Yeah, the current rate is set too high, I just forgot to change it. 
G
G
unit-promotion balance thread
- Thread starter mystikx21
- Start date
So to summarize where this is at so I know what I can focus on doing to get somethings ready to ship off to the boss. 
Right now:
1) Add a cruiser as a ranged oil requiring ship in between frigates and battleships. I will come up with some unit stats based on other naval unit changes and we'll go from there. It looks like we would have artwork.
I would consider using coal instead, but that can be argued once we make any resource distribution or amount changes.
2) Create a grenadier ranged infantry unit in between xbow and gatling guns as an optional modification. For now I would do the same with a late-game missile destroyer ship until we get some firmer ideas how to set it up. That I think has a stronger case for inclusion.
3) Generally set up to use CEP's unit strengths and cost adjustments and promotions as well as city combat strength effects. I'll have to set up a unit strength for the ATG and change a couple of units around but that's not that difficult. The Marine will be defaulted to off in that routine but we can make sure it has unit stats that are appropriate and make it easy to turn them back on.
If there are objections to using that unit balance, or a particular unit's balance, that can be fiddled around with as this goes easily enough. Most of our change questions for now are best focused on assuring units have well-defined and functional roles and a sensible upgrade path first or filling gaps if there are any by rearranging units or adding them than on precise numerical strength arguments. The unit stats overall I find are better balanced in CEP but can certainly be open to tweaking.
I would not be using CEP's unit cost adjustment for all units (2x). Just setting individual units at varying production costs for balance. CEP used a rough scale of a unit would cost 10x its strength or ranged strength. This would just use that, but reduce it out from the 2x cost scale. Certain units would cost more and others would be discounted or much cheaper.
4) Bump Battleships to 2 oil required (there would otherwise be CEP's unit resource requirement changes except for ironclads-iron, which while obvious, wasn't all that important or effective, mainly this would mean - tanks, cruisers/BBs are oil, planes are alum, gunships have no requirement, rocket artillery has no requirement.
5) Change pike upgrade path to gunpowder units.
6) Make sure barbarian healing is reduced to a sensible default.
7) Set up an optional renaming modification convention to deal with things like the GWI/GWB. I will eventually put up a thread to deal with those changes for discussion. But the arquebus change in CEP is pretty straightforward that I think that one is settled and useful and shouldn't be that confusing.
8) Do not use the bireme (early ranged ship).
Things we haven't done yet that could be decided quickly (or not)
1) Do any serious re-arranging of tech tree appearance for units. That can be a way to balance some units or techs. I would advise we hold off on this, but I will make a note of which unit strengths are based on a tech adjustment in CEP for future reference and if we don't do any tech adjustment when we do make any of those changes, I can just move the unit strength back to the correct tech tier.
2) Decide more firmly what to do with the lancers and gunships. An argument for keeping the lancers is the existence of some UUs (though they could be moved to cavalry if there's really no reason to keep them). I don't think keeping them in the mobile unit line would be that strange that we should think of it as shoehorning them though. They'd just be an intermediate unit between knights and cavalry, and cavalry could be adjusted from there if needed.
3) Decide if any units could require multiple upgrade paths (other than most likely the UU warriors. Chariot archer and its UUs is another option).
4) Decide if any units (particularly obvious candidate would be ranged knights) can benefit from a separate promotion tree from its combat class, and make sure those promotions will convert over if the unit combat class shifts afterward so they remain useful.
5) Decide when or if to put in a 3-range city attack effect (on a city defence? on a tech? on a policy?)
Right now:
1) Add a cruiser as a ranged oil requiring ship in between frigates and battleships. I will come up with some unit stats based on other naval unit changes and we'll go from there. It looks like we would have artwork.
I would consider using coal instead, but that can be argued once we make any resource distribution or amount changes. 2) Create a grenadier ranged infantry unit in between xbow and gatling guns as an optional modification. For now I would do the same with a late-game missile destroyer ship until we get some firmer ideas how to set it up. That I think has a stronger case for inclusion.
3) Generally set up to use CEP's unit strengths and cost adjustments and promotions as well as city combat strength effects. I'll have to set up a unit strength for the ATG and change a couple of units around but that's not that difficult. The Marine will be defaulted to off in that routine but we can make sure it has unit stats that are appropriate and make it easy to turn them back on.
If there are objections to using that unit balance, or a particular unit's balance, that can be fiddled around with as this goes easily enough. Most of our change questions for now are best focused on assuring units have well-defined and functional roles and a sensible upgrade path first or filling gaps if there are any by rearranging units or adding them than on precise numerical strength arguments. The unit stats overall I find are better balanced in CEP but can certainly be open to tweaking.
