unit-promotion balance thread

[Stalker0]

answers inline:

1. Mounted archers have been a big deal in many cultures in history

--Not really a factor for the balance patch imo. From a real world standpoint there a dozens of variations of ships, guns, tanks, planes, infantry that could in theory be represented that we already ignore.

2. Mounted archery is pretty damn cool

--Still not a balance factor
3. Mounted archers would be pretty damn strong (but would be countered by the faster mounted non-archers, giving them a better role to fill)

--Not a factor if we don't add them in.
4. A mounted archery line would make it easier to balance the retardedly overpowered mounted archeryunits that already exists (Camel-archers, Keshik). While also helping those units have a better natural transition (Upgradepath) which would also help the Chariot-replacements.

--We can always nerf those units, no need to create a whole new line to balance a few UUS.
5. It would make all the Dragoon/Lancer UUs(And there really are a crazy amount of those...) feel less useless by adding an actual purpose to them.

--I don't think the answer to make the counter units useful is by making more units for them to counter. That just means I have even miore units types to build....which is even less incentive to build the counter units.

I'm not saying you need to have a Mounted unit and a mounted archer every era, but I really feel that a stable mounted archer-line would improve the game (Which is what we are trying to do here, isn't it? =D)

--As always, improvement is in the eye of the beholder. My stance is, a balance change that hits the mark with fewer changes is superior to a more radical change.

 

[Funak]

Mounted units in this game just feels so damn useless, mounted units in history was something that non-mounted units had no way of dealing with what-so-ever. I understand how this isn't possible gameplayvise but atleast this change would give them some general purpose

 

[mystikx21]

4) Keshiks under the current design are 20/21 strength where knights are I believe 25 (they cost a little less, and do not get a city penalty, but are ranged so they can't capture one). We can set Camel Archers at a different rate as well (I currently have them at 21/25, I think). This was something that CEP never really explored (for whatever reason, those two never were adjusted by Thal, most likely an oversight as there were several bugs with the Mongols in CEP). I'm treading out on experimental ground by setting their stats a bit but they aren't that difficult to adjust.

If it requires adding probably 2-3 unit types, and maybe moving 3 units into it, this is a lot of work to justify it as balanced in order to fix a problem with one unit's upgrade path (lancers), and two UUs.

I find mounted units under the CEP design to be very strong. This is primarily because their counter isn't quite as strong (without promotions), and the horse, and then the tank, dominates the open field and pillage war and gives some ability to rapidly move in for a capture of a city from afar, from safely behind your archers or siege units for example.

 

[Funak]

4)If it requires adding probably 2-3 unit types, and maybe moving 3 units into it, this is a lot of work to justify it as balanced in order to fix a problem with one unit's upgrade path (lancers), and two UUs.

There are also the chariot-replacements (Indian elephants, Egyptian chariots, is there another one?) Yes I know it is a lot of work but the ranged lancers (which made no sense at all, mind me) were one of my absolute favorite additions in CEP, I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way (because mounted arhcers are awesome)

I find mounted units under the CEP design to be very strong. This is primarily because their counter isn't quite as strong (without promotions), and the horse, and then the tank, dominates the open field and pillage war and gives some ability to rapidly move in for a capture of a city from afar, from safely behind your archers or siege units for example.

I know they were stronger in CEP(because they were completely useless in vanilla). But having mounted archers (with generally one less movement than the equal era mounted melee unit, and only 1 tile range because 2 would be op) would add more strategic value to essentially everything.
Your vanilla line of meleeunits with a line of archers/siegeunits would be forced to adapt to a cavalry force flanking shooting down a main blocker and surrounding for a flankattack.

Warfare doesn't need to be boring! Support a mounted archer army today!

 

[Stalker0]

I find mounted units under the CEP design to be very strong.

I find mounted units to be pretty darn good in vanilla myself.

They dominate the open field, they are good at pillaging, good at providing flank, and good at absorbing damage. I can let my horse take a few hits than swap him out with another unit.

Horsemen are decent, probably the weakest of the direct horseline. Knights are great, and I always build calvalry instead of riflemen (between artillery and gatling guns to kill cities why build rifleman when the calvary is a fast moving death unit?)

 

[Stalker0]

As for the chariot archer, the unit is fine imo its just that the composite bowmen is too strong. Cbowmen should be 10 str imo.

 

[mystikx21]

Chariots are already ranged, so the UU replacements are easier to balance as they're just tweaking a stat that already exists. The simple solution is to bump their cost up slightly but give them an extra point or two of ranged strength so they're roughly equal to composite bowmen (or reduce comp bowmen).

