unit-promotion balance thread

[Lord Tirian]

Regarding the insta-heal promotion: I like it, it gives an interesting (and sometimes surprising) tactical element to battles without invoking randomness.

Regarding the cruiser discussion earlier: I'm going to try and convert Refar's excellent Avrora (a Russian protected cruiser) to Civ 5

I got the Blender install and everything running and decided to muck around with the model a bit: Refar's model is very accurate, but Civ5's model tend to "exaggerate" a bit (they are basically very similar to miniatures, taking into account the smaller scale) and I'm trying to emulate that... opinions regarding that (see preview below)? (I'll probably revert the hull to green again, though).

Spoiler Avrora :

 

[Stalker0]

@Stalker, I'd still rather get rid of the insta heal.

To put it another way, is the removal of the insta heal a balance thing, or a preference thing?

Is the insta heal causing balance issues we need to solve?

 

[mystikx21]

I'd say it's a problem for the AI. They would (usually) benefit more from a more promoted unit assuming it survives than burning the promotion to heal. Since they can pillage to heal and would still get a partial heal on the promotion, and would get a combat advantage of some kind to help them resist the attacks or to carry out an attack of its own, I'd say they usually don't need the instant healing effect and it would be a wasted promotion.

I've never had any use for it either with the partial heal used instead. In general. If the unit would live and just needs time to heal while other units come up to help, then there are ways to do that (retreat, take a partial promotion heal, pillage). If a unit is going to die, it's usually going to die anyway even with a full heal but I would argue the best way to make it costly is to re-heal with some extra advantages (and pillage to cripple them).

It's very rare that a unit is very low on HP and has survived and I'd prefer to put it back into combat immediately rather than pull back to heal. If a player is doing this, then they probably don't have enough units available to carry out their battle.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I'm in the remove the 'insta-heal' camp for the same reasons as explained by mystikx21.
Again the point of argumentation comes back as to how the AI will/does handle any changes. I'm sure those that favour MP will chime in and say we need to disregard that but it just doesn't cut it anymore. If the AI won't know what to do with any of the proposed changes then we have a flawed system.

While it is true this is a game, I always found the insta-heal thing too 'gamey'. The few times I did play without mods and tried that promotion were invariably with units that would 'get it in the neck' the next turn. If I had chosen differently and pulled back to heal the end result would have been much better, for that unit.

To put a more semantic slaint on the argument, a promotion implies a bonus that is carried forward that can benefit you in future engagements. Apart from giving a health boost, the units gain nothing long-term and are in fact hampered as the next promotion is now further away. That may be the designed trade-off for the healing, if so it is a bit steep and hence imbalanced, needing our attention in this mod.

 

[Drakir89]

I also think the Insta-heal should be removed, but I think about it differently. Let's agree that using the instea-heal has a very large short term benefit, often healing a unit for 60-80 health while in enemy territory. I think this boost is so large that in some situations, untrained (0 exp) troops will perform better than veteran (10 or 30) exp, simply because the untrained troops will hit their super heal before they die in combat. In certain situations (pvp warfare, early capital rushes, war against the only neighbor) unit preservation is not as important and instead the outcome of battles is everything. In these situations, untrained troops are superior to trained troops, not only because they are expendable, but because their combat performance is better. That is a balance issue.

 

[Stalker0]

In the spirit of modularity, could we create an option separate from the promotions that basically says:

"Insta Heal is removed, all promotions heal X% health".


So basically you would have two options:

1) Use the CPP promotion system
2) Modify the insta heal system (regardless if you use the CPP promotion system).

 

[mitsho]

Just one small comment: Ideally for me, there would be less units overall around (also including types), but then again there should be few changes overall to vanilla. The promotion system from CEP seemed to work quite well for me.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Are we going to keep vanilla-style mandated promotions or allow promotion saving? For the record, I dislike promotion saving - similar to insta-heal, I like that you have to make the choice between "what's useful now" vs. "what's useful later".

Doubly so that saved promotion with CivIV style healing-per-promotion allows for instant healing in the field. It's even more game-y than the instant heal promotion. Forcing choices is good, sometimes (and let's not even get started on what it means to "save" training to kick in just when you need it).

 

[mystikx21]

I do not like promotion or policy saving for the sort of "realism" issues described either.

They can be optional, but should not be considered default settings.

 

[Stalker0]

I thnk we should keep the Marine and ATG in...in the spirit of modularity.

Right now, are argument for removing these units is that promotions will render them obsolete.

But...since we trying to make the mod modular, we will want the ability to turn the promotion system on or off. If the promotions are off, these units have value again.


So I say we leave them in. If you turn promotions on, you probably aren't going to use these units, and that's not a crippling deal. It would be more harmful for the people with the promotions off to not have those units.

 

[Stalker0]

Let me talk through the other units we are discussing:

Lancer: I think for me the problem is that the Calvary comes pretty fast after this unit in the games I play. And while the lancer gets a bonus against them, with a few promotions the calvary is still ultimately stronger.

