POLL: Some Balance Changes to add to VP

Which of these changes do you support or reject?

  • Sword line/Professionalism promotion (yes)

    Votes: 48 53.9%
  • Sword line/Professionalism promotion (no)

    Votes: 21 23.6%
  • Skirmisher Line/Mongolia rework (yes)

    Votes: 39 43.8%
  • Skirmisher Line/Mongolia rework (no)

    Votes: 31 34.8%
  • Archer Line/Slinger Unit (yes)

    Votes: 58 65.2%
  • Archer Line/Slinger Unit (no)

    Votes: 19 21.3%
  • scout & Maori Warrior CS tweaks (yes)

    Votes: 54 60.7%
  • scout & Maori Warrior CS tweaks (no)

    Votes: 7 7.9%
  • English UU Promotion change (yes)

    Votes: 33 37.1%
  • English UU Promotion change (no)

    Votes: 26 29.2%
  • Spain UU move to Explorer (yes)

    Votes: 50 56.2%
  • Spain UU move to Explorer (no)

    Votes: 17 19.1%
  • Big Songhai nerf (yes)

    Votes: 37 41.6%
  • Big Songhai nerf (no)

    Votes: 37 41.6%
  • Brazil change: weaker UA, but stronger UI (yes)

    Votes: 41 46.1%
  • Brazil change: weaker UA, but stronger UI (no)

    Votes: 22 24.7%
  • Korea rework (yes)

    Votes: 39 43.8%
  • Korea rework (no)

    Votes: 28 31.5%
  • Power Plant Rework (yes)

    Votes: 60 67.4%
  • Power Plant Rework (no)

    Votes: 13 14.6%
  • Add Oil to Refinery (yes)

    Votes: 69 77.5%
  • Add Oil to Refinery (no)

    Votes: 10 11.2%
  • Late Game Tourism Buildings Rework (yes)

    Votes: 52 58.4%
  • Late Game Tourism Buildings Rework (no)

    Votes: 13 14.6%
  • Instant Tourism on Buildings Rework (yes)

    Votes: 60 67.4%
  • Instant Tourism on Buildings Rework (no)

    Votes: 11 12.4%
  • Supermarkets & National Parks (yes)

    Votes: 54 60.7%
  • Supermarkets & National Parks (no)

    Votes: 17 19.1%

  • Total voters
    89

BaldSamson

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
41
I think losing the :tourism:Tourism is a big blow to Brazil's uniqueness;

You might have misread there. I don't remove the tourism, just add smaller bonuses to Culture/Science.

I proposed adding :c5goldenage: GAP to :c5culture: culture conversion as well, I don't think :c5science: science should be there; Brazil is very focused on one victory condition with little to nothing for the others, which is what justifies the civ's strength for CVs. I think this is a more unique way of giving Brazil a high culture scaling than the WLTKD modifier.

The science might not be necessary in base VP. I increase tech costs 30%, which forced me to make some small changes for civs that were falling behind in the early game.
 

Zuizgond

King
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
708
I don't think we need such drastic changes to zoo and stadiums. We should just decrease the amount of :tourism:Tourism on completion. I suggest 200 :tourism:Tourism for zoo and 500 :tourism:Tourism for stadium.
 

BaldSamson

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
41
this is more of a bug fix. free indomitable gives access to logistics immediately, so just giving free logistics is a nerf that only gives SotL the most powerful naval promotion, rather than the 2 most powerful promotions.
Ok, didn't realize that.

They do have access to Cover and It would stack, yes. However, since the base RCS they defend with is so low, cover has little effect. A very small base number with a large modifier means piling on more modifiers has diminishing returns.

The change is to make all post-chariot skirmishers 5 moves and very low RCS. If Mongolia retained its +2 moves and ZOC then the skirmishers would be excessively fast, but still do very little damage. This change to +1 attack means skirmishers can be real damage dealers, and have only 1 less move than they had before. This makes Mongolian skirmishers more usable in the new skirmisher rework; piling more movement on top of a unit with 5 base movement is overkill, and just produces more micro for players without an appreciable increase in strength.