Another reason to avoid the change is precisely because there are so many cavalry UUs (I would not change the lancer over as that change was nonsensical).

 

[Funak]

Another reason to avoid the change is precisely because there are so many cavalry UUs (I would not change the lancer over as that change was nonsensical).

Funny how that is my exact argument for haing the change =D There are so many Cav-replacements, and all of them are wasted on the current unit-system.

 

[Tucker89]

What about a scout line? When I think of changing units in Civ V and balancing unit lines, the first thing that comes to mind is the scout. The scout gets outclassed far too early and eventually just disappears. In warfare scouting is a very important component and there's no scout unit late game. I suppose one could use cavalry or tanks to do it but that seems silly and would break immersion. The final unit in the line could be a Special Forces unit that could play a scout and disruptor/sabotage unit behind enemy lines. Maybe give it some form of limited invisibility?

I never played CEP but I have played a lot of BNW and this seems to be the biggest glaring hole for me.

Edit: Has anyone thought of combat engineers? A unit that can help support military forces far from home? An example tile improvement can be a Forward Operating Base. A place where I can station a few aircraft and maybe help heal my units a tad bit quicker. Could cost strategic resources to build.

 

[mystikx21]

The sight promotions allow for that already. Scouts fulfill a limited role in the very early game, fast sight, until you get mobile units or promote existing units.

One of the problems is that GEM's vanguard line in many ways tried to fulfill this line and largely failed. The promotions are good enough without having a weak, mostly defensive+sight line of units. There are two problems with it in the game.

1) The AI doesn't understand the unit roles as limited and builds lots of "uesless" units instead of more capable units.
2) The units aren't as combat capable (if they are, then we don't need a "scout" unit line as they'd just be an existing unit, so there is no point in creating a separate line)

 

[Tucker89]

Maybe we don't make the scout units super weak. In the beginning, a scout with the right promotions and the high ground could stand against warriors and archers decently. I am not saying 5-6 units should be added, but about 2 unites. The scout would upgrade to a new unit around Medieval era or so and then into a new unit in the Modern or Information era. I am thinking a Special Forces unit because they have become such an integral part of military forces. This unit could be more than just "Scout with greater attack power".

1) Couldn't the AI the be coded to produce a certain amount of these units? The AI must already have some kind of code that limits unit production in the case of workers, archaeologists, etc.

2) Well neither is the caravel or aircraft carrier. The scout units don't need to be at one extreme or the other. It shouldn't stand toe to toe with conventional military forces, just enough combat strength to survive, but with the right application it could play a valuable role. And the late game scout unit can serve more than just sight. It could be used as a tool for covert warfare. Incite and improve barbarians in a nearby civ for example.

 

[Gazebo]

Maybe we don't make the scout units super weak. In the beginning, a scout with the right promotions and the high ground could stand against warriors and archers decently. I am not saying 5-6 units should be added, but about 2 unites. The scout would upgrade to a new unit around Medieval era or so and then into a new unit in the Modern or Information era. I am thinking a Special Forces unit because they have become such an integral part of military forces. This unit could be more than just "Scout with greater attack power".

1) Couldn't the AI the be coded to produce a certain amount of these units? The AI must already have some kind of code that limits unit production in the case of workers, archaeologists, etc.

2) Well neither is the caravel or aircraft carrier. The scout units don't need to be at one extreme or the other. It shouldn't stand toe to toe with conventional military forces, just enough combat strength to survive, but with the right application it could play a valuable role. And the late game scout unit can serve more than just sight. It could be used as a tool for covert warfare. Incite and improve barbarians in a nearby civ for example.

Both of those elements would require a significant amount of coding to perform, and I'm not sure the effort would be worth the payout. Players would always be better at using said units than the AI, so we'd be gimping the tactical AI further. Letting the scout be an early unit, and transitioning the role of 'sight' to cavalry makes sense, and is something the AI already understands.
G

 

[Tucker89]

Just curious, why doesn't the AI produce an absurd amount of civilian units or scouts early game? If it's coded to produce a certain amount, can that code be co-opted for this?

If adding special abilities to an end game scout would be too game breaking for the AI and difficult, I could accept an end game scout that doesn't have them I just really want an end game cheap scout unit. I understand the removal of the marine when you added def embarkation and amphibious together, but tanks and cavalry require strategic resources and are more expensive than infantry. A cheap end game scout infantry unit would fit here.