Ultimately Calvary are just better uses for my hammers and horses. Not that I think Calvary are overpowered, compared to rifleman, gattling guns, and the current city strength numbers they compare well but not strikingly so.


There are a lot of units interacting at this stage of the game, so trying to push Lancers further in that arena is a futile exercise. If we want to keep them, I think they need to be different. A few ideas:

1) Increase flanking bonus.
2) Faster
3) Can pillage for no cost.


Cruiser: This is the new proposed ranged unit between frigate and battleship. This is the move that seems to have the most universal agreement. My thoughts are it should take oil instead of iron, be ranged 2, and probably doesn't need to be fancy with any special promotions. A simple strong ranged unit is all the doctor ordered.

Grenadier: This seems to be most controversial new unit that is being proposed...as a unit between crossbow and gatling gun (I think).

I'm still on the "not needed" side. From a strength standpoint, the xbow still gets the job done. It does decent enough damage to soften up units for the more modern units to kill. I use them all the way until its time to upgrade. Its not like when I am using frigates and doing 4 damage to a city becase of the strength boost.

From a realism standpoint, bows were still in use when muskets were introduced. Bows were actually the superior weapon...its just they took a lot more training to use. However, once better muskets or rifles were introduced...and repeating weapon (like the gattling gun) were on teh field is when the bow finally meet its end. I think the current upgrade scenario models that pretty well...and it doesn't need a change.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Your changes to the lancer don't really help, I think. The problem with the lancer isn't just that it doesn't have a decent niche, it's turning your general purpose infantry (pikemen) into something completely different, turning back into ATG, turning into mobile units again.

If we ignore what the units are and just look at the stats, then the idea that the general purpose infantry slowly turns more mobile (to keep up with the faster cavalry/armoured units) somewhat makes sense.

Perhaps we should just embrace that:

• Lancer: Reduce the movement to 3, get rid of the defence penalty, convert the formation into a anti-mounted trait like the pikemen (+50%).
• ATG: Bump movement up to 3, bump up strength to 55, add "no defensive terrain bonuses"

This turns it into a more logical progression of a decent general purpose unit that trades the defensive terrain bonuses for speed. Without the defence penalty, the lancer can still act similar to the pikemen in its role but gains a bit of manoeuvring (in exchange for the defensive terrain bonus) and acts as cavalry killer. Then, the ATG keeps that role (but turns into a tank killer) with the gunship being the culmination of that progression.

Realism-wise... I don't think it's a big issue to slow down the lancer. Without terrain bonuses, the offensive use is still encouraged. A faster ATG without defensive terrain bonuses mostly makes sense, it's a motorised gun! And it's bigger and more unwieldy than infantry, so no terrain-based guerilla warfare for you!

Not perfect, but brings more sanity to the upgrade line and gives them more of a purpose (cheap-ish general purpose unit good against the mobile line). If we bump city attack for the infantry line, that makes a firmer niche for the lancer line as well.

Thoughts?

 

[mystikx21]

Cruiser should be coal, but 1 oil would be acceptable also. I'd be fine if the Marine is just shut off when you turn on a set of promotions changes. ATG is a different question.

I don't think either of those options really resolve the questions of those units for lancers and ATG.

The alternative approach to lancers would to remove the lancer from the pike promotion line (just fold them in with gunpowder units eventually) and create a distinct upgrade path of ranged mobile units that can be promoted to regular mobile units as well. (Cavalry makes more sense in that role than lancers as that's the primary role as we approached modern warfare, not charging the enemy but recon and skirmishing). I'm not perfectly happy with that approach, but it is more logical in an upgrade sense than spears and pikes to lancers as a sort of heavy cavalry unit. The big downside is that it puts gunships and cavalry in a "ranged" effect at 1 range, which is generally a bad idea to make those kind of changes to a balance mod. But it seems more logical to roll cheap defensive counter infantry into the mainline of infantry units than to keep it as a separate line of its own. Particularly with the changing resource and mobility requirements that entire upgrade path feels forced.

I'm not sure I buy that the "tank destroyer" as a mobile warfare unit is a role big enough historically to be distinct from the towed anti-tank guns and bazookas/rpgs carried by infantry units for defensive/counter purposes. Other than the StuG and M10, most countries just built tanks in WW2 in much greater quantities and used man-portable anti-tank weapons and artillery pieces for tank busting if they didn't have tanks and then mostly stopped building them instead of MBTs post-war. I think ATG is mainly a defensive counter weapon in real life as we'd be talking about towed pieces mostly. Countries used ATGs mounted on vehicles as mobile guns, but not really for long as mobile anti-tank weapons (it was usually easier to just build a better tank). Anti-tank Missiles make a later appearance in that role, but that's where Mechanized infantry, Bazookas, and gunships come into play in the game. I don't really follow that it is necessary to have both the ATG and the Bazooka is I guess the curious part there.

