Suggestions and Requests

[Swarbs]

IIRC, it was intentional that the Boyars receive a defensive bonus. But I don't think it was intentional that it would be that strong.

My example was quite an extreme one - base defence of 13 plus 125% for castle plus 25% for being fortified.

It's only that strong if you have them fortified on a square which itself has massive defensive bonuses. Like in a castle or on a forest hill, where any unit gets that type of bonus. Bring along some siege equipment and remove the fortifications and a Boyar isn't much stronger at city defence than pikes, longbows, muskets and other contemporary units, particularly those with access to the city defence promotion line.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I always assumed it was necessary given how late Muscovy spawns. For a civ that spawns in 1380AD to have a knight type UU would put them at a big disadvantage unless that UU has a very strong capability. I figured the defensive bonuses were part of that.

If that isn't the case, and Boyars will lose defensive bonuses, then I agree that they are severely underpowered as a UU, particularly when compared to the benefits of units like Paladins, which will be around 200 years earlier.

On the other hand, Boyars are still useful for quite a while.
Paladins being available earlier is kinda irrelevant, given that the Muscovy civ isn't alive before 1380.
In my opinion balance doesn't make it necessary that a shorter living UU must be much stronger. At least not in all cases.

If Boyars are active for a couple hundred years, it's probably good enough. Independently from other civs' UUs.
For example Burgundy has other difficulties to overcome. Smaller size of the civ, thus less units, Paladins likely joining Crusades, etc.

All in all, I think such an insanely good defensive unit is definitely an overkill.
I would argue that the goal is to have all UUs with similarly sized bonuses. And of course to have them all available for a good amount of time.
That "good amount" being 100 turns for one civ, and 150 turns for another one is probably not a big issue.

 

[gilgames]

Regardless of boyar muscovy needs some serious boost in arms and research too. And if their are fine we can discuss the UU.

 

[Swarbs]

On the other hand, Boyars are still useful for quite a while.
Paladins being available earlier is kinda irrelevant, given that the Muscovy civ isn't alive before 1380.
In my opinion balance doesn't make it necessary that a shorter living UU must be much stronger. At least not in all cases.

If Boyars are active for a couple hundred years, it's probably good enough. Independently from other civs' UUs.
For example Burgundy has other difficulties to overcome. Smaller size of the civ, thus less units, Paladins likely joining Crusades, etc.

All in all, I think such an insanely good defensive unit is definitely an overkill.
I would argue that the goal is to have all UUs with similarly sized bonuses. And of course to have them all available for a good amount of time.
That "good amount" being 100 turns for one civ, and 150 turns for another one is probably not a big issue.

I don't think they are an insanely good defensive unit for the 1400s. By that time most civs have bombards and pikes which will kill Boyars easily.

And I don't think Paladins being available earlier is irrelevant - Burgundy will be able to benefit from a unit which can absolutely dominate any other unit, even Templar and Teutonic Knights, whilst by the time Muscovy spawns its Boyars won't be as dominant.

In my experience I've never seen Muscovy dominate at all, and it isn't easy to play them given the SODs that many other civs have developed by the time they spawn. So I agree that it doesn't have to be stronger because it is shorter lived, but I would argue it should be stronger to overcome some of the problems and disadvantages Muscovy faces, and the fact that its base unit isn't the strongest by the time the civ spawns.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I don't think they are an insanely good defensive unit for the 1400s. By that time most civs have bombards and pikes which will kill Boyars easily.

Only on the open field. Defending Boyars in woods+hills are way superior now with a fortify bonus. This shouldn't be the case IMO.
Even worse for city defence which you already mentioned: hill city with castle has 175% defense bonus with unit fortification.
Heavy cavalry shouldn't get any of these bonuses. Polearm units are meant to dominate them in these situations.

In my experience I've never seen Muscovy dominate at all, and it isn't easy to play them given the SODs that many other civs have developed by the time they spawn. So I agree that it doesn't have to be stronger because it is shorter lived, but I would argue it should be stronger to overcome some of the problems and disadvantages Muscovy faces, and the fact that its base unit isn't the strongest by the time the civ spawns.

Yeah, I agree with all points in this. I wouldn't solve this by stronger than average UUs.
Actually recently Gilgames also brought up the problem with the weakness of Muscovy, so it was on my todo list.
Muscovy already has some additional starting units and better tech progess in my version, soon will be up in the SVN.

 

[Swarbs]

Only on the open field. Defending Boyars in woods+hills are way superior now with a fortify bonus. This shouldn't be the case IMO.
Even worse for city defence which you already mentioned: hill city with castle has 175% defense bonus with unit fortification.
Heavy cavalry shouldn't get any of these bonuses. Polearm units are meant to dominate them in these situations.


Yeah, I agree with all points in this. I wouldn't solve this by stronger than average UUs.
Actually recently Gilgames also brought up the problem with the weakness of Muscovy, so it was on my todo list.
Muscovy already has some additional starting units and better tech progess in my version, soon will be up in the SVN.

Fair enough, although if the defensive bonuses are taken away then Boyars will need to be something stronger than just a knight with Shock. That would be neither unique nor strong in the 1380s, particularly if demi lancers will be added for the 1400s.

