Suggestions and Requests

[Just an idea]

Fresol
Chariots were historically used mostly as mobile platforms for missile troops or for troop transportation. At least light and medium ones were. Heavy chariots were sturdier and had more troops on them so they were used in melee combat, but they were quite slow and didn't really have mobility advantage over light infantry. As shock cavalry chariots had quite poor success since horses wouldn't usually charge into tightly packed infantry. So I think them being light cavalry makes sense.

Leoreth
Is there a reason that light cavalry gets both attack and defense bonus in the open but heavy cavalry only gets attack bonus?
And couple of suggestions about units:
1. Chariots were really only useful in level open terrain so I would suggest their strength to be reduced to 3 and their open terrain bonus to be increased to 50% or maybe even higher.
2. Chariots were important part of ancient Mesopotamian warfare. However Babylon can't reach the nearest horse resource in Anatolia. I would suggests replacing Babylonian unique unit with Onager Chariot, chariot that would be buildable without horse resource. I don't think their current unique unit adds much to gameplay over normal Archer.
3. Crossbows bonus against light cavalry doesn't really make sense since crossbows slow rate of fire makes it rather poor weapon against fast moving targets. I think bonus would be more fitting on longbows.
4. Elephants should have malus against Archery units. While arrow fire has little chance of actually killing elephant, it will hurt it. Hurt elephants are prone to panic and long range weaponry such as bows could cause this to happen in middle of other side's army. In that case elephant drivers were forced to kill the elephants so they would not trample their own army.

 

[Leoreth]

Thanks for the feedback, I had hoped the update would kick off some discussion. Most of the points you two raise are very reasonable, but let me compare them against the unit stats in the game to give a substantive reply. Of course everyone else is also welcome to weigh in on this.

 

[Malchar]

I agree that chariots should be light cavalry. They mostly used missile weapons to harass on the battlefield like the horse archers from the Mongolian steppe. In reality, would spearmen-type units have any advantage against horse archers? They can just ride circles around them. Perhaps the distinction should come down to city attack vs. city defense. Spear should only really have an advantage when they are defending a city. This could help to recreate the feeling of marauding barbarians in the country side, which were a real problem for most of human history.

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

The current tech tree and starting techs do not allow Vikings to found a city in North America before 1050 AD as they have to resreach alchemy and guilds before compass. Is it possible to loosen the "ocean turns into coast" condition to "any civilization discovers compass" instead? Otherwise we need some alternative solutions.

Actually, it is possible:
Settle Northern Ireland, then settle Scotland three turns after the English spawn, build culture there immediately. If you can't, then build monuments or pagan temples. In the meantime, prepare two settlers and a work boat, settle Iceland and use the work boat there. Again, build a pagan temple, and with a little culture you will be able to reach Greenland, and then Iceland.

 

[Fresol]

Fresol
Chariots were historically used mostly as mobile platforms for missile troops or for troop transportation. At least light and medium ones were. Heavy chariots were sturdier and had more troops on them so they were used in melee combat, but they were quite slow and didn't really have mobility advantage over light infantry. As shock cavalry chariots had quite poor success since horses wouldn't usually charge into tightly packed infantry. So I think them being light cavalry makes sense.

Thanks for the feedback, I had hoped the update would kick off some discussion. Most of the points you two raise are very reasonable, but let me compare them against the unit stats in the game to give a substantive reply. Of course everyone else is also welcome to weigh in on this.

I agree that chariots should be light cavalry. They mostly used missile weapons to harass on the battlefield like the horse archers from the Mongolian steppe. In reality, would spearmen-type units have any advantage against horse archers? They can just ride circles around them. Perhaps the distinction should come down to city attack vs. city defense. Spear should only really have an advantage when they are defending a city. This could help to recreate the feeling of marauding barbarians in the country side, which were a real problem for most of human history.

It's cool to learn about chariots. Sounds to me chariots should upgrade to horse archers.

So in the game, light cavalry refers to mounted units that prefer ranged combats, and heavy cavalry means armored knights charging in? Then I think some of the gunpowder based cavalries should be considered gunpower units, not heavy cavalries. In this case spearman can (weak-) counter heavy cavalry in melee combats.

After the unit types are set we can fine tune the various parameters.

Actually, it is possible:
Settle Northern Ireland, then settle Scotland three turns after the English spawn, build culture there immediately. If you can't, then build monuments or pagan temples. In the meantime, prepare two settlers and a work boat, settle Iceland and use the work boat there. Again, build a pagan temple, and with a little culture you will be able to reach Greenland, and then Iceland.

I've never tried this. It should work if you say so. But I still hope there will be another way to reach iceland in time.

 

[Leoreth]

However, a new problem(?) should be fixed: chariot is considered light cavalry and is not countered by the spearman family. Since chariot can be upgraded into horseman which is a heavy cavalry unit, shouldn't it be also considered heavy cavalry? (They fights in melee. Or maybe they throw spears of something I don't know. Point is shouldn't they be countered by spearmen?)