I would not be using CEP's unit cost adjustment for all units (2x). Just setting individual units at varying production costs for balance. CEP used a rough scale of a unit would cost 10x its strength or ranged strength. This would just use that, but reduce it out from the 2x cost scale. Certain units would cost more and others would be discounted or much cheaper.
4) Bump Battleships to 2 oil required (there would otherwise be CEP's unit resource requirement changes except for ironclads-iron, which while obvious, wasn't all that important or effective, mainly this would mean - tanks, cruisers/BBs are oil, planes are alum, gunships have no requirement, rocket artillery has no requirement.
5) Change pike upgrade path to gunpowder units.
6) Make sure barbarian healing is reduced to a sensible default.
7) Set up an optional renaming modification convention to deal with things like the GWI/GWB. I will eventually put up a thread to deal with those changes for discussion. But the arquebus change in CEP is pretty straightforward that I think that one is settled and useful and shouldn't be that confusing.
8) Do not use the bireme (early ranged ship).
Things we haven't done yet that could be decided quickly (or not)
1) Do any serious re-arranging of tech tree appearance for units. That can be a way to balance some units or techs. I would advise we hold off on this, but I will make a note of which unit strengths are based on a tech adjustment in CEP for future reference and if we don't do any tech adjustment when we do make any of those changes, I can just move the unit strength back to the correct tech tier.
2) Decide more firmly what to do with the lancers and gunships. An argument for keeping the lancers is the existence of some UUs (though they could be moved to cavalry if there's really no reason to keep them). I don't think keeping them in the mobile unit line would be that strange that we should think of it as shoehorning them though. They'd just be an intermediate unit between knights and cavalry, and cavalry could be adjusted from there if needed.
3) Decide if any units could require multiple upgrade paths (other than most likely the UU warriors. Chariot archer and its UUs is another option).
4) Decide if any units (particularly obvious candidate would be ranged knights) can benefit from a separate promotion tree from its combat class, and make sure those promotions will convert over if the unit combat class shifts afterward so they remain useful.
5) Decide when or if to put in a 3-range city attack effect (on a city defence? on a tech? on a policy?)
Lord Tirian
Erratic Poster
Any chance you could lend me a hand with this problem? (if I can't get the template method to work, I'll probably have to bite the bullet and attempt custom animations)
comments on the notes made:
3) Generally set up to use CEP's unit strengths and cost adjustments
--I would leave any cost adjustments alone for now myself, focus purely on combat usefulness.
4) Bump Battleships to 2 oil required (there would otherwise be CEP's unit resource requirement changes except for ironclads-iron, which while obvious, wasn't all that important or effective, mainly this would mean - tanks, cruisers/BBs are oil, planes are alum, gunships have no requirement, rocket artillery has no requirement.
--Lets let the dust settle on the new unit strengths before we change strategic requirements. If all is said and done and the battleship is better than anything else for oil, then I think this is a great idea.
Considering taht alumninum will be rarer, and we may reduce the recycling center, why not keep planes on oil? Aluminum can be teh strategic resource of the science victory...and that would make much more historical sense
(oil still is the absolute dominant strategic resource of our age).
5) Change pike upgrade path to gunpowder units.
--Agreed
Things we haven't done yet that could be decided quickly (or not)
1) Do any serious re-arranging of tech tree appearance for units. That can be a way to balance some units or techs. I would advise we hold off on this, but I will make a note of which unit strengths are based on a tech adjustment in CEP for future reference and if we don't do any tech adjustment when we do make any of those changes, I can just move the unit strength back to the correct tech tier.
--Lets leave this be for now.
2) Decide more firmly what to do with the lancers and gunships. An argument for keeping the lancers is the existence of some UUs (though they could be moved to cavalry if there's really no reason to keep them). I don't think keeping them in the mobile unit line would be that strange that we should think of it as shoehorning them though. They'd just be an intermediate unit between knights and cavalry, and cavalry could be adjusted from there if needed.
--I hadn't heard any concern about gunships, what are people's thoughts?
I've been thinking about the lancer more and looking at the tech tree. Considering other equivalent chains on the tech tree, the lancer isn't that badly spaced, and probably could serve as the intermediatary...aka Knight -> Lancer -> Calvary. As a stronger knight it would be a lot easier to balance. So I am coming around on this idea
5) Decide when or if to put in a 3-range city attack effect (on a city defence? on a tech? on a policy?)
