Some ideas for balancing and further development

[Gothic_Empire]

I've already thought of that, and mercenary units will be excluded from the penalty (like faith-bought units).

Ok, actually, if what we're doing is creating a system where Authority and Zealotry have a new edge over progress / tradition and religious choices that aren't Zealotry, I think a LOT of my hesitation about the unit XP changes go away -- the thing I want (buying units who get the exp I invested in via buildings) is still in the game, but is the trait of having invested in military infrastructure with faith / culture. That's actually pretty cool and creates an interesting decision I can get behind. I still will dislike buying a unit as progress, but I'll realize *I chose that.*

Can I request that Orders and the Heroic Epic remove the exp malus?

 

[CrazyG]

Can I request that Orders and the Heroic Epic remove the exp malus?

I think having the Heroic Epic do so will largely remove the purpose of the change, but I think orders are fine

Its a great change to authority's landsnetches and other stuff, which are currently pretty much useless units. However, it also makes zealotry really good, and its already really good.

 

[Deadstarre]

authority's landsnetches and other stuff, which are currently pretty much useless units.

why do you say that? Landsnetch is one of the biggest things i missed when i started taking progress more over authority

 

[CrazyG]

why do you say that? Landsnetch is one of the biggest things i missed when i started taking progress more over authority

I say that because I pretty much never build a landsnetch. I actually don't think I've built one in over a year. I rarely build pikemen either, if I have any they are probably spearmen that got upgraded.

What do you use them for? Longswords and knights are much, much stronger melee units and I've never had the situation where I ran out of strategics and still wanted more melee units (as authority, in other trees I'd probably use them)

 

[Deadstarre]

cheap defense mostly. if you have roads in the right place you can easily position them to make ZOC a nightmare for AI invasion or in close quarters to their cities, and then they make great bait for the AI to target their attacks on (g'head and kill as many as you want AI, i dont care) while my classier units breathe easy. none of it would be possible without the 'move immediately' thing, and frankly they almost felt like cheating, but dear god were they handy.

 

[tu_79]

One way to make producing units more appealing than purchasing is increasing the military units production speed.

If a player builds stables and goes imperialism, he should be able to mass produce units, isn't it? But still, such player is mostly purchasing units. So what about those players who didn't take imperialism?
As Deadstarre says, if city hammers are going to be divided between buildings and units, it will make armies smaller or less experienced or cities less developed. So it will tune down current warfare.

I think it would be interesting that only the civs that focus on warfare can start with a full XP army, meaning they'd do better producing units than purchasing them. This is what happens in the early game, where investing in a building is more efficient than purchasing units. But for civs interested in development, it should be better to just purchase units, and be content with a smaller or less experienced army.

How do we distinguish between such civs? Militaristic civs choose militaristic policies and build military buildings first.

Candidates for a cheaper unit cost:
- That policy in Authority that gives 1 unit every 8 pop, it could grant +15% to military units production.
- Imperialism scaler can be greater if it needs to.
- Military academy may give another +15% to military units production.
- Autocracy cheaper military maintenance and cheaper upgrade, may include much cheaper production, or the ability to purchase units without XP loss.

 

[Infixo]

I think it would be interesting that only the civs that focus on warfare can start with a full XP army, meaning they'd do better producing units than purchasing them. But for civs interested in development, it should be better to just purchase units, and be content with a smaller or less experienced army.
How do we distinguish between such civs? Militaristic civs choose militaristic policies and build military buildings first..

1. I find it totally the opposite way. If I am small, not warfare oriented, I want to nurture my units, have them levelled up, so even small army fights better. I upgrade them. If I am a warmonger, I will get all the xp I need from wars. If a war becomes bloody, I might loose some units, and maybe be in need of bying new ones to quickly boost my army.
2. Game is way much complicated. Militaristic civs are more likely to pick militaristic policies, etc. but this is not their defining characteristic. This is a result. The choices are heavily influenced by actual situation, neighbors, geography, etc.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I think having the Heroic Epic do so will largely remove the purpose of the change, but I think orders are fine.

There's a limit to how much of a military you can buy out of one city, especially since there are turn timers (that I don't fully understand the triggers of) that disallow buying certain units back-to-back. Heavy Bombers have a cool-down, for instance. Other units might, too, and if we buff certain buildings by letting them be bypasses on a new restriction, those cool-downs might be a good balancing tool.

 

[CrazyG]

cheap defense mostly. if you have roads in the right place you can easily position them to make ZOC a nightmare for AI invasion or in close quarters to their cities, and then they make great bait for the AI to target their attacks on (g'head and kill as many as you want AI, i dont care) while my classier units breathe easy. none of it would be possible without the 'move immediately' thing, and frankly they almost felt like cheating, but dear god were they handy.

I just don't find myself in this sitaution when I take authority. I bet if i could build them as progress, I would use them a lot, but I can't

There's a limit to how much of a military you can buy out of one city, especially since there are turn timers (that I don't fully understand the triggers of) that disallow buying certain units back-to-back. Heavy Bombers have a cool-down, for instance. Other units might, too, and if we buff certain buildings by letting them be bypasses on a new restriction, those cool-downs might be a good balancing tool.

I'm not a fan of the cool downs for anything other than great people personally, but maybe that is just me.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I just don't find myself in this sitaution when I take authority. I bet if i could build them as progress, I would use them a lot, but I can't


I'm not a fan of the cool downs for anything other than great people personally, but maybe that is just me.

I find them frustrating but understand why they're included.