I'd also say that terrain based guerrilla warfare is almost exactly what ATG and ATGM units are used for tactically in real life. Turn a corner on a road and boom in comes a rocket from out of the trees.

I do not have a strong opinion for or against the grenadier. We can make a modular unit for its use if desired. But I don't think it is essential.

I would also suggest doing something post-destroyer.

 

[Lord Tirian]

It all depends on how much we want to mess with existing upgrade paths and how many new units we're willing to introduce. If we're willing to introduce another unit...

It would make a lot of sense to fold the lancer into the cavalry line as intermediate unit between knight and cavalry (there's a small gap there anyway) and introduce an renaissance pikeman (halberdier?) that then upgrades into the ATG. Pull the ATG one tech earlier so it's on-par with the landship (perhaps at ballistics, paralleling combustion). The ATG can then merge into the main melee line or the bazooka.

Doesn't solve the helicopter gunship popping out of nowhere (upgrade-wise), though. Perhaps that the long-needed and well-deserved upgrade scouts need! (creating a whole "exploration" unit line is too much, though, so... not really)

No objections to a slight upgrade to the destroyer. I'd suggest something like Civ4's stealth destroyer. It shouldn't be invisible (treads on the submarine's toes), but could have something like reduced damage from ranged attacks (that's kind of stealthy and allows it to get closer to ranged units without taking too much damage).

 

[mystikx21]

It's a very small gap. We could fill it though. (the bigger gap is between cavalry and landships so we could space those units out a bit to nudge the lancer in between).

The gunship is kind of a problem then still too, though the submarine comes out of nowhere at sea so it's not a totally strange problem.

The CEP naval setup already has ranged ships taking reduced damage from ranged attacks (to encourage using a navy to go kill them easier). I'd be fine with creating a small "stealth" effect like that, or providing some other unit advantage to a modern destroyer, but it's main effect would need to be something like an increase in combat strength into the modern era for attacking cities and subs/battleships as they upgrade and gain strength.

 

[Lord Tirian]

By the way, wolfdog just converted the CivIV grenadier. Purely from a usability point of view, the grenadier is better than the volley gun, I think, as the grenadier is more distinct, while the volley gun looks a lot like the gatling gun.

 

[Stalker0]

Cruiser should be coal, but 1 oil would be acceptable also. I'd be fine if the Marine is just shut off when you turn on a set of promotions changes. ATG is a different question.

The alternative approach to lancers would to remove the lancer from the pike promotion line (just fold them in with gunpowder units eventually) and create a distinct upgrade path of ranged mobile units that can be promoted to regular mobile units as well.

I'm not sure I buy that the "tank destroyer" as a mobile warfare unit is a role big enough historically to be distinct from the towed anti-tank guns and bazookas/rpgs carried by infantry units for defensive/counter purposes. Other than the StuG and M10, most countries just built tanks in WW2 in much greater quantities and used man-portable anti-tank weapons and artillery pieces for tank busting if they didn't have tanks and then mostly stopped building them instead of MBTs post-war.

I would rather just remove the lancer personally than shoe horn it in elsewhere and change unit balance in other places.

The Lancer right now has no effect on balance...because its not used. It only makes metallurgy bad (and that tech is really bad in the base, because the arsenal is not that useful base either...though better with the new happiness system). As far as the tank destroyer, it was a commonly built tank in WW2...but not so much that it needs a place as a unit. As we all know, warfare has WAY WAY WAY more unit types than could ever be modeled in a civ game, we certainty don't need to represent them all.

I'm fine just having the pike upgrade into the musket/rifle line...and then the anti-"mounted" aka antitank units reemerge in their places later in the tree. Since the cavalry and rifleman have equal strength, the anti mounted bonus is not as critical. Its not like when horseman are out...and your only competitive unit (the swordsman) requires iron...or tanks that come out and are stronger than other era units. In those eras anti-mounted makes sense. But with the cavalry, rifleman and gatling guns can do the job.

 

[Wodhann]

So... why do barbarians have such a high healing amount now? When was it decided that they not only needed to get healing, but an even higher amount than normal units? I was playing today and I was forced to take a point in Honor to deal with camps. It was just impossible for me otherwise.

Not sure what the reasoning for this was. It's not like barbarians really needed that buff.

 

[mystikx21]

I'd probably break that out in its own thread. I haven't fiddled with the barbarian settings yet. I'd say it should be fine to be healing at a normal rate, or at worst, slightly faster in camps.

I'd rather they have a D bonus in camps than heal faster, one or the other, not both.

 

[Stalker0]

So... why do barbarians have such a high healing amount now? When was it decided that they not only needed to get healing, but an even higher amount than normal units? I was playing today and I was forced to take a point in Honor to deal with camps. It was just impossible for me otherwise.

Not sure what the reasoning for this was. It's not like barbarians really needed that buff.

The setting is modular, their healing can be adjusted in the settings file.