--I say we finish the units first and see how cities compare in the new order, than adjust city attacks.
3) Generally set up to use CEP's unit strengths and cost adjustments
--I would leave any cost adjustments alone for now myself, focus purely on combat usefulness.
4) Bump Battleships to 2 oil required (there would otherwise be CEP's unit resource requirement changes except for ironclads-iron, which while obvious, wasn't all that important or effective, mainly this would mean - tanks, cruisers/BBs are oil, planes are alum, gunships have no requirement, rocket artillery has no requirement.
--Lets let the dust settle on the new unit strengths before we change strategic requirements. If all is said and done and the battleship is better than anything else for oil, then I think this is a great idea.
Considering taht alumninum will be rarer, and we may reduce the recycling center, why not keep planes on oil? Aluminum can be teh strategic resource of the science victory...and that would make much more historical sense
(oil still is the absolute dominant strategic resource of our age).
5) Change pike upgrade path to gunpowder units.
--Agreed
Things we haven't done yet that could be decided quickly (or not)
1) Do any serious re-arranging of tech tree appearance for units. That can be a way to balance some units or techs. I would advise we hold off on this, but I will make a note of which unit strengths are based on a tech adjustment in CEP for future reference and if we don't do any tech adjustment when we do make any of those changes, I can just move the unit strength back to the correct tech tier.
--Lets leave this be for now.
2) Decide more firmly what to do with the lancers and gunships. An argument for keeping the lancers is the existence of some UUs (though they could be moved to cavalry if there's really no reason to keep them). I don't think keeping them in the mobile unit line would be that strange that we should think of it as shoehorning them though. They'd just be an intermediate unit between knights and cavalry, and cavalry could be adjusted from there if needed.
--I hadn't heard any concern about gunships, what are people's thoughts?
I've been thinking about the lancer more and looking at the tech tree. Considering other equivalent chains on the tech tree, the lancer isn't that badly spaced, and probably could serve as the intermediatary...aka Knight -> Lancer -> Calvary. As a stronger knight it would be a lot easier to balance. So I am coming around on this idea
5) Decide when or if to put in a 3-range city attack effect (on a city defence? on a tech? on a policy?)
--I say we finish the units first and see how cities compare in the new order, than adjust city attacks.
3) Cost adjustments ARE based on unit usefulness. If a unit is too good or more like a meat shield for its era to take some hits and keep fighting, it needs to be adjusted based on that. Buildings are in the same category. If something comes out pretty close, I would leave it alone but there are some units with significant cost changes for balance. I don't think this would be that disconcerting.
4) The argument with the oil/alum is that oil does not continue to be a dominant resource. It is not required for the modern era units, alum is and changing this makes for a more stable "if I have oil I can decide to dominate the seas/coasts or get a blitzkrieg going" choice and the alum then becomes dominance of skies vs the space race. I don't find that this would significantly upset the quantities demanded of either. Air units stack and are pretty good, so you should have a demand for using alum right away while having a strong choice over what to build with oil. Right now the choice is basically build oil units, then build alum units. Which is strange and potentially cuts off upgrade paths.
The rocket arty change is mostly because it doesn't make much sense and I'd rather not try to balance that unit based on a resource requirement all of the sudden appearing in the combat path (it would have to be stronger instead of just faster and setup fast. I'd rather it could be slightly "weaker" and do those things). Ditto the gunship.
2) Gunships aren't really a "concern", it is more "is it okay that they would just kind of pop our of nowhere" or could we do something like upgrade some cavalry to them that they could start out with some high XP (air cav units).
5) Sounds fair. If cities are fine as is, or need some help we can come back to that easily enough.
4) The argument with the oil/alum is that oil does not continue to be a dominant resource. It is not required for the modern era units, alum is and changing this makes for a more stable "if I have oil I can decide to dominate the seas/coasts or get a blitzkrieg going" choice and the alum then becomes dominance of skies vs the space race. I don't find that this would significantly upset the quantities demanded of either. Air units stack and are pretty good, so you should have a demand for using alum right away while having a strong choice over what to build with oil. Right now the choice is basically build oil units, then build alum units. Which is strange and potentially cuts off upgrade paths.
The rocket arty change is mostly because it doesn't make much sense and I'd rather not try to balance that unit based on a resource requirement all of the sudden appearing in the combat path (it would have to be stronger instead of just faster and setup fast. I'd rather it could be slightly "weaker" and do those things). Ditto the gunship.