And if everyone is really so set against adding 1 or 2 scout unit upgrades, any chance the sight promotions and movement promotions can be added together?

Edit: It would be nice to have a unit to pair with the caravel to pick up those ruins on islands oh so far away. Kind of like the rangers you got in Civ Rev with that one boat.

 

[mystikx21]

CEP did condense some of the promotions. The sight and/or mobility promotions were combined (usually with others. I believe they are merged for naval units but not for land).

That can be arranged for this as well.

 

[Question]

Not sure if this qualifies as a balance issue but is it possible to mod the game so that pre-reqs for advanced promotions are based off something like unit level instead? One annoying factor is that you can get +1 range for naval units if you pick either bombardment or targetting 2, but not if you pick bombardment 1 and targetting 1 (to have a more well rounded unit).

 

[Funak]

Not sure if this qualifies as a balance issue but is it possible to mod the game so that pre-reqs for advanced promotions are based off something like unit level instead? One annoying factor is that you can get +1 range for naval units if you pick either bombardment or targetting 2, but not if you pick bombardment 1 and targetting 1 (to have a more well rounded unit).

I think this would be a better solution as well. As it is some promotions never gets picked because they are mediocre and doesn't lead anywhere.

 

[Thoma]

City Defence Strength

Chiming in to support the idea that cities should have very little resistence against attacks without proper upgrades. At the moment, cities do pretty well against attackers, even without walls. But that is neither plausible, nor is it interesting from a strategic point of view.

If I need to add proper defenses to my cities to give them any chance against attackers without garrisoned units, the re-balance of the cost-risk estimation has an impact on the usual priority list for builders, sprawlers and war-mongers alike.

Which is good, imo, because it adds another demand to adapt to the situation at hand instead of implementing static blueprints.

I have also developed a fondness for WHoward's City Bombard Range mod.

The bombard range of cities is a function of the tech known by the owning player

Agriculture: Range 1, no indirect fire (throwing rocks over the wall)
Mathematics: Range 2, no indirect fire (using catapults to hurl boulders)
Gunpowder: Range 2, indirect fire (using mortars to lob projectiles)
Dynamite: Range 3, indirect fire (artillery firing shells)

This makes a lot of sense, imo, though an argument can be made in favour of an earlier Range 2 with the discovery of Archery.

But I still think, it should be as optional for a player to actively build up defence from the start as all the other capabilities of his Civ. Anything simply given demands no attention and decreases the need for decision-making.

Sure, a builder might call the necessity to put hammers into walls and garrisons a nuisance when he could add something productive instead -- only because his neighbour happens to be the Huns.

But isn't the need to act more flexible a desirable goal in a strategy game?

 

[mystikx21]

Using techs to buff the city defenses
1) Is already present as an abstract calculation.
2) Isn't the same as requiring investment in city defenses for active defense benefits (if you had to build a military base for level 4 there, that would be different). All it means is as you get more tech, your city defenses are better. Which is already the case in one form.

The change that is proposed, somewhere in this or other threads is something like these steps.
1) Reduce base city strength slightly (say, 6 from 8)
2) Reduce the tech and population factors in the calculations slightly (gains less strength over time, but same proportionally).
3) Increase the hit points from city defenses (significantly), reduce the healing rate slightly. This included a buff to the palace so CS and enemy capitals are harder to capture.
4) Reduce/eliminate the passive buffs to city attacks from policy trees (oligarchy).
5) Increase the value of garrison strength on city strength.
6) Increase the value of melee units ability to attack cities (buff swords units with city attack bonus for example).

 

[Thoma]

Using techs to buff the city defenses
1) Is already present as an abstract calculation.
2) Isn't the same as requiring investment in city defenses for active defense benefits (if you had to build a military base for level 4 there, that would be different). All it means is as you get more tech, your city defenses are better. Which is already the case in one form.

(...)

It might not have been clear that I share your assessment, even though I look at it more from the perspective of passive and active defence investments. Additions to city defences that come as a bonus result of science and growth are not comparable to investments made for the sole (or main) purpose of building them up.

The first one happens automatically while we realise other goals, the second one is the result of a decision that takes away resources and time from otherwise implemented plans.

The suggestions you list, tackle three different questions, imo:

1) How do we reduce city defence at first?

2) How do we build it up again?

3) What is the value for gameplay doing (1) and (2), if there is one at all?

The value, imo, comes with added choices. Making a choice, however, is only relevant when there is a need and/or a want as well as the means to meet them.

The need would be the result of improvements to the AI to attack our cities; the want would be a greater appeal for us to do the same to the AI.

