tu_79
Deity
You are the manager, when a consensus can't be achieved, your vote decides. Besides, it's not like the changes will be graved in stone.
Ranged Promotions
- Thread starter ElliotS
- Start date
ElliotS
Warmonger
Yeah, we've all made our cases and said what we think should be done. At this point it's up to you to choose what you think is best and we'll see how it works.
Here is my proposal, written out as a tree. There is no consensus but a few people have implied this would at least be their second choice. This would change only 3 promotions (5 if you count each level of accuracy separately), which are marked by * I'm assuming that having a bonus against full health units is possible and somewhat easy for AI to understand (correct me if this isn't realistic)
Accuracy I, II, and III* -"+10% Ranged Combat Strength (RCS). +10% damage against full health units"
Snipers*- "+25% against full health units"
Range- "+1 Range. -20% RCS
Barrage I,II and III- "5% RCS. +10% damage against wounded enemies"
Logistics- "May attack twice. -30% RCS"
Infiltrators*- "+15% damage when in enemy territory"
Indirect Fire- "May shoot over obstacles. -10% RCS"
Cover I and II- "-25% damage from ranged attacks"
Medic I and II- "Blah blah healing (I forget the exact wording)
I also suggest that, if possible, the skirmisher tree is identical, with only indirect fire replaced by mobility (+1 movement). As for the exact values of promotions such as range or indirect fire, I would prefer to play with this tree for like a month and then adjust them. Currently range is pretty weak, but hopefully this change to accuracy makes that entire line better. Similar with replacing cover with hardened
Accuracy I, II, and III* -"+10% Ranged Combat Strength (RCS). +10% damage against full health units"
Snipers*- "+25% against full health units"
Range- "+1 Range. -20% RCS
Barrage I,II and III- "5% RCS. +10% damage against wounded enemies"
Logistics- "May attack twice. -30% RCS"
Infiltrators*- "+15% damage when in enemy territory"
Indirect Fire- "May shoot over obstacles. -10% RCS"
Cover I and II- "-25% damage from ranged attacks"
Medic I and II- "Blah blah healing (I forget the exact wording)
I also suggest that, if possible, the skirmisher tree is identical, with only indirect fire replaced by mobility (+1 movement). As for the exact values of promotions such as range or indirect fire, I would prefer to play with this tree for like a month and then adjust them. Currently range is pretty weak, but hopefully this change to accuracy makes that entire line better. Similar with replacing cover with hardened
Last edited:
Could you provide the values of barrage so we know what to compare it to?
My only thought is just replace sniper with accuracy IV. It does almost the same thing without worrying about a new type.
Then your choice is
1) accuracy Iv: more damage
2) range: more range.
3) indirect fire: easier firing
My only thought is just replace sniper with accuracy IV. It does almost the same thing without worrying about a new type.
Then your choice is
1) accuracy Iv: more damage
2) range: more range.
3) indirect fire: easier firing
Edited my post to include descriptions for all promotions. I personally don't care much about names, I kept it as snipers just because that is what its currently named
tu_79
Deity
Switch Accuracy effects for Barrage effects and I'm in.
But for Skirmishers, I'd get rid of Range too.
But for Skirmishers, I'd get rid of Range too.
ElliotS
Warmonger
I'd rather keep barrage and accuracy where they are.
I'm okay with this tree, as it seems the most agreed upon. It's not my first choice, but you can't always get what you want in a democracy and I'm fine with that.
Two things:
1- You alluded to possibly replacing Cover with Hardened later, but I'd rather see both as options from the get-go. We'll get better data to figure out where to go from there. There will almost certainly need to be at least 1 or 2 more rounds of tweaks after the implementation at a minimum regardless, so I'd rather get the data now. Add Hardened 1 and 2 (+10% RCS, +15% CS) in the same places at cover is now without removing cover imo.
2- Covering Fire was not discussed, and people did agree that they didn't like it's current implementation. I'll copy what seemed to be agreeable:
Covering Fire I - "Enemy Units Within Attack Range Suffer -10%
" (Dynamite, Basic level 1.)Covering Fire II - "Enemy Units Within Attack Range Suffer -5%
, +15% defense" - (Covering Fire I AND (Barrage III OR Accuracy III)).(**) Covering Fire II adds to CF I, so it deals -15% CS to enemy units in total.
This is closest to the summary I had devised, so I'm going to go with this as a v1 of the rework. Good work, all, and good work CrazyG for creating a synopsis that did not result in revolution.
