation effects don't benefit from combining, there isn't much reason to. But when under attack by units that target LE first, one large group of LE can easily protect all the others. I had a couple of Ambushers sitting in jungles outside an AI city, picking off all his LE and Healthcare to supply my slave industry. (This points to another problem: the "outside of cities" part of "This unit targets any ____ units first in combat outside of cities" doesn't seem to be correct.)

Also, this doesn't seem to be working after I tried it once.
FREE promotions will only be retained in a merged unit IF the unit initiating a merge has them
I'll get a savefile for you next time. I'm pretty sure I selected the guy with the free promotions, earned from Battlefield Promotions option.

Thoughts:
(If it's true that promotions are lost when combining, then) There's a lot of disincentive to merge/split while at war. It seems the feature would see most use when the units are fresh out of the barracks, instead of when they're over the trenches. It could be very dynamic, with units merging and splitting according to the situation. However, I fear that in the process some units will pick up promotions they need and other units will be lost, and when the war is over I'll have my veteran units running around trying to find matching sets of promotions to join up with.

Edit: But as for the earned (not free) promotions that are lost... those are not truly lost, because no xp was lost by taking them. The total xp pool remains the same. All it means is the more experienced unit has mixed in with the less experienced units, so the combined unit has some xp progress to the next promotion. Right??

I noticed many of the Prehistoric era units have their default Combat Quality set higher. This is interesting... On one hand, it encourages players to try to keep their older units alive, so that when bronze comes around you will have some free elite units. However, they gain xp slower, and they cost more. So on the other hand, this choice seems like it's trying to limit runaway promotions in the early game, as well as army size. However, if these paleolithic units have been in use longer, they will have had more time to gain xp than freshly trained bronze units, so maybe that headstart balances it out... I'm still considering this.

This is just an idea: With Hide and Seek, I could have an army with a promotion in Low Profile and split into the smallest group size, sneak into enemy lands under Size Invisibility, then recombine when they reach a forest behind enemy lines. Don't know if it works, because Hide and Seek has such a steep learning curve :p
 
First, AI don't know when to combine their watchmen. Because the crime and investigation effects don't benefit from combining, there isn't much reason to. But when under attack by units that target LE first, one large group of LE can easily protect all the others.
LE units cannot merge or split. No unit that has any property manipulation factors should be capable of it.

I had a couple of Ambushers sitting in jungles outside an AI city, picking off all his LE and Healthcare to supply my slave industry. (This points to another problem: the "outside of cities" part of "This unit targets any ____ units first in combat outside of cities" doesn't seem to be correct.)
It is very much supposed to work inside and outside of cities. Some more intended AI programming to improve the AI's ability to address lurking strike team units is still on the project list, for both SM and non-SM alike. This problem is not unique to Size Matters.

I'll get a savefile for you next time. I'm pretty sure I selected the guy with the free promotions, earned from Battlefield Promotions option.
OK... seems to be working last I played.

(If it's true that promotions are lost when combining, then) There's a lot of disincentive to merge/split while at war. It seems the feature would see most use when the units are fresh out of the barracks, instead of when they're over the trenches. It could be very dynamic, with units merging and splitting according to the situation. However, I fear that in the process some units will pick up promotions they need and other units will be lost, and when the war is over I'll have my veteran units running around trying to find matching sets of promotions to join up with.

Edit: But as for the earned (not free) promotions that are lost... those are not truly lost, because no xp was lost by taking them. The total xp pool remains the same. All it means is the more experienced unit has mixed in with the less experienced units, so the combined unit has some xp progress to the next promotion. Right??
Only free promotions are lost if you merge in units with free promos into a unit that doesn't have them (and isn't the lead unit in the merge). It can remove promos that don't match, but if they are skill promos, the amount of XP is averaged and yes, you may well be capable of re-selecting some promotions on the resulting merged unit. Which CAN be very helpful... a retraining trick one can pull on units that you accidentally chose incorrect promos for.

