Tech and Unit Lines Comparisons

[SchpailsMan]

I don't know what to think about this one. The multitude of non-combat units in Civ-CTP were great at first sight but on the long run I found that they killed the fun (too much micromanagement, and being constantly attacked by slavers, corps and priests really sucked). OTOH, I'd like to have *some* more spying and deceiving in the game. Just not too much, but a little more. I don't think that invisible units like shadows are the way to go, I'm rather thinking of something along the lines of missionaries : using the next guy's realm to build up yours (and maybe spy on him a little) without necessarily harming them directly. Spies in vanilla civ4 are good for that matter, although it took a bit of time before I could use them efficiently, because they allow you to actively know what your neighbours are doing and plan your moves a lot better. Being able to destroy improvements for a price didn't seem overpowered either. I'd like to get something along those lines.

 

[Quetz]

I dont think at 50% penalty to city action for rangers would be over the top at all, for attack and defense. It has to be substantial to make a difference with all the promos.

Hate coverall rangers.

 

[Sureshot]

ya, -25% city attack is fairly meaningless when you can get rangers with 7 strength easier than axemen, when all your enemies have 3 or 4 strength units at best.

 

[SchpailsMan]

Why are rangers 7str to begin with ? That's the same strengh as macemen, which are expected to be organized and well-trained troops marching in line and waving big pointy chunks of metals around. I really think rangers should be str 6 units, and if that's not enough dropping them to -50% city attack would still an option.

 

[Sureshot]

ya, i like 6 with -50% city attack since then theyd be at a disadvantage attacking a city defended by an axemen. atm you can take them around leveling cities for quite some time if you make them your focus, and their tech line leads to good things as well

 

[Lord Vermillion]

unless you're doviello those 6 strength skull-catas are the bane of my existence lol

Don't forget the Khazad Trebuchet

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Tree bucket?

If rangers had 6 and -50% city strength, not just attack, then they would certainly be used less often. Probably a good thing to do.

 

[QES]

Tree bucket?

If rangers had 6 and -50% city strength, not just attack, then they would certainly be used less often. Probably a good thing to do.

I'm still a fan of the idea that Trebuchets are national seige units (only get 3 of em) - available to most civs.

And the Dwarves will have their "Tree buckets" as per normal. Are you going to correct the dwarves pronunciation? I didnt think so.
-Qes

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

ya, i like 6 with -50% city attack since then theyd be at a disadvantage attacking a city defended by an axemen. atm you can take them around leveling cities for quite some time if you make them your focus, and their tech line leads to good things as well

I echo the Rangers are too strong comments .. recon units in general are too strong, especially since they often appear on teh battlefield before their melee and archer equivalents. When they get limited invisibility their STR really has to be reconsidered. 4-5 STR sounds right, and then perhaps no city penalty would be needed. (Hunters STR 2 anyone?) *

What I never understood was the assassin city penalty. Assassins, it seems to me, should get a city bonus. (Would it be possible to code them to negate the city defense value? (Fully or partially?)) Are they not the skulkers of dark alleyways? Precious few of them dark alleyways in the woods. Or the assassin unit shold have the marksman selectable target ability and be a higher tier unit. I also never understood why they got a melee bonus...the last foe they want to face is a formation of heavilly armored and trained soldiers.

Does anyone build these assassins? They're nice if you happen to have 'em, but I've never been in a situation where I 'needed' their capability.

(Edit: *It might help if every unit STR value was doubled, and effects that currently add +1 STR added +2, etc. That would allow a little more 'fine-tuning' of STR values. e.g. Scout 2, Warrior 4, Hunter 6, Archer 6, Axeman 8, Priests 10, etc. That allows (e.g.) Hunters to be dialed back to 5, which still makes them better than mere Warriors. Tripling would allow even finer tuning, but the Mithril Golem is alread STR 40. I don't know if STR values > 100 are allowed.)

Of course I am assuming that a 10-on-5 battle gives the exact same odds as a 20-on-10 battle.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

The point is null for the Malakim, but assassins have always seemed useful, yet a bit baffling to me. I agree that bonuses versus melee and penalties in cities don't really make sense.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Does anyone build these assassins? They're nice if you happen to have 'em, but I've never been in a situation where I 'needed' their capability.