G
I see the argument for switching names around making more sense, but it may be confusing to some people to suddenly see barrage doing what accuracy used to.
2) I don't really see covering fire as part of this tree, more as a unit trait of gatling/machine guns. I'm up for adjusting these because I really don't like those units.
Let me suggest you reword that covering fire II as so- "+15% defense, Enemy Units Within Attack Range Suffer -5%", otherwise it reads like the enemy units are getting the 15% defense.
1) I'm for having hardened there. I wanted to get a v1 proposal with widespread agreement, which is why I left it out. Cover is not useful for archers. With that said I see Hardened as a utility option, so I would make the CS bonus larger (20% or 25%) but no RCS boost. Basically its cover but for melee attacks, I can see myself taking this occasionally1- You alluded to possibly replacing Cover with Hardened later, but I'd rather see both as options from the get-go. We'll get better data to figure out where to go from there. There will almost certainly need to be at least 1 or 2 more rounds of tweaks after the implementation at a minimum regardless, so I'd rather get the data now. Add Hardened 1 and 2 (+10% RCS, +15% CS) in the same places at cover is now without removing cover imo.
2- Covering Fire was not discussed, and people did agree that they didn't like it's current implementation. I'll copy what seemed to be agreeable:
Covering Fire I - "Enemy Units Within Attack Range Suffer -10%
Covering Fire II - "Enemy Units Within Attack Range Suffer -5%
(**) Covering Fire II adds to CF I, so it deals -15% CS to enemy units in total.
2) I don't really see covering fire as part of this tree, more as a unit trait of gatling/machine guns. I'm up for adjusting these because I really don't like those units.
Let me suggest you reword that covering fire II as so- "+15% defense, Enemy Units Within Attack Range Suffer -5%
", otherwise it reads like the enemy units are getting the 15% defense.
ElliotS
Warmonger
1- Yeah, I understood that. I just wanted to input that including it could get us better Data. Also +20-25% CS and no RCS would be better, I agree.I see the argument for switching names around making more sense, but it may be confusing to some people to suddenly see barrage doing what accuracy used to.
1) I'm for having hardened there. I wanted to get a v1 proposal with widespread agreement, which is why I left it out. Cover is not useful for archers. With that said I see Hardened as a utility option, so I would make the CS bonus larger (20% or 25%) but no RCS boost. Basically its cover but for melee attacks, I can see myself taking this occasionally
2) I don't really see covering fire as part of this tree, more as a unit trait of gatling/machine guns. I'm up for adjusting these because I really don't like those units.
Let me suggest you reword that covering fire II as so- "+15% defense, Enemy Units Within Attack Range Suffer -5%
2- I like the rewording, and I'd be okay with just having the current promotions adjusted. Honestly after the reworked trees I don't even know if it's needed, given that Archers are never meant to attack cities for more than chip damage anyway with this proposal. It was just the fact that archers had a whole branch that's made worthless with a forced upgrade that really irked me.
Aldebaran1997
Prince
But hey, that's why patchnote exists. G can change nothing if he or she has to concern about people not reading patchnotes.
Last edited:
tu_79
Deity
You're trading raw damage for some defense in a unit that works better in your own territory, since it's not meant to help taking cities. I rarely get level 8 units to benefit from the whole tree.
Aldebaran1997
Prince
Agree.
ElliotS
Warmonger
I disagree. I don't think that a promotion to exchange damage and progress in other promotions for increased survivablity versus melee is wrong.
Aldebaran1997
Prince
I got a new idea. How about add "+10 max HP of this unit, +10% RCS" as basic promotion? It doesn't make enemy melee take more damage, but still makes ranged tank up more.
tu_79
Deity
I think it's not technically possible.
Aldebaran1997
Prince
Why not? In JFD's CiD, conscripted unit has 50 max HP and in RtP, sovereignty reformation modifies slave unit's max HP. And those mods using CP's dll.
Alright, here's the working set of changes:
If I did not mention it here, it did not change, so let me know if I missed something. This is not a chance to add stuff, but rather to make sure that I didn't miss an intended change based on CrazyG's graph from earlier.
For what it is worth, splash damage does work, and the AI does know how it works. So that's cool.
G
If I did not mention it here, it did not change, so let me know if I missed something. This is not a chance to add stuff, but rather to make sure that I didn't miss an intended change based on CrazyG's graph from earlier.
For what it is worth, splash damage does work, and the AI does know how it works. So that's cool.
G
tu_79
Deity
Someone said this several months ago, but I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
