I've often thought Archers specifically were a bit too cheap. I think a good first step would be to remove Monarchy's bonus to train units in general. Monarchy currently gives +50% training of Archer, Longbowman, Knight, and Noble Knight. I don't think civics should be giving bonuses to train specific unit types. Unit combat classes would be a little more acceptable.
Vokarya's Workshop: Units
- Thread starter Vokarya
- Start date
I've often thought Archers specifically were a bit too cheap. I think a good first step would be to remove Monarchy's bonus to train units in general. Monarchy currently gives +50% training of Archer, Longbowman, Knight, and Noble Knight. I don't think civics should be giving bonuses to train specific unit types. Unit combat classes would be a little more acceptable.
Granted it wasn't all cities but it was the worst offender. Other cities were capable of training 2 and a half Archer in one turn. Maybe the problem is that archers get a low cost at the start and due to them getting more strength due tech , they become unbalance. But still the problem persists, faster production compare to vanilla ends up creating a ridiculous number of units and make preparation less important .Furthermore a production cost increase will probably may the game more challenging as a player who doesn't get his army ready will have a hard time
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Is it possible to scale costs with each +1 
that Longbowmen get? Alternatively, you could just take the RI route and make each unit 10% more expensive with each unit that exists - which would also enable more diverse armies.
that Longbowmen get? Alternatively, you could just take the RI route and make each unit 10% more expensive with each unit that exists - which would also enable more diverse armies.Is it possible to scale costs with each +1
I think Longbowmen can be kept in check by removing Monarchy's bonus to unit training. Archer can be kept in check by increasing its base cost from 25 to 30. This is a 20% increase, but Archers still cost less than Spearmen (base cost 35) or Axemen (base cost 40). I don't want to go down the increasing-cost route.
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
The huge amounts of Production overflow or whatever it's called ends up making unit costs flood out of control for most of my cities. They'll get dozens or even hundreds of free hammers for the next unit, resulting in everything being 1 or 2 turns even on Marathon speed. And that's without civics that give +% speed to military unit production.
thegreekweegee
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 292
This is actually a valid concern, though. There are way too many hammers in the game, and it's concerning.
Does the AI get bonuses to military maintenance costs?
The reason I ask is because I don't feel that there are "too many hammers" in the game. To the contrary, any village founded later in the game, say 1800-something onwards, never gets properly built up before the game ends because it just takes so long to build stuff. (Marathon or Epic speed normally for me). This means that after a certain point, there's no reason to found new cities. They're just not useful and only add maintenance costs.
Unfortunately, because there's no other practical way to claim significant territory in Civ, founding otherwise useless cities is necessary.
I do find that with military units, though, in the early game I'm limited more by my economy, as the cost to maintain the army grows quickly as the number of units increases, even in civics without the extra gold-per-unit cost. In the later game this isn't usually an issue anymore. So back to my original question: if the AI gets bonuses to unit maintenance, it'll be able to support armies which the human player can't match on economic grounds. Perhaps if the AI is made aware of the cost implications of supporting huge armies, it'll restrain itself at times and we won't end up sitting around clicking end turn waiting for units to be built.
I also remember that in older Civ games, units had a shield support cost which obviously reduced production rate as more units were built. Don't think that's feasible in Civ IV, but is an example of a different way of managing unit spam.
I'd like to see a gold cost associated with the production of each military unit, but I doubt that that's possible. I don't mean the on-going maintenance cost, but a larger once-off expense upon completion (or commencement) of production. So if you want to quickly build an army, you'll need to lower science immediately. Increasing unit upgrade costs would also help a lot I think.
Cheers, A.
The reason I ask is because I don't feel that there are "too many hammers" in the game. To the contrary, any village founded later in the game, say 1800-something onwards, never gets properly built up before the game ends because it just takes so long to build stuff. (Marathon or Epic speed normally for me). This means that after a certain point, there's no reason to found new cities. They're just not useful and only add maintenance costs.
Unfortunately, because there's no other practical way to claim significant territory in Civ, founding otherwise useless cities is necessary.
I do find that with military units, though, in the early game I'm limited more by my economy, as the cost to maintain the army grows quickly as the number of units increases, even in civics without the extra gold-per-unit cost. In the later game this isn't usually an issue anymore. So back to my original question: if the AI gets bonuses to unit maintenance, it'll be able to support armies which the human player can't match on economic grounds. Perhaps if the AI is made aware of the cost implications of supporting huge armies, it'll restrain itself at times and we won't end up sitting around clicking end turn waiting for units to be built.
I also remember that in older Civ games, units had a shield support cost which obviously reduced production rate as more units were built. Don't think that's feasible in Civ IV, but is an example of a different way of managing unit spam.
I'd like to see a gold cost associated with the production of each military unit, but I doubt that that's possible. I don't mean the on-going maintenance cost, but a larger once-off expense upon completion (or commencement) of production. So if you want to quickly build an army, you'll need to lower science immediately. Increasing unit upgrade costs would also help a lot I think.
Cheers, A.
It seems to me that the AI must get a bonus. It frequently manages in the classical era to attack with stacks that I would be completely unable to afford, despite having smaller cities. It is only the high rate at which archers can be built in good cities that make these stacks (sometimes) to be manageable.
Something need to be done about archers. They currently get thought techs 2 extra strength, yet they still cost the same. They are far more cost effective than any other ancient unit, as they are really tough on defense and are more than able to attack thanks to their decent stats and low cost. What I would suggest is adding a composite bow unit with 4 strength and better defensive bonuses than archers to be able to defense against swordmans. It will come on classical era . this will slightly solve the current problems of balance with archers, as they wouldn't be as good as they are now
PS: Spear infantry could probably receive a buff
PS: Spear infantry could probably receive a buff
IPEX-731BA5DD06
Deity
SVN 1046 Mounted units
Mounted infantry V's Horse Archers.