I noticed many of the Prehistoric era units have their default Combat Quality set higher. This is interesting... On one hand, it encourages players to try to keep their older units alive, so that when bronze comes around you will have some free elite units. However, they gain xp slower, and they cost more. So on the other hand, this choice seems like it's trying to limit runaway promotions in the early game, as well as army size. However, if these paleolithic units have been in use longer, they will have had more time to gain xp than freshly trained bronze units, so maybe that headstart balances it out... I'm still considering this.
It doesn't really help to hold onto your older units. The quality adjusts down and the quantity adjusts up as you upgrade them. It's actually more helpful, as you point out, to have them at lower quality... more room to improve means they improve easier. And potentially more benefit from the Swarm promotionline at higher group volume...

(BTW: I strongly suggest to NOT play with the Uncut option for balance reasons.)

This is just an idea: With Hide and Seek, I could have an army with a promotion in Low Profile and split into the smallest group size, sneak into enemy lands under Size Invisibility, then recombine when they reach a forest behind enemy lines. Don't know if it works, because Hide and Seek has such a steep learning curve
While they'd pay a high price in promotions to achieve this (you'd be left with units unspecialized, or at least 'less' specialized, in any form of actual combat), and the whole plot could be foiled by a very promoted spotter (very rare though) you could well pull this strategy off and it is intended to be possible. And not ALL unit types can merge or split so you'd be a little more limited as to what units could accompany such an attempt.
 
You may continue to join units until the maximum group category is obtained. Ultimately this means Countless group size BUT there is a limit based on the era at the moment that starts with Battalion in Prehistoric and gains a +1 to the limit with each era achieved. This may eventually be developed out further to make more specified limitations based on the unit combats perhaps.

Have you started working on this? I'm trying to put together a company of trained dogs with bounty hunter :lol: but I can't get the button to show up. If you've limited the group size that canines or animals can become, that would explain it. Dang, you've stopped my obviously unrealistic exploit of slaver dog teams. :nono: Looks like I'll have to find a mounted unit resource.

I've also noticed a promotion lost when splitting a unit: the poison tips free promo, provided by a building. The larger unit had the promo, and after splitting outside the city only one of the three smaller units kept it. I know you're working on another Combat Mod for equipment, where free promotions like these will probably be flushed out, so this doesn't seem like a priority issue.
 
If you've limited the group size that canines or animals can become, that would explain it.
Indeed I have. As a visibility specialist unit, they are too exploitable to split and get the visibility benefits on the cheap.
I've also noticed a promotion lost when splitting a unit: the poison tips free promo, provided by a building. The larger unit had the promo, and after splitting outside the city only one of the three smaller units kept it.
True, although this is not how I originally set it up (I HAD it so that all three would maintain the free promo) some convincing exploits were discovered that forced only one of the split units to keep free promos.
I know you're working on another Combat Mod for equipment, where free promotions like these will probably be flushed out, so this doesn't seem like a priority issue.
Exactly.
 
It could be better but it's designed to throw some unique challenges at you and does a very good job of that. I find, particularly in the early stages of the game, that it can be a much more challenging way to play, though there are some ways to hit some sweet spots of exploitation that the AI does need some training to deal with properly, and to exploit for themselves too. Some real exploits have been tamed on the latest assets as well.
 
The Imperial Guard units are still a problem for Size Matters: Without that option they are extremely strong units that can dominate every other contemporary unit, but with that option they are rather weak units that can be defeated by any other unit, as long as the other unit has a few mergers / quality up promotions, whereas the I.G. units are limited to 1 unit and thus unable to merge. What makes this problem even worse is the fact that these units are civic limited, so without SM Monarchy is a strong civic that stays competitive for a long time, but with SM Monarchy is much weaker. I think the I.G. units should be stronger with SM (like dogs were made weaker IIRC), perhaps by giving them a very high quality (elite or higher). These units should not be easily taken out.

Otherwise the I.G. unit line should be opened regardless of civic, so that they can be balanced without having to account for this difference.