As Just an Idea replied, Chariots were mostly used for skirmishing and harassment around the flanks, not frontal attack which is what heavy cavalry represents. For even more accuracy their unit should probably have ranged weapons, I guess. Also, not being countered by Spearmen makes Chariots more useful overall.

1. Conquistadors should have +50% attack againt light swordsmen instead of axemen.

Right.

2. Keshiks are too squishy against heavy spearmen. Or even heavy swordmen. Keshiks are more like horse archers, so maybe just revert them back to horse archers?

Or alternately, keep them as a Lancer UU but make then light cavalry?

3. Spearmen's v.s. heavy cavalry bonus is too much given the reduced heavy cavalry strength. 50% is likely enough, considering the cost difference between these two types of units. Then again, heavy swordsmen are too powerful, they have 50% chance to win when attacking lancers, even on open terrains. +x% strength instead of attack for mounted units seems more appropriate.

Sounds reasonable, not sure what to do about heavy swordsman though, I need to look at them some more. But Landers should be weak when defending, their strengths relies on charge and the resulting shock. You have the mobility to avoid being caught for solitary Lancers, or otherwise they need to be escorted by defensive units.

4. The barbarian axemen in Europe should be replaced by lightswordmen or swordsmen or something else. In general, there are axemen barbarians and civ spawn axemen that should be replaced.

Nope, axemen were left in the game to function as barbarian units. Which civs still spawn with axes?

5. Is there a general rule about which mounted unit can flank attack against which siege weapon? The attack bonus and the ability to flank attack seems random. (e.g Horsemen get bonus against ALL siege weapons. But they only flank attack catapults (which is reasonable). And after they upgrade into lancers, they lose the attack bonus, while being able to also flank attack trebuchets. So are lancers better at flanking or not? Another example is cavalry has +50% attack against artillery but not cannon, which makes fighting cannons almost harder for them. Of course earlier siege units have much lower strength so even without modifiers they can be easily dealt with.)

No general rule I am aware of, I'll review them again for more consistency.

6. I don't know anything about military history, but cavalry seems a bit weak compared to contemporary gunpowder units. They should at least have a bit more strength (13 or 14) and immunity to first strikes.

I think it works. As you can see, there is no corresponding light cavalry on the Cavalry tier, so it kind of fills both roles (also it has flanking again). On open terrain, it is still stronger than Riflemen, so that seems alright. Its other main benefit is the high mobility. I want to get away from Cavalry being overall stronger than Riflemen.

n. Mali is miserable.

Elaborate?

Is there a reason that light cavalry gets both attack and defense bonus in the open but heavy cavalry only gets attack bonus?

You mean other than providing further differentiation? I think it makes sense for light cavalry get defensive bonuses in open terrain because it allows them to retreat and perform hit and run maneuvers. This is not really an option for heavy cavalry which is only effective in frontal attack. Also, in the game you only get to defend if you're the best defender in your stack. I want to enable light cavalry to operate alone (for pillaging or harassment) while heavy cavalry should be part of a larger more balanced stack.

1. Chariots were really only useful in level open terrain so I would suggest their strength to be reduced to 3 and their open terrain bonus to be increased to 50% or maybe even higher.

I don't want to make such an early unit too situationial though.

2. Chariots were important part of ancient Mesopotamian warfare. However Babylon can't reach the nearest horse resource in Anatolia. I would suggests replacing Babylonian unique unit with Onager Chariot, chariot that would be buildable without horse resource. I don't think their current unique unit adds much to gameplay over normal Archer.

That's a good idea, I will keep it in mind.

3. Crossbows bonus against light cavalry doesn't really make sense since crossbows slow rate of fire makes it rather poor weapon against fast moving targets. I think bonus would be more fitting on longbows.

You're right.

4. Elephants should have malus against Archery units. While arrow fire has little chance of actually killing elephant, it will hurt it. Hurt elephants are prone to panic and long range weaponry such as bows could cause this to happen in middle of other side's army. In that case elephant drivers were forced to kill the elephants so they would not trample their own army.

Okay, but I think Elephants are already in a good place with their cost/effect ratio. What about removing their city attack penalty and give them -25% against archery units? Cities are mostly defended by archers so it should even out there.


Edit: as an additional point, I think the additional open terrain modifiers would also make sense for Tanks, but I'm not sure how to change their base strength to balance that.

 

[Malchar]

It's cool to learn about chariots. Sounds to me chariots should upgrade to horse archers.

So in the game, light cavalry refers to mounted units that prefer ranged combats, and heavy cavalry means armored knights charging in? Then I think some of the gunpowder based cavalries should be considered gunpower units, not heavy cavalries. In this case spearman can (weak-) counter heavy cavalry in melee combats.

After the unit types are set we can fine tune the various parameters.



I've never tried this. It should work if you say so. But I still hope there will be another way to reach iceland in time.

Then just to further complicate things, consider the dragoons - troops with firearms which rode horses for transportation but battled on foot.

 

[Fresol]

Nope, axemen were left in the game to function as barbarian units. Which civs still spawn with axes?

Korea in the 600 AD scenario is the only one I can find out. In RiseAndFall.py there are also some axemen among additional war on spawn units.

Elaborate?

I was thinking about how kelebolos are ineffetive against fararis and impis. But then I realized kelebolos have a +50% bonus against melee and war elephants counter fararis. So it's OK.

Another thing, how come that light and heavy swordsmen require copper or iron to train but swordsmen strictly require iron?

Then just to further complicate things, consider the dragoons - troops with firearms which rode horses for transportation but battled on foot.

Interesting, but they should also not be countered by some pikes, should they?

 

[Tigranes]

Edit: as an additional point, I think the additional open terrain modifiers would also make sense for Tanks, but I'm not sure how to change their base strength to balance that.

We have almost nothing in game to reflect peculiarities of urban warfare. I suggest banning Tanks from City Raider promotions and giving any Tank in city square a penalty. Same should apply to Chariots and Elephants.

 

[star15389]

Problem is that combat in single player Civ4 is overwhelmingly skewed towards attacks on fortified units in cities, so giving tanks a city attack malus will just make them not worth building at all instead of specializing them for some other useful function

 

[Leoreth]

Another thing, how come that light and heavy swordsmen require copper or iron to train but swordsmen strictly require iron?

To emphasise the value of iron in the Iron Age.

We have almost nothing in game to reflect peculiarities of urban warfare. I suggest banning Tanks from City Raider promotions and giving any Tank in city square a penalty. Same should apply to Chariots and Elephants.

Sure, but that's a different question. I'm open to removing city raider as a valid Tank promotion.

Rebalancing Tank strength around an open terrain modifier would already address their city strength. But it would also make them comparatively weaker in forests and hills.

 

[Malchar]

I think it would be safe to remove city raider from most units as long as we still have access to seige. That's the only efficient way to take a city anyway. If you want to do it quickly, then you should have to sacrifice more tanks.

 

[Leoreth]

The current tech tree and starting techs do not allow Vikings to found a city in North America before 1050 AD as they have to resreach alchemy and guilds before compass. Is it possible to loosen the "ocean turns into coast" condition to "any civilization discovers compass" instead? Otherwise we need some alternative solutions.

Do you mean in the 600 AD start? Or both?

 

[Fresol]

Do you mean in the 600 AD start? Or both?

I meant the 600 AD start. And I feel it's unachievable in both. I could be wrong though.

Similarly, Ethiopian UHV seems impossible. Orthodoxy requires so many techs to be researched.

Moorish UHV also seems impossible as la mezquita does not provide a free great person. It's too hard to get 5 great people in time .

 

[Fresol]

The new flanking promotion seems a bit overpowered. If you compare it to old promotions like woodsman, guerilla, city raider and city garrison, you'll see it is out of balance. It also dwarfs the disengage promotion.

I suggest rebalance flanking II to +25% attack, flanking III to +30% attack and +25% defense, and drop the withdrawal chance bonus.

 

[Osakasayama]

Could you consider giving "Railroad Conquerors" to AI England against Egypt (and possibly AI France against Algeria/Morocco)?
The Ottoman hold of North Africa is too strong, especially in the 1700 AD scenario.
If England isn't stealing Egyptian cities using congresses (cf. vanilla RFC), they need some serious conqueror stacks.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

So, Polynesia is usually disabled if you're not playing it. Probably because it doesn't really do anything.

I figured out how to make it successful: Change the AI of its ships to Settler Sea. If this were the automatic AI for all Wakas, they'd be able to actually settle small islands. In my current Greece game, at 1000 AD, they've got two cities right where they start, and two in New Zealand.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, and this site has changed a lot since I was last here.

 

[Tigranes]

So, Polynesia is usually disabled if you're not playing it. Probably because it doesn't really do anything.

I figured out how to make it successful: Change the AI of its ships to Settler Sea. If this were the automatic AI for all Wakas, they'd be able to actually settle small islands. In my current Greece game, at 1000 AD, they've got two cities right where they start, and two in New Zealand.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, and this site has changed a lot since I was last here.

It would be so nice to see them settle islands! I hope Leo can introduce this in the next update!

 

[Fresol]

Can we build lumbermill on rainforest too? After all, tropical wood is a valuable resource.

Stable should provide experience for light cavalries too, especially the Mongolian Ger.

 

[Ecthy]

I find lumbermill might get another tech related upgrade, either in money or in production. The way it is, it never changes productivity except from railways. Compared to windmills or watermills, this seems underpowered.