6 Insert gap V's 7
50% Insert gap V's 25% V's Archers
Horse archers ignore terrain is only other difference.
My suggestion is change Mounted infantry to 25% v's Melee units as they have mobility and height to strike infantry from. Seems to match Atila the Hun and his battles with the Eastern and Western Roman empires
They upgrade to Dragoons eventually, which have 50% v's Melee, so 25% v's Melee earlier on seems reasonable.
Seems strange to have both against Archers. Only Chariot has 100% V's axes only.
Mounted infantry V's Horse Archers.
6 Insert gap V's 750% Insert gap V's 25% V's Archers
Horse archers ignore terrain is only other difference.
My suggestion is change Mounted infantry to 25% v's Melee units as they have mobility and height to strike infantry from. Seems to match Atila the Hun and his battles with the Eastern and Western Roman empires
They upgrade to Dragoons eventually, which have 50% v's Melee, so 25% v's Melee earlier on seems reasonable.
Seems strange to have both against Archers. Only Chariot has 100% V's axes only.
Last edited:
SVN 1046 Mounted units
Mounted infantry V's Horse Archers.
50% 25% V's Archers
Horse archers ignore terrain is only other difference.
My suggestion is change Horse archers to 25% v's Melee units as they have mobility and ability to strike infantry from a distance. Seems to match Atila the Hun and his battles with the Eastern and Western Roman empires
Seems strange to have both against Archers. Only Chariot has 100% V's axes only.
Horse Archers get flanking bonuses against Archers/Longbowmen/Crossbowmen. HA also are immune to First Strikes, while Mounted Infantry aren't, and Mounted Infantry get defense bonuses, which HA do not. There are enough differences that I don't see a need to add any more points, and I'm not sure if the additional terrain bonuses are that necessary either.
I want to combine the Roman and Byzantine unit art styles. I've been meaning to bring this up for a while. I can understand some ethnic diversity in unit art, but I don't like having a separate style for each civ. I think it actually adds to the player's workload if they have to try and recognize lots of different unit artworks that are all the same unit in practice. So I've been trying to get more styles that apply to 2-3 civs rather than 1, such as English doubling for Celtic and Indian covering Siam and Khmer.
I haven't worked out all the details yet. I'm looking to use Roman artwork for the Ancient and Classical Era units (like Axemen) and then shift to Byzantine for Medieval units (like Crossbowman), or maybe just stick with Roman for the whole way.
I haven't worked out all the details yet. I'm looking to use Roman artwork for the Ancient and Classical Era units (like Axemen) and then shift to Byzantine for Medieval units (like Crossbowman), or maybe just stick with Roman for the whole way.
IPEX-731BA5DD06
Deity
Roman empire, western ended in 5th Century, so switching to Byzantine in the medieval makes sense to me.
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
Well, I liked the roman legioners with crossbows and later with muskets. They have an awesome Warhammer look 
But I will survive that...
But I will survive that...
The crux of the problem is actually the changeover from Classical to Medieval and then Medieval to the gunpowder age. There aren't any distinct gunpowder units for the Byzantines; they currently use Roman units. So that would lead to using Byzantine units for a few medieval units and then switching back to Roman style.
I'm looking at the art now, and I think I want to use Byzantine style for the main Medieval units: Swordsman, Heavy Swordsman, Pikeman, Heavy Pikeman, Crossbowman, and Rider. Roman style wold be used for the early units: Axeman, Chariot, and Mounted Infantry. The Greek style would be used for the Archer, and some of the Roman-style units would survive as being used for Greece. I'm kind of waffling on the Longbowman, but I think I'll go with Byzantine.
The current advanced Swordsmen units for the Romans are based very closely on the Praetorian art and so I think it would be really good to have something distinct there. Likewise the Roman Pikemen/Heavy Pikemen are the same as Spearmen with longer spears so some distinctiveness would be good. The Roman Rider is hard to tell apart from the Roman Mounted Infantry (the Rider has a shield, the Mounted Infantry does not).
I'm looking at the art now, and I think I want to use Byzantine style for the main Medieval units: Swordsman, Heavy Swordsman, Pikeman, Heavy Pikeman, Crossbowman, and Rider. Roman style wold be used for the early units: Axeman, Chariot, and Mounted Infantry. The Greek style would be used for the Archer, and some of the Roman-style units would survive as being used for Greece. I'm kind of waffling on the Longbowman, but I think I'll go with Byzantine.
The current advanced Swordsmen units for the Romans are based very closely on the Praetorian art and so I think it would be really good to have something distinct there. Likewise the Roman Pikemen/Heavy Pikemen are the same as Spearmen with longer spears so some distinctiveness would be good. The Roman Rider is hard to tell apart from the Roman Mounted Infantry (the Rider has a shield, the Mounted Infantry does not).
thegreekweegee
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 292
Aerial units have 1 movement point anyway, so the blitz promotion is kinda useless.
You have a point. There aren't any ways to give air units more than 1 movement at this time. If there were air units with more than 1 move, then Blitz would work. I tried it with an air unit given extra moves by editing the XML and Blitz worked.
I feel this is left over from something that was implemented and then removed, but it's been part of RoM for a long time. I don't think air units are intended to ever get extra moves. The <DomainExtraMoves> ability of technologies that gives extra speed to naval units gives extra range when used on aircraft. Also, in unmodded BTS, air units don't get Blitz. Mounted/Armored/Helicopter (that is, the fast moving offensive units) and Naval units do.
So, unless the DLL has been modified to give units with Blitz any additional abilities, I think we could cut it out without any problems.
Similar threads
- Locked