I think the I.G. unit line should start with the Tribal Guardian (much more similar than Tribal Guardian and generic law enforcement), with two units in between, perhaps at Agriculture (Capital Guardian?) and Monarchy (Royal Guards?).
 
They start with a free step up because they cannot merge or split because they are law enforcement units. Consider what this means for their ability to arrest. Criminals also cannot merge. True, they stop being extremely powerful city defensive units. So perhaps they should have the law enforcement removed entirely and be allowed to merge?
 
They start with a free step up because they cannot merge or split because they are law enforcement units. Consider what this means for their ability to arrest. Criminals also cannot merge. True, they stop being extremely powerful city defensive units. So perhaps they should have the law enforcement removed entirely and be allowed to merge?
I don't think that's really necessary. These units should be special. If anything, it should be made more special, although the civic dependence should probably be removed, otherwise civic balance depends on SM being active or not. In return, Monarchy might be given access to the Chief Hut, considering this is about local leadership (no National Wonder) and the Hill of Tara makes no sense for Monarchy right now. Once this is done, the I.G. role could deviate from the one they have without SM.

I pointed out that I.G: units should be at a stronger level with SM, especially regarding quality - these units can be considered fanatics, not about religion, but about the king / emperor, and extremely well trained. If that makes them too OP, perhaps a rule would be in order that limits the entire promotionline (not just the unit) to 1 - no Early I.G. when there is a Guard du Corps. If that isn't enforcable, make them non-trainable (like Colonists) and allow the Tribal Guardian to upgrade to them (in that case there shouldn't even be an option anymore to upgrade to generic law enforcement). They can have Law Enforcement properties, but their main role should be to defend the capitol and keep the nation in the running. Would it be possible to have a special Palace defence property? Or - the other way around - could the palace get special boni when the guard unit is present? Think this unit guards the king / emperor / whatever, and this would be a King-in-Council effect. Since something comparable can exist in a Republic as well (an extensive elaboration can be seen here: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...spx?_id=AF3D784BD9F049F7A5CF720B531FF829&_z=z), I don't think it needs to be civic-dependent.

The Tribal Guardian is at 2 :strength: with 200 % bonus for city defense, which means it is effectively a 6 :strength: unit because it is unmovable. Its quality is Exceptional The following units would have to be movable, because the palace can be moved. The Early I.G. is currently at 18 :strength: with no city bonus, but the quality is at Superior, which is a little low for such a unit. Exceptional (with 27 :strength:) or even Elite (with 40.5 :strength:) would probably not be OP, considering what other units are capable of at this point.

Then there are the (probably) two intermediate steps needed between these two. The first should be at or around Agriculture, and provide a good defense even against strong mounted units. It should probably require Stone or Obsidian. A good strength would be 5 :strength: with + 150 % city defense => 12.5 :strength: effectively for defending the capitol, a value that isn't easily reached at this point. For the second unit (at or around Monarchy) I think 11 :strength: with + 75 % for city defense => 19.25 :strength: and requiring copper (?), bronze or iron wares would be good.

If a special effect for the palace and stronger might taken together is OP, perhaps one of these would be good instead.
 
I don't think that's really necessary. These units should be special. If anything, it should be made more special, although the civic dependence should probably be removed, otherwise civic balance depends on SM being active or not.
I don't balance Civics to SM. Never have and really won't. As I feel Civics should be balanced to "core" play. I don't consider SM core play. It's an alternate route for those that want more Micromanagement and Super units in the game. That is why SM and all it's other Options are just that options. The day SM becomes core to C2C is when I will play something else and move on. (which many would love to see I'm sure :please::p:rolleyes: )
 
I don't balance Civics to SM. Never have and really won't.
Right. That's why I would really prefer if the balance of the civics wouldn't change with that option. But I don't think the change I mentioned would be unreasonable with or without SM. The Hill of Tara is available for Monarchy, only it doesn't really do anything there. The Chief Hut is the "residence" of the local leader, the organization of the empire as a whole shouldn't matter all that much.