The archer line is the natural counter to skirmishers IMO, and by adding more speed you are just making them even harder to target. How are you supposed to kill these skirmishers as proposed? I'm ok with the speed boost, but IF you manage to get a clean shot on them, it should do very significant damage.

I agree that the Mongols do not need more speed if they are all base 5. I also agree with removing ZOC. Instead of an additional attack, what I do is add withdrawal and always heal. My understanding of the Mongol advantage historically was the relentless nature of their general advance and their feint retreat tactics that induced their enemies into losing formation. They could then easily pick off isolated units. I've used these changes for awhile, and they just "feel" right.

Code:
-- add withdrawal to ranged cavalry, reduce extra movement, add heal every turn
UPDATE UnitPromotions SET ExtraWithdrawal = 75 WHERE Type = 'PROMOTION_MONGOL_TERROR';
UPDATE UnitPromotions SET AlwaysHeal = 1 WHERE Type = 'PROMOTION_MONGOL_TERROR';

+50% on the tribute modifier is still very considerable, but at +100% it is just excessive. With the Authority tree adopted, I have manged to tribute more than an entire policy off a cultural CS before. It's just way too much.
I checked my notes, and I also reduced this to 75%. So, I think we actually agree that it's excessive. I just thought it should be a separate question. When you have it lumped in, it's not clear what we are voting on.
 

BaldSamson

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
41
I don't like how your change strips the Baneirantes of pretty much their only useful ability. By making the yields on exploration part of the UA and the entire recon line, at that point you may as well just put the Pracinha back as the UU, because the Bandeirantes are nothing but an explorer with higher :c5strength:CS. What I would do is split the promotion, so all Recon units gain :c5goldenage:GAP on exploration and then the Bandeirantes have an additional promotion that also gives :c5culture::c5gold: on exploration.
Yes, I meant to find some other promotion to give to the Bandeirantes and it was probably just an oversight on my part.

I don't agree about Bandeirantes having weaker yields for the sake of early exploration. Right now, Bandeirantes's yield potency plays an important role for Brazil to the civ's Renaissance Era, as those yields are timed for the era that has the largest amount of cultural world wonders. Having a sudden influx of of those yields put Brazil in a great position to compete for those wonders. The unit is fine as it is, has solid historical flavor and fulfills a proper role in what the civ wants to do.
Brazil is not going to be short on :c5culture::c5gold: - so I disagree that those exploration yields are impactful. If you are behind on policies with Brazil, then you've really done something wrong. They need production/science to compete for those wonders, because the biggest risk is that you are late to the necessary tech and/or unable to build it quickly enough because you went nuts on building BW camps.

I think the unit would make more sense on a huge map (way bigger than we currently can run successfully) where mid game exploration could be meaningful. Even if you use a huge map, you will have usually explored your entire continent well before the unit comes online. Unless, you are trying to "game" the yields later, which is just silly.

In general, my approach to making changes is that they should be : fun -> logical -> balanced -> historical -> thematic. I don't think avoiding exploration is fun or logical, and I suspect that I'm in the majority (in this case).
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,823
Location
Alberta, Canada
The archer line is the natural counter to skirmishers IMO, and by adding more speed you are just making them even harder to target. How are you supposed to kill these skirmishers as proposed? I'm ok with the speed boost, but IF you manage to get a clean shot on them, it should do very significant damage.
along with melee mounted, ranged is still a counter to skirmishers. The % ranged defense promotion is there to prevent skirmishers from being 1-shotted by archer units of the same tech level; It is not enough ranged defense to stop archers from being a counter, but enough to prevent archers from just deleting skirmishers off the map. This decision was made in reaction to a test game where I stopped an entire Mongol advance with 2 Babylonian bowmen and a scout that gave vision through a treeline. At level 3, accuracy Bowmen were able to deal lethal damage from full HP against skirmishers before I added the % ranged defense promotion. This was with vanilla VP bowmen, long before I made the archer line changes, so Composite bows are even more effective with my tweaks

This has the useful side-effect of making Cover promotions less effective on skirmishers, which means they can't even spec out of their ranged counter that well.