But I have no idea what changes would make it more appealing and simultanously more manageable for the AI to attack cities right from the start and throughout the game. That's a question the modders are qualified to answer, not me. I might be wrong, but it looks as if this perspective (how can we make AI aggression more feasible?) hasn't been discussed much in this specific context.

For a human player, all the points you list that reduce the passively built up city defence strength have some appeal. My focus is on changes that allow and even push me to make decisions, how to use my limited resources optimally in any given situation.

Adding value to units redirects resources into defence, which is good from my pov; however, it might take away the opportunity that arrives with weakened city defences: the means to defend are now missing as a means to attack.

That dilemma, of course, adds more value to our choices, since it is now a risk calculation with far reaching consequences. The effect for an aggressive approach is likely a shock and raze strategy, while building as few cities as possible. Though depending on the warmonger calculations it might be desirable to leave a weak city as bait for the AI to start a war, which reduces any diplomatic penalties that will add up once that kind of strategy is starting to build up steam.

If units are the crucial factor in determining city defence strength, lure and bait strategies gain appeal, since human players can easily add or decrease strength on the fly to provoke specific AI responses.

Adding strength by way of buffs through buildings and policies is far less flexible, though the response of the AI could largely depend on the informaton it is allowed to gain by various means (Open Border agreements, spies etc.) about the real strenght of the city defences.

Adding buffs while gaining the means to impede the gathering of information about them (or better yet, add the ability to give misinformation), might lure aggressive Civs as well into a trap as unit deployment; this approach, however, rather favours delayed counter-attack strategies, since you plan to defend your cities first instead of sacrificing them (it) as bait.

OTOH, if the AI is allowed to automatically have or gather reliable information, city strength by buffs pushes the player toward a more passive, temporising approach, which is already favoured by Civ in too many ways. Though a builder and diplomat might see the added benefit in such a result.

I'd prefer a stronger impact on strenght through troops. It redirects resources, but adds flexibility and, most importantly, raises the risk of any aggressive strategy, for the human player as well as the AI - which could lead to a more dynamic game. Sounds good to me.

So, my lack of modding knowledge means that I cannot say what adjustments would have the optimal impact on the game while making as few changes as possible -- but I can tell you at least what result I'd call desirable, and why.

 

[Thoma]

After reading this thread, I am left with two questions that both deal with the intention behind the balancing act that is proposed here and in other places:

1. What kind of gaps in the unit tree have what kind of impact on gameplay?

2. What do we want to achieve by changes to units?

[Aside: I know how annoying it is when a newb walks into a discussion and brazenly tells everyone that the focus of the debate seems odd to him -- but that's exactly what I am going to do, and I hope you take it as an honest attempt to further the discussion, and not to step on toes.]

=> 1. The gaps that were mentioned earlier, usually deal with units or classes that had an impact in history but are missing in the game. And it's true that frigates, for example, are used a-historically long. But since no player, neither the AI nor human adversaries, has access to units that would fill those gaps historically correct, it doesn't matter much from a gameplay perspective. Yes, frigates and Xbows lose effectiveness at the end of their life cycles, and they don't fulfil their role as reliably as before.

..

Great! The means are there to compensate for the reduced effectiveness and even use it to our advantage. Sure, it's convenient if we don't have to adapt our strategy to shifts in relative class/unit strength through scientific progress and simply replace one unit with an equally effective successor -- but isn't that a bit boring?

Shifts in relative strength make the game more interesting and reward the flexible player -- which sounds about right.

Another gap that is discussed very little is, imo, far more annoying: The gap between the AI's capability to use a unit effectively and ours!

That's a gap with a serious detrimental impact on gameplay.

Imagine if chess programs could move the queen only like a bishop .. What would you do about it? I know what I'd do.

We all know, how abysmal the AI is in naval warfare, for example. Strengthening the naval unit tree without improving the AI's capabilities in that area only means that the gap gets wider, not closer.

I would suggest to identify any ability the already present units/classes have that the AI is simply incapable of using adequately. And then discuss if it's either possible to remedy the disparity by improving the AI or by removing/pruning such an ability .. unless, of course, a) that ability counters an advantage the AI has, b) the effect isn't crucial anyway or c) it's just too cool to lose.

=> 2. IMO, changes to units shouldn't be focused on higher historic accuracy or awesomeness. They should make the game more diverse, challenging, interesting. And that means: the AI needs to be able to use any unit present or suggested effectively. Anything else results in skeet shooting.