I focused on melee recently, then AI assassains poped up and I hadto scramble to research some other unit to counter them. They're quite handy if your opponent plays like I did.

 

[Grey Fox]

ya, i like 6 with -50% city attack since then theyd be at a disadvantage attacking a city defended by an axemen. atm you can take them around leveling cities for quite some time if you make them your focus, and their tech line leads to good things as well

And dont forget, there is no promotion versus the Recon-line, so there is another advantage. Almost every unit can get +120% versus melee, so that 7 strenght of a macemen is not that high compared to the 7 of a ranger.

(Edit: *It might help if every unit STR value was doubled, and effects that currently add +1 STR added +2, etc. That would allow a little more 'fine-tuning' of STR values. e.g. Scout 2, Warrior 4, Hunter 6, Archer 6, Axeman 8, Priests 10, etc. That allows (e.g.) Hunters to be dialed back to 5, which still makes them better than mere Warriors. Tripling would allow even finer tuning, but the Mithril Golem is alread STR 40. I don't know if STR values > 100 are allowed.)

Of course I am assuming that a 10-on-5 battle gives the exact same odds as a 20-on-10 battle.

Yea, in my cIVRPG mod every character class has a base strenght of 100. This so I can make alot of variation on the enemies strenghts. I dont know if 50 vs 100 is the same as 5 vs 10 or 20 vs 40 when it comes to the games calculations. But I bet that the higher the numbers are, the more probable the odds should be.

 

[Pelaka]

I made great use of assasins in a recent game. I was origianally heading for rangers, but I was able to quickly scout my continent and determine that only one other weak civ was on my continent, and alot of barbarians. Since barbarians are virtually 100% melee, I switch to assasins. They were also great for my early rush on the other civ on my continent... even with the city penalty, the +% to melee more then made up for it taking out the warrriors and axemen he had in his three cities.

It was a fun game... I then settled only half the map until boats from other civs started arriving. That let me get lots of barbs to level my assasins against. Once other civs showed up I quickly settled the rest of the continent and had 10+ level 8-10 assasins to guard things. It gave me a very solid base to move to a cultural victory.

If you know you'll primarily be facing melee units, then assasins are great.

Pel.

 

[Sureshot]

And dont forget, there is no promotion versus the Recon-line, so there is another advantage. Almost every unit can get +120% versus melee, so that 7 strenght of a macemen is not that high compared to the 7 of a ranger.

considering how easy rangers (and hunters, the easiest conquest unit) are to make, and the freedom from anti-promos against them, they should be the lowest str unit in their tier all the time

a progression like scouts 1, hunters 2, rangers 4, would make more sense... atm i have to avoid getting the recon line because frankly, it makes the game too easy, and the only way to make sense of it is to pretend the recon line is your cavalry, with the side bonus of being immune to animals as well.

the actual cavalry units, are much too weak, a 5 strength unit that cant get defensive bonuses, has no chance to defeat a maceman in defense or offense, making them useless unless you managed to overwin already, and have that tier before anyone else

 

[Nikis-Knight]

the actual cavalry units, are much too weak, a 5 strength unit that cant get defensive bonuses,

and in FfH, they get this penalty twice, since attacking units might benifit from their terrain even if they don't!

 

[Sureshot]

ya, cavalry in woods = dead

they need to have the highest strength in their tier if you ask me..

another problem, is they're super limited in their promotions, they cant get any of the 2nds of the vs. type.. like no shock 2 for them, and they don't get any of the slaying promotions, why is that? a horseman can't get good at killing orcs?!?!?

right now they're gimped in every way and cost a ton.. i just don't understand it, they get good when you get to national, but anything before then is just a waste of time

the simplest sensical solution is half cost on stirrups, switch tracking and hunting with each other, and increase cavalry strength to 4 for horsemen and 7 for horsearchers, or 3 and 6 and lower the recon line all around (i also think the bowyers decrease was too little, its still over double the ranger tech)

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Oh, believe me, I have a solution to the cavalry problem. I have a succession game I must play at the moment, but once I'm done, I'm making a new thread.

 

[Sureshot]

post your thread already, i wish to further post my discontent for the state of mounted