On a more general note, how are you supposed to kill these skirmishers? The short answer is that if you are just trying to chase them, you won't catch them. You have to wait for them to commit to a fight, and then you can punish them. All units of the same tech era out-damage them, so if it becomes a back-and-forth the skirmishers will lose. If you can absorb their harrassment, you can chase them until they are pinned to terrain, or push towards an objective, where they are forced to commit. Since their damage is so low and they are so vulnerable to ranged attacks they can't hold ground.

As the game progresses, more and more of the map will be covered with better road connections, which makes skirmishers even better on defense and even worse on offense. They can rotate and cycle damage if you have a handful of them, and still manage to get out of the way of your frontline, but once your enemy has the advantage of their own road system your movement advantage evaporates. If a defender can manage to keep their road system intact and their backline sealed with chokepoints, skirmishers won't be able to contribute much. This is especially true once arsenals unlock and cities gain 3 range with indirect fire, which can mulch skirmishers
 
Last edited:

Rekk

Emperor
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
1,893
Currently, I do something a little crazy and add +1 working range to the capital from the Throne room,
What exactly is achieved by granting a fourth ring to the capital; ie. why would a tradition capital want to work tiles in the fourth ring?
 
Last edited:

BaldSamson

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
41
On a more general note, how are you supposed to kill these skirmishers? The short answer is that if you are just trying to chase them, you won't catch them. You have to wait for them to commit to a fight, and then you can punish them. All units of the same tech era out-damage them, so if it becomes a back-and-forth the skirmishers will lose. If you can absorb their harrassment, you can chase them until they are pinned to terrain, or push towards an objective, where they are forced to commit. Since their damage is so low and they are so vulnerable to ranged attacks they can't hold ground.
Ok, I'm willing to bite. If you can send me the code as proposed to test, I'm happy to playtest and report back. I think otherwise we're at a theorycrafting stalemate.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,823
Location
Alberta, Canada
tweaks mod link is in the OP, all the proposed changes are in there.

They generally sound a lot harder to manage in theory than in practice; A single river just destroys them, and the Great Wall is another strong counter. So pinning them against terrain is actually fairly easy.
 
Last edited:

BaldSamson

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
41
What exactly is achieved by granting a fourth ring to the capital?
Soooo many things.
  • Tradition, being a capital-centric tree, has those extra specialist buildings that you want to populate ASAP. Even in the early game, there may be an extremely valuable tile in that ring that allows you to grow a bit faster.
  • The way the map generates, typically there will be some extra luxuries in that 4th ring. Your city will eventually pick them up, but you can't buy the tile to complete a monopoly or to deny a forward settling rival. In the latter case, you will have to wait for a Citadel.
  • You can expect a powerhouse city in the lategame. Usually the bulk of your wonders/GWs are present there and all the multipliers are providing greater value there. You don't run out of room for GPTI, so you don't have to decide to cut down forest/jungle to make room.
  • Outside of the tangibles, it also does make the capital feel more valuable/special, so it's thematic to me. Your other cities end up sort of being the armor to the capital, and you are all-in on protecting those working tiles as it's driving the overwhelming bulk of your tech/policy attainment.
  • When the capital is captured, the throne room is not retained, so it doesn't unbalance the warmongers.
 

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
9,379
I'm not sure how skimishers are even supposed to contribute in combat? Without the +50% ranged damage, and with no increase in RCS....they are going to do garbage damage. I feel like their sole purpose would be scouting....but we have an entire line dedicated to that.

What ever happened to the "counts as two units for flanking" idea?
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,823
Location
Alberta, Canada
What ever happened to the "counts as two units for flanking" idea?
Unless you're going to learn C++ and compile a DLL modification, then it is sitting in a DLL modders to-do list. For perspective, the Germany UA changes were voted on in August 2021, and just got DLL integration 2 weeks ago. Adding new abilities has been distant 3rd priority relative to debugging and improving existing features.

For now, that double-flanking idea uses my skirmisher tweaks as the basis for the units' other stats and promotions. If/when the double-flanking ability is coded, it is a simple matter of adding that to the existing skirmisher promo if these proposed changes to skirmishers are done. The tweaks here are the lion's share of the work.
 
Last edited:

Legen

Emperor
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
1,014
Yes, I meant to find some other promotion to give to the Bandeirantes and it was probably just an oversight on my part.


Brazil is not going to be short on :c5culture::c5gold: - so I disagree that those exploration yields are impactful. If you are behind on policies with Brazil, then you've really done something wrong. They need production/science to compete for those wonders, because the biggest risk is that you are late to the necessary tech and/or unable to build it quickly enough because you went nuts on building BW camps.

I think the unit would make more sense on a huge map (way bigger than we currently can run successfully) where mid game exploration could be meaningful. Even if you use a huge map, you will have usually explored your entire continent well before the unit comes online. Unless, you are trying to "game" the yields later, which is just silly.

In general, my approach to making changes is that they should be : fun -> logical -> balanced -> historical -> thematic. I don't think avoiding exploration is fun or logical, and I suspect that I'm in the majority (in this case).

Bandeirantes provide plenty of :c5science: science to unlock techs in quick succession during Renaissance, and the :c5gold: gold ensures you can keep investing on the wonders one after another despite the high cost. :c5culture: Culture isn't an issue, but having more can unlock some useful policy earlier during the wonder race, like one that gives 2 :c5production: production to amphitheaters, or the one that gives a free :c5greatperson: GP and :c5gold: gold on birth in Artistry. The :c5science: science from exploration can count as bonus :c5production: production as well if used to reach Industrial era earlier than usual (mainly through Scientific Theory), reducing the production cost increases from your previous wonders.

Continents-like maps are the best for Bandeirantes, and some map scripts separate between two or more landmasses by default. When playing this type of map, you're not trying to delay exploration, since the map itself limits how much you can explore early on.
 

Bruhmoment

Prince
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
431
Location
Your mom's house
Obviously, this is more than just "some" changes, but on to the point -
I don't think anyone's gonna go crazy for a swordsmen change, so I vote no on this one.
Skirmisher change - Skirmishers are useless for advanced units, but if it's on par with other A.I players tech level, then it can do some dmg. Idk about this one, I'd leave it as it is?
Archer change - Definitely not. I don't think we need to change the archer, and adding new units won't help that case. Besides, why do we need this change anyway?
Small CS changes - yeah, alright. Don't think anyone would see the difference, but I don't mind.
England change - I actually forgor what Indomitable does, but I think just straight up giving logistics would be too op.
Spain patch - isn't this the change that made conquistador super ultra op? It could take cities ON IT'S OWN, so for balance reasons I must disagree.
Songhai - NO!!! DON'T TOUCH MY BOY ASKIA!!! - but seriously speaking, I think that's TOO big of a nerf, removing the river bonus is enough, we don't wanna make him one of the weaker civs...
Korea - I think they're fine as is, I don't think completely changing the Hwacha is needed, I think the Seowon should stay as it is aswell. No on this one
Power plants - Maybe. But if this were to pass, I'd want the fun yields back. It's the late game anyway, why not have crazy food and production yields? Depends, if crazy yields, yes. If not, no.
Refinery - Small patch, gives more strat resources, all right. Yes on this one
Stadium, late game tourism yield - I never get this late into the game to be honest, (and who is going for culture victory anyway, unless you're a tall civ), so do whatever u want with this one.
Instant tourism yield - If you have bad tourism, then this can help you slightly. I don't think this should be changed - it can help sometimes.
2 new buildings - Isn't supermarket a bit too op (if I'm understanding this correctly?) and National park very weak? Buff those 2 yields and you got a + from me
 

Cebrudras

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
37
Soooo many things.
  • Tradition, being a capital-centric tree, has those extra specialist buildings that you want to populate ASAP. Even in the early game, there may be an extremely valuable tile in that ring that allows you to grow a bit faster.
  • The way the map generates, typically there will be some extra luxuries in that 4th ring. Your city will eventually pick them up, but you can't buy the tile to complete a monopoly or to deny a forward settling rival. In the latter case, you will have to wait for a Citadel.
  • You can expect a powerhouse city in the lategame. Usually the bulk of your wonders/GWs are present there and all the multipliers are providing greater value there. You don't run out of room for GPTI, so you don't have to decide to cut down forest/jungle to make room.
  • Outside of the tangibles, it also does make the capital feel more valuable/special, so it's thematic to me. Your other cities end up sort of being the armor to the capital, and you are all-in on protecting those working tiles as it's driving the overwhelming bulk of your tech/policy attainment.
  • When the capital is captured, the throne room is not retained, so it doesn't unbalance the warmongers.
I am not actually convinced this will lead to a noticeable strength increase for Tradition, but you definitely make it sound super cool. It is super flavourful and taking advantage of it requires some fun, out-of-the-box thinking. If it is easy to implement I would like to see it added just based on that.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,823
Location
Alberta, Canada
I am not actually convinced this will lead to a noticeable strength increase for Tradition, but you definitely make it sound super cool. It is super flavourful and taking advantage of it requires some fun, out-of-the-box thinking. If it is easy to implement I would like to see it added just based on that.
It certainly is a lot more unique than 25% :c5happy:GA Length, and it's probably the only implementation of a working tile range bonus that won't create a huge increase in computing resources for AI and city management. Since the bonus is only in 1 city for some portion of players, and since that city will be settled before the 4th ring of tiles around it is even visible, or the resources around it are discovered, it can be removed from AI settling calculations altogether.

I would guess that it's about as useful as :c5goldenage:GAs being 2 turns longer (ie. not very useful), because spacing your first cities out to avoid overlap with a 4-tile city is just a bad idea most of the time; it Sounds like a much more impressive bonus than it is in practice, which is probably great, actually
 

usadefcon1

Prince
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
318
Soooo many things.
  • Tradition, being a capital-centric tree, has those extra specialist buildings that you want to populate ASAP. Even in the early game, there may be an extremely valuable tile in that ring that allows you to grow a bit faster.
  • The way the map generates, typically there will be some extra luxuries in that 4th ring. Your city will eventually pick them up, but you can't buy the tile to complete a monopoly or to deny a forward settling rival. In the latter case, you will have to wait for a Citadel.
  • You can expect a powerhouse city in the lategame. Usually the bulk of your wonders/GWs are present there and all the multipliers are providing greater value there. You don't run out of room for GPTI, so you don't have to decide to cut down forest/jungle to make room.
  • Outside of the tangibles, it also does make the capital feel more valuable/special, so it's thematic to me. Your other cities end up sort of being the armor to the capital, and you are all-in on protecting those working tiles as it's driving the overwhelming bulk of your tech/policy attainment.
  • When the capital is captured, the throne room is not retained, so it doesn't unbalance the warmongers.

I've been playing my recent games with all cities getting the 4th ring and I can say that it's a huge improvement.

It allows you to put the cities where you want them, rather than being constrained to the location that grabs max resources.
 

Legen

Emperor
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
1,014
What exactly is achieved by granting a fourth ring to the capital; ie. why would a tradition capital want to work tiles in the fourth ring?

Another thing is that you sometimes want a GPTI to be in a tile where that is reached by both the capital and a city, as you may alternate which one uses it based on the situation. It is often the case for Manufactories, which you may want to alternate based on whether you need more military or whether you are building a wonder. Having a fourth ring in the capital gives some extra flexibility for that.

There's also the matter that Tradition's capital has a +10% yields; if the empire suddenly needs to focus on a specific yield, you can redistribute the relevant improvements to the capital for that purpose. A fourth ring pushes this capability further.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,823
Location
Alberta, Canada
This whole tradition/artistry discussion should probably be it’s own discussion and moved to general. I am glad to see people engage with different ideas etc. though.
 
Top Bottom