2) Gunships aren't really a "concern", it is more "is it okay that they would just kind of pop our of nowhere" or could we do something like upgrade some cavalry to them that they could start out with some high XP (air cav units).
5) Sounds fair. If cities are fine as is, or need some help we can come back to that easily enough.
Cost adjustments ARE based on unit usefulness. If a unit is too good or more like a meat shield for its era to take some hits and keep fighting, it needs to be adjusted based on that. Buildings are in the same category. If something comes out pretty close, I would leave it alone but there are some units with significant cost changes for balance. I don't think this would be that disconcerting.
--What are the units that you are thinking of adjusting cost wise?
4) The argument with the oil/alum is that oil does not continue to be a dominant resource. It is not required for the modern era units, alum is and changing this makes for a more stable "if I have oil I can decide to dominate the seas/coasts or get a blitzkrieg going" choice and the alum then becomes dominance of skies vs the space race. I don't find that this would significantly upset the quantities demanded of either. Air units stack and are pretty good, so you should have a demand for using alum right away while having a strong choice over what to build with oil. Right now the choice is basically build oil units, then build alum units. Which is strange and potentially cuts off upgrade paths.
--I can agree with this logic. So modern armor would be oil then right?
The rocket arty change is mostly because it doesn't make much sense
--Agree with teh rocket artillery. Compared to the range of planes it already has to compete for a niche. So removing the requirement helps with that.
2) Gunships aren't really a "concern", it is more "is it okay that they would just kind of pop our of nowhere" or could we do something like upgrade some cavalry to them that they could start out with some high XP (air cav units).
--I think gunships could be "out of nowhere". Basically if we proceed with the lancer change we discussed, antimounted leaves the game for a while and comes back but in a different way (anti tank as opposed to antihorse). I think that's resonable.
I mean historically in warfare it really is a brand unit kind of unit. While we call it "air calv", it added a functionality to warfare that simply did not exist before...just as the tank created a "lightning warfare" possibilty that was not seen before its time.
--What are the units that you are thinking of adjusting cost wise?
4) The argument with the oil/alum is that oil does not continue to be a dominant resource. It is not required for the modern era units, alum is and changing this makes for a more stable "if I have oil I can decide to dominate the seas/coasts or get a blitzkrieg going" choice and the alum then becomes dominance of skies vs the space race. I don't find that this would significantly upset the quantities demanded of either. Air units stack and are pretty good, so you should have a demand for using alum right away while having a strong choice over what to build with oil. Right now the choice is basically build oil units, then build alum units. Which is strange and potentially cuts off upgrade paths.
--I can agree with this logic. So modern armor would be oil then right?
The rocket arty change is mostly because it doesn't make much sense
--Agree with teh rocket artillery. Compared to the range of planes it already has to compete for a niche. So removing the requirement helps with that.
2) Gunships aren't really a "concern", it is more "is it okay that they would just kind of pop our of nowhere" or could we do something like upgrade some cavalry to them that they could start out with some high XP (air cav units).
--I think gunships could be "out of nowhere". Basically if we proceed with the lancer change we discussed, antimounted leaves the game for a while and comes back but in a different way (anti tank as opposed to antihorse). I think that's resonable.
I mean historically in warfare it really is a brand unit kind of unit. While we call it "air calv", it added a functionality to warfare that simply did not exist before...just as the tank created a "lightning warfare" possibilty that was not seen before its time.
Modern armor currently is alum, it would become oil. Missile Cruisers would also go back to oil. They're nothing right now.
Cost changes are listed on the wiki. Look for anything over 10% up or down. The exceptions would be the chariot/dragoon/gunship and the lancer, because I'd have to change those units. And then probably we would see the ATG discounted as well.
Tanks didn't really add something new to war, but they definitely amped it up. Horseback units were amazingly destructive versus people who didn't have them when those first appeared too. Tanks were more of the same but faster and more devastating. Gunships would make a good mobile counter for that. I'd consider keeping the ATG but let it upgrade to a bazooka or a gunship.
Cost changes are listed on the wiki. Look for anything over 10% up or down. The exceptions would be the chariot/dragoon/gunship and the lancer, because I'd have to change those units. And then probably we would see the ATG discounted as well.
Tanks didn't really add something new to war, but they definitely amped it up. Horseback units were amazingly destructive versus people who didn't have them when those first appeared too. Tanks were more of the same but faster and more devastating. Gunships would make a good mobile counter for that. I'd consider keeping the ATG but let it upgrade to a bazooka or a gunship.