There have been local republics within a monarchy (e.g. the Hanseatic Cities within the German Empire before 1918), there have been local monarchies within a republic (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_client_kings - some of them were before Augustus). And yes, there are tribal chiefs within monarchies (e.g. Saudi-Arabia) and within republics (e.g. Botswana). And there have certainly been Guards in non-monarchies, e.g. Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Soviet Union, NS-Germany, although I have to admit that there don't seem to be Guards in democratic republics anywhere.
 
These units should be special.
Just so that I am made aware here, are they currently set to ignore the national unit limit if on unlimited national units option? If we're going to make them a sort of super defense unit then we need to ensure they are limited regardless. (The point of unlimited national units is to open up full access to some lines but not the ones that are truly game breaking if you do.) I agree that if we're going to make them as strong as they'd need to be to ensure relevancy, they'll need to be limited to just one, cannot move, defense only, and placed in the capital. I think I'd like them more that way anyhow. (I guess a modern example would be Secret Service)

I pointed out that I.G: units should be at a stronger level with SM, especially regarding quality
Can you confirm for me that they are already one factor up than they would be if played on the core mod? If this is the case and you STILL feel they are imbalanced too weakly then perhaps what will be necessary is that they start with an offset that makes them equal to the strongest grouped force you can muster for the era. They will always need to be incapable of splitting/merging, however.


I have not had the time to go through and ensure all land units were properly charted out. I have been doing these in chunks and I don't think the IG line has had it's day in the sun in full yet. Perhaps you'd like to consider helping me with them? You'd have to get a bit of an intro to the charting but once you did, I think you'd find it very easy to do because the way you're expressing your thoughts on the subject states you're already doing something similar in your head and charting is just a matter of putting it down on a spreadsheet. Once we re-planned out the line, we could implement the project easier and we have a record of numeric progressions that can be more easily studied and edited as other elements in the mod may change and demand a small redesign. We'd have to plan for both SM and NON-SM versions, with the switch simply being that the SM elements aren't in play with them, so you would, for example, automatically have the size category Combat Classes just vanish if SM isn't in play.
 
Just so that I am made aware here, are they currently set to ignore the national unit limit if on unlimited national units option? If we're going to make them a sort of super defense unit then we need to ensure they are limited regardless.
All 4 have <bUnlimitedException>1</bUnlimitedException> in CIV4UnitClassInfos.xml.

they'll need to be limited to just one, cannot move, defense only, and placed in the capital
I agree to all of those but immovable. The capital can be moved after all. And I think they could be less restricted if they could only be obtained by upgrading the Tribal Guardian (in that case, they should have offensive capability - think of Napoleon).

Can you confirm for me that they are already one factor up than they would be if played on the core mod?
Sorry. Where are these differences defined?

Perhaps you'd like to consider helping me with them?
I think I'd like that.
 
All 4 have <bUnlimitedException>1</bUnlimitedException> in CIV4UnitClassInfos.xml.
Perfect.
I agree to all of those but immovable. The capital can be moved after all. And I think they could be less restricted if they could only be obtained by upgrading the Tribal Guardian (in that case, they should have offensive capability - think of Napoleon).
Fair enough. I forgot about the potential for the capital to move. I don't think you or anyone else would want to only be able to obtain them by upgrading the tribal guardian... not until the ongoing training was much stronger than it is now. You gotta be able to get such a unit with some decent XP once the city can generate it.
Sorry. Where are these differences defined?
This is a little complex... I'll have to show you how to figure this out but I don't have time at the moment. I'll try to post tonight on that subject.
I think I'd like that.
Cool! You've been commenting here so long you might as well join in with us at some point and in some manner. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tmv
This is a little complex... I'll have to show you how to figure this out but I don't have time at the moment. I'll try to post tonight on that subject.
This link takes you to the Combat Mod planning document that shows the size categories. The first categories of combat classes are the size matters groups. There are three.

The first, Size, considers it's center point to be Medium. Medium has a category rating of 5.