I notice them most on diplomacy units. Incidentally, is there any documentation that states how you acquire paper now?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I think, I speak for a lot of people if I say: "Less xp for purchased units? Who cares?"
This mechanic will be only a nuisance, the people will still buy their units and place them in their cities. Iam mainly a peaceful player, and I can defend my empire with enough units, no matter if they do 115%, 110% or 105% of their CS.
Iam already fighting more ore less succesfull with lvl 2 or lvl 3 units vs lvl 4-5 units on emporer, you think one less lvl may hurt me?
And why do you think I will still buy units, even with penalty? Cause I need all that good damn hammers for my buildings.

If you think it any farther, this change may be lead to a simply other result, the people start to buy every building with gold and produce their units normal. Nothing has changed.

 

[tu_79]

1. I find it totally the opposite way. If I am small, not warfare oriented, I want to nurture my units, have them levelled up, so even small army fights better. I upgrade them. If I am a warmonger, I will get all the xp I need from wars. If a war becomes bloody, I might loose some units, and maybe be in need of bying new ones to quickly boost my army

This is correct in early game, where it's better to produce units without even a barracks in order to perform a rush attack. But later you need more military buildings, for extra supply, and they come with extra XP.

2. Game is way much complicated. Militaristic civs are more likely to pick militaristic policies, etc. but this is not their defining characteristic. This is a result. The choices are heavily influenced by actual situation, neighbors, geography, etc.

Ok, not their defining characteristic, but if a civ that maxes out its military buildings and picks militaristic policies is more likely to be a militaristic one, then giving them bonuses for producing units may lead to militaristic civs being able to produce more than purchase units, thus starting with extra XP.

Anyways, losing half xp on purchases is a nerf on warmongering, I think there should be a buff somewhere else, and buffing military unit production seems logical to me.

 

[Deadstarre]

there are turn timers (that I don't fully understand the triggers of)

for military i think its directly related to the units hammer cost IE anything over 500 hammers will have a brief cooldown.

 

[Gidoza]

basically the more I think of it the nature of the game really necessitates or favors unit purchasing in a lot innate ways. Punishing that behavior definitely wont feel good tho, just need to create some incentives to be doing the opposite.

One small thing to do that wouldn't be severe would be to make a unit-purchase reduce the unit's production time to 1 turn (1 hammer remaining). That way, you can at most make 1 unit per turn in a city. It's rather too convenient to just pop out an army 24-strong in 3 turns from 4 cities when threatened; cutting that number in half is one reasonable step I think, and surely not the only one...but better to proceed in steps to be sure.




Also, regarding the XP discussion - I know this sounds drastic, but what about units purchased come with NO xp? It makes sense - you're speed-training them, or rather the guns have been produced, handed to some dudes, and they're told to get out there and do stuff. They simply haven't had any training, while the units produced have. I think I'd prefer this to the "half experience" idea.

It would also pair well with the notion of not being able to build all buildings because one is investing in military. If Barracks/Armories only provided experience for constructed units, then it offers the player some options of how to construct cities - that is, if you're purchasing units and aren't going to get XP anyways, one might opt out of Barracks/Armories save for getting the science bonus (which isn't something that's obviously needed on a Barracks, I might add); the buildings could give production bonuses to units instead, which adds some incentive.

 

[tu_79]

It would also pair well with the notion of not being able to build all buildings because one is investing in military. If Barracks/Armories only provided experience for constructed units, then it offers the player some options of how to construct cities - that is, if you're purchasing units and aren't going to get XP anyways, one might opt out of Barracks/Armories save for getting the science bonus (which isn't something that's obviously needed on a Barracks, I might add); the buildings could give production bonuses to units instead, which adds some incentive.

Those buildings also increase supply limit, so you probably want to build them anyways.

 

[MorphBer]

How about giving the military builing line a buff in unit production like the stable? Barracks would be too early though because at that time you are building units anyway. A buff for Amory and Military Academy might justify building units

 

[ashendashin]

I thought about the gold/endless runway issues, and I'm wondering why everything allows you to run ahead of the rest of the world with limitless development all on your own. Tech that no one in the world has and you can immediately throw money at those groundbreaking discoveries to steamroll all those savages that can't possibly get their hands on that tank you conjured from gold.
How about purchase costs decrease to normal levels as more civs research the same thing?

 

[Infixo]

tank you conjured from gold.

Does anyone know why we can actually buy an entire unit? We can only buy 25% of a wonder, 50% of a building, why 100% of a unit?

 

[IcyAngel]

Does anyone know why we can actually buy an entire unit? We can only buy 25% of a wonder, 50% of a building, why 100% of a unit?

Late game on Epic speed I can build any unit in 3 turns in my cities with good production; investing to cut down the number of turns by one or two wouldn't be very satisfying. :3

 

[Gidoza]

Those buildings also increase supply limit, so you probably want to build them anyways.

That's true but it's not entirely obvious. I've gone entire games to the Atomic Era (with a Tech and Social Policy lead - Emperor and higher) without using these buildings at all. I was militarily safe and felt no threat, and I was focusing my attention on other buildings and wonders, and just never got around to them. It's similar to walls - ideally, you build them if you need them to defend yourself, and happiness problems may inspire you even if you don't need them to defend yourself. But you don't necessarily need them. I'd like to think this could be true for more buildings than not; that it's just generally impossible to get everything and you really need to scrutinize to choose what's worth getting and then get that. It's sort of the case right now, but not really.