In fact, I'd argue for removing Boyars as the Moscow UU and replacing them with Cossacks as pistoleers with +1, 50% withdrawal, and march, similar to other irregulars like Almogavars. That would reflect the decline of boyars in the 15th century and the important role of the Cossacks in the expansion of the Russian Empire.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Fair enough, although if the defensive bonuses are taken away then Boyars will need to be something stronger than just a knight with Shock. That would be neither unique nor strong in the 1380s, particularly if demi lancers will be added for the 1400s.

In fact, I'd argue for removing Boyars as the Moscow UU and replacing them with Cossacks as pistoleers with +1, 50% withdrawal, and march, similar to other irregulars like Almogavars. That would reflect the decline of boyars in the 15th century and the important role of the Cossacks in the expansion of the Russian Empire.

Yeah, this is by no means a long term solution, especially since the main unit roster will be updated too.
Maybe it's not historic at all, but for now Boyars got first strike immunity instead.

 

[Baron03]

Not too sure where else to put these. They're mostly older ideas for changing a few civic and adding extra buildings. I don't know if they're worth considering since there are plenty of other things in focus. The numbers are also rough guesses.

Civics ideas

Spoiler :

1. Despotism: -30% maintenance cost from distance to palace. Gradually becomes less stable with more cities. I'm not too sure on the exact numbers for modifiers, but I would make it incremental.
2. Have a "units made with food" effect for either Feudal Monarchy or Feudal Law (possibly replace the +20% unit production bonus)
3. Rename Bureaucracy to "Nobility" with complete new effects at medium upkeep: +20 or +25% wealth and production in capital city. Specialists +2 gold. +10% great birth rate in all cities? Requires Aristocracy tech instead of civil service.
4. Remove Organized Religion and replace with "Monasticism." Upkeep lowered to low, and requires Monasticism tech, so it is available earlier. Effects become: +50% great person birth rate. Monasteries produce +1 happiness? Unlimited priests.

Extra buildings

Spoiler :

1. Castle Keep/Guard Tower: Requires engineering, vaulted arches tech, and castle. Double production speed with stone or timber. Effects: +3 espionage, +10% defense? (This could be a modifier to reduce barbarian peasants, if that mechanic is developed).
2. Add a 'well' or 'artesian well' (artesian aquifer, first built in early 12th century) building. Effect: +1 health. Requires engineering tech.
3. Moat: (requires castle and siege engines tech) +20% defense but defending units heals twice as slow if that is possible. +2 unhealthy. Obsolete with polygonal forts? Costs 185 hammers?
4. Tower House: (functions mostly as Town Watch from RoM. Requires Engineering tech) +1 espionage, and +1 experience for spy unit. +10% defense? Or +1 espionage points per population number, if possible. Obsolete with polygonal forts. Costs 87 hammers?

 

[Swarbs]

1. Despotism: -30% maintenance cost from distance to palace. Gradually becomes less stable with more cities. I'm not too sure on the exact numbers for modifiers, but I would make it incremental.
2. Have a "units made with food" effect for either Feudal Monarchy or Feudal Law (possibly replace the +20% unit production bonus)
3. Rename Bureaucracy to "Nobility" with complete new effects at medium upkeep: +20 or +25% wealth and production in capital city. Specialists +2 gold. +10% great birth rate in all cities? Requires Aristocracy tech instead of civil service.
4. Remove Organized Religion and replace with "Monasticism." Upkeep lowered to low, and requires Monasticism tech, so it is available earlier. Effects become: +50% great person birth rate. Monasteries produce +1 happiness? Unlimited priests.

Not sure there's much point in those changes to Despotism - Feudal Monarchy is already vastly superior and I don't think anyone would prefer despotism, so a stability penalty would just increase that. The 30% maintenance wouldn't, imo, offset the free units and +1 from barracks. If anything, despotism should be stronger, maybe -50% maintenance cost from number of cities and reduced stability penalty from number of cities, to make it viable for large empires like Byzantium which didn't have feudal systems?

Also not sure about Nobility - I think Bureaucracy is well balanced for smaller civs atm, and focuses on building a strong central city, whereas giving bonuses to specialists and all cities would encourage its use for larger empires.

Agree with the changes to Feudal Law and Organised Religion - the food production in Feudal Law would make it a choice with others, as at the moment it is the best legal civ by some way imo.

1. Castle Keep/Guard Tower: Requires engineering, vaulted arches tech, and castle. Double production speed with stone or timber. Effects: +3 espionage, +10% defense? (This could be a modifier to reduce barbarian peasants, if that mechanic is developed).
2. Add a 'well' or 'artesian well' (artesian aquifer, first built in early 12th century) building. Effect: +1 health. Requires engineering tech.
3. Moat: (requires castle and siege engines tech) +20% defense but defending units heals twice as slow if that is possible. +2 unhealthy. Obsolete with polygonal forts? Costs 185 hammers?
4. Tower House: (functions mostly as Town Watch from RoM. Requires Engineering tech) +1 espionage, and +1 experience for spy unit. +10% defense? Or +1 espionage points per population number, if possible. Obsolete with polygonal forts. Costs 87 hammers?