The second, Group volume, has a center point of Battalion. Thus Battalion has a category rating of 5 as well.

The third, Combat Quality, has a center point of Standard. Thus Standard has a category rating of 5.

If you reduce the Combat Quality of a unit to the next level down, Mediocre, the unit would have a -1 category shift overall. If that unit was a Size Medium, Group Battalion and a Mediocre Combat Quality, it's overall SM rank would be 14. All the same but Combat Quality at Superior and you'd have a total of 16 and the unit would be starting off stronger.

In Standard SM all units assume that the core mod strength assigned to that unit is what it would have IF the sum of all combat mod categories (the SM rank) tallies to 15. (an average of 5 for each). IF a unit, like a Royal Guard, has category ratings that add up to a total of 16, then it is a unit that starts a category shift high, as if it began play merged one step or with a quality upgrade perhaps. As a result, the SM version of this unit would enter play much stronger than the core version of the unit.

Usually the only units that start with a total SM rank off from 15 are those that cannot merge or split and are intended to have a slightly different inter-unit balance than they do in the core. I didn't want to throw off the core due to differences in ideas as to how to deepen the differences in unit roles. Thus Canines start a shift lower and thus don't have the same starting strength that they do in the core. Not being able to merge/split, they can only overcome this deficit by a quality boost promo.

You also have Ruffians (bandits) that tend to start off a shift high and are thus very strong but since they can't merge or split and they are intended to be a major pain for even many military units, they also cannot merge for greater strength and must quality-up to do so.

In fact, this is one of the real things that makes military what it is, the ability to merge and split so they can become very powerful, forces that criminals and civilians avoid if they can.

Size Matters Uncut assumes all units to start with their core strengths regardless of their total SM ranks. Thus a Trained Dog still starts at 3 str even though it's total ranks are 14. If the dog gets a quality-up, it will still shift the 150% strength up from where it was at 14 ranks.

I THINK I set up the IG's at a rank shift up one but I'm not sure. Even if I did, it might not be enough if you want a fully merged military unit to have any trouble with it. As a result, this unit would have to be considered a super power unit and we would basically need to use group size and quality to share upgrades each era, making the unit act as strong, at a base that cannot be much manipulated, as perhaps a unit just one shift less than as fully merged as possible. And recall that units can merge as many times as the era count. Thus at Prehistoric, you can merge once. At Ancient, twice. Etc...

The neat thing about this would be that one city in each empire would basically demand that you have brought at least one seriously strong fully merged attacker. That makes later game attacks against such a unit harder except that air units could tear it down quite a bit.

Anyhow, on THIS subject, do you have further questions?
 
In regards to the talks @bug thread about the "super unit". While this most likely could be done outside SM, SM makes it easier.
The things that help us achieve a super unit, in no particular order:
1) High starting xp
2) Good base
3) Noble (and its line)
4) Herbalist
5) xp linear growth
6) XP power exponential growth