Looking at the wiki, that is the vast majority of units.
I just don't see the need for that kind of strong cost adjustment right now. I think units take a reasonable amount of time to build right now, its just that certain units aren't as good. And strength is a more important factor. In Civ 4 when I could have 100 units on a square...cost meant power.
In Civ 5, because of limited space, a units strength is more comparable in terms of its raw power. Cost is a factor, but not the primary one imo.
Personally the only unit I would say off the bat that could see a good cost reduction is the guided missile. Anything in the game that is only a one time use has to be either ridiculously effective (which would then just make it OP) or should be markedly cheap to produce.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Noone liked the extra variety in early naval combat? I'm surprised!
Considering that quite a few games never see lategame (because the player is dominant early one and knows he'll win or because we want to switch to a new patch/new mod), we spend a large amount of our gaming time with only a single naval unit.
I do prefer water-heavy maps, so my experience might not be representative.
I was ambivalent about it.
The one good argument I felt in favor of it was the ability to clear out barbarian camps on the coast/islands. But you don't really get "unsecure" naval trade routes going that this would be a major risk until you have the galleass available anyway, and the trireme does adequately well (strengthened slightly) at mowing down barbarian ships that might pillage fish or routes.
The part that was more strongly suggestive was the frigate-battleship gap and the lack of a modern ship after the destroyer (variety in modern combat).
The one good argument I felt in favor of it was the ability to clear out barbarian camps on the coast/islands. But you don't really get "unsecure" naval trade routes going that this would be a major risk until you have the galleass available anyway, and the trireme does adequately well (strengthened slightly) at mowing down barbarian ships that might pillage fish or routes.
The part that was more strongly suggestive was the frigate-battleship gap and the lack of a modern ship after the destroyer (variety in modern combat).
Lord Tirian
Erratic Poster
In case people care about aesthetics, I'm making progress with the cruiser - I got a basic rigged model into the game:
The animation still has issues, but I'm hopeful that I'll be able to improve upon it. Seeing the texture in-game is helpful too for improving upon it (that's the reason for the comparison shot, I want to match to overall colour schemes, the warm tones are largely driven my personal preference, that will be fixed now!).
EDIT: If you spot anything else that's off or could be improved/changed, please post. Perfectionist here, I want it to feel as "civ" as possible.
Spoiler :
The animation still has issues, but I'm hopeful that I'll be able to improve upon it. Seeing the texture in-game is helpful too for improving upon it (that's the reason for the comparison shot, I want to match to overall colour schemes, the warm tones are largely driven my personal preference, that will be fixed now!).
EDIT: If you spot anything else that's off or could be improved/changed, please post. Perfectionist here, I want it to feel as "civ" as possible.
ExpiredReign
Deity
Amazing. That's a talent you have there.
What about sizing? Next to the battleship it looks huge.
What about sizing? Next to the battleship it looks huge.
Looks too small to me. Obviously a ship for ants.
G
G
Lord Tirian
Erratic Poster
A lot of the work was done by Refar, really, he made the original mesh, I'm just touching it up and adding some detail, since Civ5 is expected to run on beefier machines than Civ4, it's just the textures that are really my work.
Effects are done as well, so it shoots four of the cannons, that took a while, but I'm pretty happy with it. Just need to do a clean up and package everything for upload.
EDIT: Done, people can grab it here, there's also a screenshot with a sensible size... (scale = 0.0865).
Is this better (also note the flag and portrait I made for it, so much easier if you have the actual model at hand):Looks too small to me. Obviously a ship for ants.
Spoiler :
Effects are done as well, so it shoots four of the cannons, that took a while, but I'm pretty happy with it. Just need to do a clean up and package everything for upload.
EDIT: Done, people can grab it here, there's also a screenshot with a sensible size... (scale = 0.0865).
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Great!
ExpiredReign
Deity
With this I can now RULE THE WORLD!!!!!
muwahahaaahaaa!!!
With this I can now RULE THE WORLD!!!!!
muwahahaaahaaa!!!
I see nothing wrong with this image.
(but in all seriousness, I do really like the model and images, good job :>)
ExpiredReign
Deity
This may possibly be more applicable for discussion here rather than in my other post about some of CEP's functions.
In CEP, a lot of debate was put in place about city health and how to offset capture penalties etc. A couple of functions were written to help that. Do you think we need something like this here?
In CEP, a lot of debate was put in place about city health and how to offset capture penalties etc. A couple of functions were written to help that. Do you think we need something like this here?
Spoiler :