Castle Keep, Tower House and Well sound good, maybe reduce the health benefit from hospitals by 1 so the well doesn't increase the overall cap for later civs? Although +1 espionage per population would make the Tower House very OP imo. Maybe save that benefit for a future wonder and just have the Tower House give +1.

Moat will be good if it adds +25% defence which cannot be reduced by bombardment - that would help improve the defence / attack balance, particularly in the face of siege unit spamming. Polygonal Fort then replaces this 25% defence when moats become obsolete.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Turk]

All civics need to go through a radical transformation. The Civics don't make any sense for any of the civs which they are supposed to apply to. Further, since we are adding more Muslim civs, I would add Muslim unique Civics, like there is in SoI for Hindus.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Civic updates are planned. Not sure when I get there though.
Some smaller updates will be implemented soon, but the bigger ones will have to wait.
I'm actually thinking about adding a 6th option for most categories eventually.

 

[The Turk]

Civic updates are planned. Not sure when I get there though.
Some smaller updates will be implemented soon, but the bigger ones will have to wait.
I'm actually thinking about adding a 6th option for most categories eventually.

I'd recommend doing all the civics at once, I'd start over from scratch, and hold off on a 6th category. Currently the civics don't even make any sense as is. The reason SoI civics jived so well is because they were simple and "general" enough that they could fit many civs. Having "Apprenticeship" or "Theocracy" applies to too few civs.

 

[Force44]

When taking the cost of s into account, especially considering crusades, Berserkers (and to a lesser degree Huskarls) are superior to Macemen.
Is it an intended handicap to encourage the player to postpone the acquirement of civil service as long as possible?
If not, would it be possible to keep building them until the next tier of units (Pikemen) becomes available?

 

[Force44]

question:

Is it intentional that techs given to you by the pope (through high fate) can be traded ?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Is it intentional that techs given to you by the pope (through high fate) can be traded ?

Ohh. I simply didn't take that into consideration.
Not really sure if it's an issue though. Should it be non-tradeable?

 

[Baron03]

Not sure there's much point in those changes to Despotism - Feudal Monarchy is already vastly superior and I don't think anyone would prefer despotism, so a stability penalty would just increase that. The 30% maintenance wouldn't, imo, offset the free units and +1 from barracks. If anything, despotism should be stronger, maybe -50% maintenance cost from number of cities and reduced stability penalty from number of cities, to make it viable for large empires like Byzantium which didn't have feudal systems?

Also not sure about Nobility - I think Bureaucracy is well balanced for smaller civs atm, and focuses on building a strong central city, whereas giving bonuses to specialists and all cities would encourage its use for larger empires.

Agree with the changes to Feudal Law and Organised Religion - the food production in Feudal Law would make it a choice with others, as at the moment it is the best legal civ by some way imo.



Castle Keep, Tower House and Well sound good, maybe reduce the health benefit from hospitals by 1 so the well doesn't increase the overall cap for later civs? Although +1 espionage per population would make the Tower House very OP imo. Maybe save that benefit for a future wonder and just have the Tower House give +1.

Moat will be good if it adds +25% defence which cannot be reduced by bombardment - that would help improve the defence / attack balance, particularly in the face of siege unit spamming. Polygonal Fort then replaces this 25% defence when moats become obsolete.

[/QUOTE]

For despotism that sounds better.
For nobility maybe a +25% city maintenance/number/distance modifier would be necessary. I want it to at least be viable for all civs. There is very little to pick from in the beginning and even part of the middle game.
Part if the reason for the food production replacement in Feudal Law was for quicker armies at the expense of city growth, just to cities don't become so large so easily.

The tower house could just be a +1 or +2 espionage, or even a low percentage bonus instead. Just something to start out with. The well could become obsolete later on so the hospital wouldn't have to be changed.

 

[Swarbs]

I'd recommend doing all the civics at once, I'd start over from scratch, and hold off on a 6th category. Currently the civics don't even make any sense as is. The reason SoI civics jived so well is because they were simple and "general" enough that they could fit many civs. Having "Apprenticeship" or "Theocracy" applies to too few civs.

Actually I find Apprenticeship useful for most civs - don't underestimate the value of artists in a new city to get that first BFC pop, or when culture pushing for important resources. That's even without considering the beneficial impacts of the hammers from improvements.

 

[The Turk]

Actually I find Apprenticeship useful for most civs - don't underestimate the value of artists in a new city to get that first BFC pop, or when culture pushing for important resources. That's even without considering the beneficial impacts of the hammers from improvements.

I'm talking IRL, history wise for the game, not what bonus it gives. Needless to say, if we can segment Civics for Catholics/Orthodox/Muslims, absolutely keep Apprenticeship (or at least its effect). Otherwise many of these civics need to be generalized.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Yeah, civics are a very hard question.
Especially finding fitting ones, which can be applied to most civs.

 

[El Bogus]

Could resurrected civs get an additional army and temporary bonus stability? The way it is now they never survive for a long time which kinda defeats the purpose of being reborn.