1) High starting xp makes the unit stronger than the average unit, as it possess more multipliers to its power, and a few key promotions. The highlighted ones are march (heal after moving/attacking), blitz in its various forms (more on this @ 3), and quality up.
2) Good base means many things, but we are mostly looking at a unit with a decent base strength, high movement, high base xp. The mounted infantry is perfect, as it starts with high xp, can be upgraded to knights to mitigate its weak-point to bonuses against melee, while possessing the movement of cavalry and commando.
In order to get the unit to be strong enough to be able to kill and survive consistently, we use SM to combine 9/27 of them into a single unit.
3) Noble grants a key promotion- blitz. This means that if the unit is strong enough to kill 5 units in a turn, it will. This effectively increase the rate of growth from anywhere between 1 to 15 times (remember that with commando, if a single unit is on a tile with road, we won't need a full movement to kill it). This is combined with MI easily getting 2+1+3 movement, so they can kill 6 units/turn without getting +movement promotions.
4)Herbalist Heals a unit instantly, negating one of the major SM downsides. A normal unit will be badly hurt after killing 2-3 units, even if relatively strong. The herbalist, in conjunction with high movement and march, allows our units to kill a few units, and when hurt to go directly back to a friendly city with a herbalist.
So what commonly happens is: kill a couple of units, end turn in a city. Next turn, kill a couple of units, and go back. Repeat as needed.
5) XP is linear in growth. This means that -10% xp is exactly the same as +10%. This is an issue since in terms of bonuses, we can get 200%+ bonus xp quite easily (noble gives +100%, great commander +100%, and you get more with time). A unit that was combined twice (9 units) would normally have roughly -40% to xp. With a noble, it will have +60%, almost 3 times as its former value (60 vs 160). Combine this with the unit being a lot stronger, and we ignore the downside of slower xp growth.
6) Power grows exponentially from XP. We have 3 types of combat modifiers: bonus to us, reduction to the enemy and quality up (QU). The issue is mostly might up and QU.
QU grows exponentially, so when enough xp is amassed, a unit will become stronger by leaps and bounds. 3 QU will make the unit almost 3.5 times as strong.
In addition, the might up promotions are improved as you gain quality up. A normal unit's might up grants +1 base power, but a high quality one will get +3 base power. This means that while a normal unit may get (X+1*5) base power, a high ranked one will get (X+3*5)*(1.5)^3. If the unit's base is 8 (mounted infantry), it will be 13 vs 77, or 6 times as high base power.

*While small, one thing that helps us increase the speed slightly is letting the units carry other units. If we carry the siege weapons, we can increase the speed of taking over cities. If we carry captives, workers and similar captured units, we get the full benefits with none of the "risk" normally associated with marauding cavalry.

Things that could help us make this strategy less effective. While we may not follow up with all of them, these are ideas that may help slow down this tactic a bit, without harming other things:
1) While it didn't matter to me all that much since the unit got strong enough, abusing the high base xp of mounted infantry and then upgrading to a knight seems wrong. I'd expect that to be a different unit chain, if possible.
2) This is mostly an issue with SM and how it works. I assume that as the AI learns to fight a large group unit, this will solve part of the base
3) Noble shouldn't grant blitz so early, so easily. The promotion of +power, blitz and xp should either be nerfed, placed after a chain, or have a tech requirement.
4) Herbalist in SM is quite strong. It's annoying that there is no followup to the building, after it goes obsolete. Regardless, if at all possible, we should consider lowering it's output in SM. (for example, having it heal 50 hp of a unit, instead of 100%. This will make us spend multiple turns to heal large units)
5) SM xp should be multiplicative. So a group of 9 with 100% xp bonus will gain either 1*0.6*2 or 1*0.8*0.8*2 xp. This will lower the xp to either X1.2 or X1.28 xp rather than X1.6. I know this is not the usual way we do such things in civ, but It will probably be healthier for the game.
As a side note, with the current system, I'm not sure that combining units 5 times will allow them to get any xp without xp promotions. if we go with the 0.8*0.8 design, they will still get 33% xp a normal unit have.
6) Might up not growing based on quality up. Possibly the more ranks a unit invests in it, the higher the number? Alternatively, a unit with better base will gain a bigger bonus (+1 power to a mounted infantry is a huge +12.5%. +1 to a light tank is a meager 2.5%), so a later era will get a bigger flat bonus. While it may not be as useful as for the weaker units, it will keep this promotion useful.
QU could possible stop being exponential. Instead of 1.5^QU, it could be (1+0.5*QU). So a unit with 3 quality ups will be "only" 2.5 times stronger than a normal unit, instead of 3.5 times. Alternatively, QU could have a lower curve- for example, 1.5, 1.45, 1.4 and so on. A 3 QU will be 3 times as strong, and a 6 QU will be 6.7 times as strong, instead of 11.4 times as strong. Both examples will keep QU as a very desirable promotion, but not as game breaking compared to none-QU units.
Alternatively, we could re-introduce the "no upgrades" to QU units (as a feature rather than a bug), so they will become obsolete at some point. I'm against this idea, though.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom