Status
Not open for further replies.
Heavy skirmishers can also be toned down a little to normalize the line, the difference between them is pretty severe.
 
I lean toward a nerf to the heavy skirmisher, rather than a buff to skirmisher here. maybe just -1 point of RCS

As the game progresses, the Skirmisher's have to start working more conventionally because roads and infrastructure boosts the movement of all the other units relative to skirmishers. In response, skirmishers eventually need to slide back into doing more respectable damage or else they just become a gimmick.
 
Last edited:
So beyond the numbers, how do I "feel" about skirmishers and heavy skirmishers?

With skirmishers, my main bottleneck is hammers. I have precious hammers to spend, so I need to be careful about what I pick. For me this has been a scenario of how many horseman I want, if I'm going horseman, I want to commit several to them, so I may no get skirmishers (as their damage is pretty low). However, if I'm only build 1 horse unit lets say, I find the skirmisher better, as it augments my remaining forces, and the 5 speed is quite useful in a world without roads, for some extra scouting, just to tank a barb that found its way to the corner of my base, etc. So for the skimisher I value its speed and augment a lot more than its damage.

For the heavy skirmisher, my main limitation is horses. every heavy skirm is one less knight, which is a much bigger deal. I generally find heavy skirmishers do decent damage, and work really well with knights to create a strong force. That said, the strategic limit always ensures I am making c bows, and I generally prefer knight/c bow over more pikes and longswords.

So overall the heavy skirm feels pretty good. Honestly I think the skirmisher is "fine" as well (in terms of what I really need it for), but I also think a +1 RCS bump wouldn't break any balance either.
 
Remember that Archers now are unlocked only one tier earlier than skirmishers, now.
I know its just one column but its 3 techs vs a minimum of 6 (which would mean skipping pottery). The cost in science of unlocking skirmishers is more than double the cost of unlock archers, and the units themselves are expensive.

So overall the heavy skirm feels pretty good. Honestly I think the skirmisher is "fine" as well (in terms of what I really need it for), but I also think a +1 RCS bump wouldn't break any balance either.
I had a game as Egypt and have to disagree about skirmishers feeling 'fine'. They felt terrible to use, the 2 archers I had were more useful while being cheaper, earlier, and not needing horses. That one time I got a big flanking bonus was cool, but killing a unit surrounded on 4 sides isn't hard to do.
 
I lean toward a nerf to the heavy skirmisher, rather than a buff to skirmisher here. maybe just -1 point of RCS

As the game progresses, the Skirmisher's have to start working more conventionally because roads and infrastructure boosts the movement of all the other units relative to skirmishers. In response, skirmishers eventually need to slide back into doing more respectable damage or else they just become a gimmick.
8 RCS for the skirmisher would still be quite low and balanced I think.
 
For context here is the skirmisher with a +1 and +2 values, just to showcase

vs Spearman
Spearman with Formation II in Open Terrain
CS: 13.8, 21.72 vs horse

Archer (Accuracy 1)
RCS: 10.8, deals 26.0 damage

Horseman (Shock 1)
CS: 14.3, deals 22.8 damage, takes 35.3

Skirmisher (Accuracy 1) - RCS 7
RCS: 8.4, deals 12.5

Skirmisher (Accuracy 1) - RCS 8
RCS: 9.6, deals 15.0

Skirmisher (Accuracy 1) - RCS 9
RCS: 10.8, deals 17.3


also for another showing, here it is against an Archer
Vs Archer (Accuracy I) in Open Terrain
RCS (defensive): 9.9, CS: 6


Archer (Accuracy 1)
RCS: 10.8, deals 31.4 damage

Horseman (Shock 1)
CS: 14.3, deals 64.2 damage, takes 14.0

Skirmisher (Accuracy 1) - RCS 7
RCS: 8.4, deals 27.4 damage

Skirmisher (Accuracy 1) - RCS 8
RCS: 9.6, deals 29.5

Skirmisher (Accuracy 1) - RCS 9
RCS: 10.8, deals 31.4
 
AI not attacking cities with melee (just surrounding and sitting there) is that a known bug?
I mean that strat works for a human who have good siege unit management but ... the AI isnt making much progress.
 
AI might be overzealous about not making melee attacks that result in "minor loss" and worse.
 
I had a game as Egypt and have to disagree about skirmishers feeling 'fine'. They felt terrible to use, the 2 archers I had were more useful while being cheaper, earlier, and not needing horses. That one time I got a big flanking bonus was cool, but killing a unit surrounded on 4 sides isn't hard to do.

Two archers are indeed better than two skirmishers.
But six archers are probably worse than three archers, a horseman, and two skirmishers, at least situationally.
There's a limit to how many archers can find a safe place to shoot from.
It's also much easier to focus units down if you have a few mounted units.
Often times it's just not possible to put a 4th archer into a position to finish off that weak spearman, be it due to terrain or exposure to enemy units.

While a 4-unit surround is rare, 3-unit surrounds are not rare at all.
And yes, it's not hard to kill a surrounded unit.
It is pretty hard to do it in one shot, unless you have skirmishers.
With their support the horseman can easily dish out more damage than two archers by himself, while also gaining xp faster. Any damage from skirmishers is just a bonus.
 
Thank you all for making this excellent mod! I did have one question though, the new version altered the happiness needs modifier to be dependent on both number of cities (+5% per city) and number of citizens. I was looking for a way to adjust the number of cities modifier without affecting the number of citizens modifier. Does anyone know where 5% per city needs modifier is specified in the mod?
 
This is not vannila textures right? If not could you please provide a link? Thanks

Pretty sure it's this:
Also using this with some minor tweaks:
 
The proposal for the quest 'Aquire the city' has been closed, but such situations need to be dealt with somehow.

It will take at least 200 turns to get to the required city.

Spoiler :

20221201022304_1.jpg

 
As it turned out - the samurai of Japan - something akin to a tank, a man-army. It takes an incredible amount of effort to kill him if there are no knights. Light Skirmishers deal 2-3-5 damage (oh yes, we have where to retreat for 20 turns until we can kill 1 unit).

There is also something to discuss here - units of different generations differ too much in power. Damage ratio Skirmisher - Heavy Skirmisher 15-45, and others. This is a lot. There is no transition period in the game - either you humiliate your neighbors, or they humiliate you.


Skirmishers are outdated and weak against pikemen, but only 5 damage? The enemy was drunk and stumbled and fell on his pike?

Spoiler :

20221201071423_1.jpg

20221201071428_1.jpg



How about a modern Heavy Skirmisher? Oh, only 12. But we are unhappy. In normal times, they could hit 13.5.

Spoiler :

20221201094906_1.jpg



But there is a way to do more damage - let the enemy hit us. Then we will apply 18. But we get 62.

Spoiler :

20221201095346_1.jpg

 
Last edited:
It is very strange that some empire is willing to pay 2/3 of its income for the sake of a luxury resource. Even a quest from a city-state shouldn't be that much of a push to acquire one.

Spoiler :

20221201232348_1.jpg

 
+52% Religious Pressure - a sign that there is an enemy spy in your city and you can declare a reward for his head.

Spoiler :

20221202000255_1.jpg

 
It is not clear why a penalty is applied for a broken promise to the defence.

The city-state became an ally of my enemy and automatically declared war on me. I did not take any aggressive action. Unless I had to kill his units that attacked me. The city was not damaged or attacked.

Spoiler :

20221201024048_1.jpg

 
I'm noticing that the number of barbarians in mountainous regions seems to be low. Presumably this is because camps cannot spawn on mountains so those regions have fewer tiles eligible for camp spawns and are therefore chosen less frequently for the next spawn. Maybe mountains should be counted as tiles eligible for camp spawns with any camps then moved to a random adjacent tile?
 
Not sure where to post this but in my first v3 game now, things were going smoothly but now I reached that dreaded point were the whole world previous best buddies with me for all of the game just turns on me. 2 declare war, the others are hostile suddenly. I'm 3rd military wise so not that bad and ahead in tech.

There was really no actions from my side triggering that. It kind of enforces my sentiment that it is pointless playing a peacful game. you will end up in wars either way and better to have the policies, army with experience and production to win them. And an unused army is kind of a wasted army. The "ganing up" is kind of an unfun mechanic really. I'm not even close to winning so that can't count either.
 
Not sure where to post this but in my first v3 game now, things were going smoothly but now I reached that dreaded point were the whole world previous best buddies with me for all of the game just turns on me. 2 declare war, the others are hostile suddenly. I'm 3rd military wise so not that bad and ahead in tech.

There was really no actions from my side triggering that. It kind of enforces my sentiment that it is pointless playing a peacful game. you will end up in wars either way and better to have the policies, army with experience and production to win them. And an unused army is kind of a wasted army. The "ganing up" is kind of an unfun mechanic really. I'm not even close to winning so that can't count either.
I agree, one can't really build meaningful relations with the AI due to this fact that your pointing to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom