Promotion Tree Balance Brainstorm

[Vhozite]

Random idea regarding range 3 promo: what if RCs depended on the proximity to the target? So large range units and promo would still have a great tactical advantage but deal % less damage. This is kinda realistic and could also make for interesting risky tactics of closing in with ranged units. But I guess that'd be a bigger balance change and affect AI.

(2-51a) Counterproposal: Nerf overpowered promotions

Counterproposal to https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2-51-proposal-units-lose-xp-on-upgrade.680806/ Proposal: This is a counterproposal to this proposal. No change to XP accumulation but instead nerf those promotions that are overpowered and thus make XP accumulation so strong in the first...

forums.civfanatics.com

A similar suggestion was posed and rejected last session.

This is similar but the damage values suggested are way too extreme (and that proposal also had changes for two other promos). -70% damage on Range? No way. If you want to penalize archers for a 3 tile attack I’d say the malus should be not greater than 50%, and even that seems high. Also I don’t think that should apply to siege units.

That said I when I first started playing I just assumed that’s how RCS worked. Point blank did more damage but was obviously less safe, and 3 tile attacks did less damage but in return carried much less risk.

 

[youngsteve]

I would like to say firstly that I like the current promotion tree, & although some small buffs could improve it, it works for me.

One issue I do have though is the power of ranged units attacking cities. It always seems a bit silly to me how a load of ranged units can bring down a city. I hardly use siege weapons, which only seem 50% more powerful to similar ranged troops of the day & also far more vulnerable & slow. Bring in indirect fire & added range & ranged units are really strong. The issue to me isn't about their promotions but the fact they can do so much damage to a city in the first place. It would make much more sense if the only units that can bring down a city are siege units, which could be strengthened to help with this. This would seriously effect my style of play but would certainly be more realistic & tactical.

 

[ma_kuh]

I've always thought from a design perspective it's preferred to make Range full damage at max range but have falloff for close attacks, not far. I think the subtle shift from "gets a bonus of shave damage at reach, but just as strong as anything else normally" to "built to snipe, but dies when dived" is a more engaging pattern. It's an actual specialization then, not just a bonus.

 

[FishAvenger]

Maybe a simpler solution for Range is that it adds +1 to both maximum and minimum distance. So, regular cannon can shoot 1-2 tiles away, cannon w/ range can shoot 2-3 tiles away, etc.

 

[FinMc]

I've always thought from a design perspective it's preferred to make Range full damage at max range but have falloff for close attacks, not far. I think the subtle shift from "gets a bonus of shave damage at reach, but just as strong as anything else normally" to "built to snipe, but dies when dived" is a more engaging pattern. It's an actual specialization then, not just a bonus.

This is a really really cool idea for +range

 

[pineappledan]

There are two civs that focus on XP as a main part of their kit: Zulu and Sweden. Both of them are solid civs, but Neither of them is OP. The XP system, at least as far as civs’ ability to augment and build off the system for traits and unique gameplay.

One of the things that makes me not take this whole thing that seriously is that no one has any problems with the melee line. The only complaints are about ranged attackers which already get only 40% XP from attacks. So the XP civs are fine, the XP buildings are fine, the melee units are fine, but the whole promotion and XP system needs to b le shaken up because of ranged units? Seems like people’s issue is with ranged units and their specific promotions, and has little to do with promotions.

This all sounds like you guys want archer RCS to go down. That’s all.

 

[ma_kuh]

Actually, I think XP buildings should be changed too, but that's a different topic. Specifically, I think if the XP buildings instead granted a free stem promotion, you get this feeling of customizing your army (at least out of a certain city) while also letting later-era units have an advantage in XP growth (they are level 1 with Drill I, for example, instead of level 2 with Drill I).

But I'll be the first to admit, it really doesn't seem like that kind of shake-up is what a majority are looking for, so I'm not sure if I'd even suggest it. I do think that there are problems beyond just ranged though, at least in my opinion. Like City Assault being as good as a T4 promotion (arguably better than Stalwart), but coming at T3. And I'm pretty sure Naval promotions are chronically in this state of "good enough but still a lot to be desired" in terms of meaningful decisions to make.

 

[Delvemor]

Like City Assault being as good as a T4 promotion (arguably better than Stalwart), but coming at T3.

City Assault is better than Stalwart only against cities. It is definitely good if all your units in range of a city have it but it is situational and I never felt the need to pick it again once I tested it. Cover I, Cover II and Stalwart come first for me. If you are in a position where you can safely attack a city with your melee units, you've already won the battle in the area anyway, in which case your siege units will do all the damage you need.

 

[azum4roll]

The point is that Drill is the city-attacking line, but it's still not safe to attack a city without City Assault's reduced damage taken while attacking. If you go down the Drill line, City Assault is a necessity.

 

[Delvemor]

The point is that Drill is the city-attacking line, but it's still not safe to attack a city without City Assault's reduced damage taken while attacking. If you go down the Drill line, City Assault is a necessity.

I go the Drill line not for attacking cities but for the faster acquisition of Cover I and Cover II and eventually Stalwart. The only time I find it is worth attacking the city with infantry is when the garrison died on the same turn after I took shots with ranged and siege units. The very next turn the AI will usually just buy a new garrison in which case it's just like it would be in real life, suicide. And it's not so much because of the city itself, but rather because of all the units that might be in the fog of war with the roads.

 

[azum4roll]

I go the Drill line not for attacking cities but for the faster acquisition of Cover I and Cover II and eventually Stalwart. The only time I find it is worth attacking the city with infantry is when the garrison died on the same turn after I took shots with ranged and siege units. The very next turn the AI will usually just buy a new garrison in which case it's just like it would be in real life, suicide. And it's not so much because of the city itself, but rather because of all the units that might be in the fog of war with the roads.

Well, you aren't supposed to attack from the back (enemy) side of the city. Any unit there is just to fortify and blockade. But on the front, it's best to attack with 2-3 City Assault units.

 

[Stalker0]

The only complaints are about ranged attackers which already get only 40% XP from attacks.

I think the point you are making is that melee units would get more XP overall, and no one is saying they are OP.

I would disagree with that premise. In general I think ranged units over time get more XP than melee units do, because they can attack SO much more often. Melee units have to hold and heal all the time, there are many scenarios they cannot attack because the counterattack will kill them. And so they sit there while the ranged unit just attacks, attacks, attacks.

Early game, melee definately promotes quicker. But when we talk about getting into higher tier promotions, I generally have more ranged units getting their than I have melee ones.