Vox Populi Congress Proposal Workshop

[Stalker0]

Mounted melee's only use is to take out lone units without protection of ZoC (the flanking role has been taken over by mounted ranged).

you make it sound like this doesn't happen all the time in battles currently. The simple truth is nothing projects the raw killing power of a shock mounted unit with a few skirmisher buddies to ramp up the flanking....especially when you get charge II or overrun. ranged units that would take 4 skirmisher hits can be killed by 1 mounted horse attack, and then the skirmishers can go attack something else.

 

[azum4roll]

you make it sound like this doesn't happen all the time in battles currently. The simple truth is nothing projects the raw killing power of a shock mounted unit with a few skirmisher buddies to ramp up the flanking....especially when you get charge II or overrun. ranged units that would take 4 skirmisher hits can be killed by 1 mounted horse attack, and then the skirmishers can go attack something else.

If you have to attack into ZoC to make a kill, it's not worth it. Pre-Industrial mounted units aren't exactly cheap.

 

[Stalker0]

If you have to attack into ZoC to make a kill, it's not worth it. Pre-Industrial mounted units aren't exactly cheap.

Funny note Knights (if you have a stable), actually are cheaper hammer wise than pikeman!

 

[azum4roll]

Funny note Knights (if you have a stable), actually are cheaper hammer wise than pikeman!

A Knight effectively costs 131 with a stable, slightly cheaper than a Pikeman. But 1) it's no longer the case if you have any other production bonus, and 2) you don't always get to build a Stable.

 

[ilteroi]

proposal idea: barbarians do not attack minors except during the horde quest. minors do not attack barbarians except if allied with a major.

rationale: currently minors do not attack barbarian camps because people complained that the minors were too efficient at removing camps and depriving them of their sweet yields. this however has the side effect that minors on islands get swamped by barbarians, even to the point where the barbarians capture the city states. so the idea is to make the behavior symmetric and introduce a sort of truce between minors and barbarians.

opinions?

 

[Stalker0]

A Knight effectively costs 131 with a stable, slightly cheaper than a Pikeman. But 1) it's no longer the case if you have any other production bonus

A bit off topic I know, I was just double checking what other production bonuses exist at the time of knights? There's the +10% capital for tradition, and I think fealty's WLTKD bonus, anything else I'm missing.

Back on topic, at the end of the day I find plenty of uses for mounted horse, I'm pretty happy with the skirmisher and melee balance most of the time. Melee Horses are good for key snipes, they are good to project force against ranged heavy armies (if the enemy doesn't have melee screens sending several horses at once can present a front that will crush theirs unless they completely break and run), they serve as good mobile beef (both giving you hp wherever you might need it but also can run back to base for quicker recovery). Heck even the lancer (which admittedly is often out classed at the end of its lifecycle) is so cheap compared to contemporary units (especially with the stable), I will often build them to fill in supply if I need an army quickly.

It really just depends on the terrain and conditions of the war, sometimes I like more skirmisher, sometimes more melee, which to me is how it should be.

 

[Bryan317]

proposal idea: barbarians do not attack minors except during the horde quest. minors do not attack barbarians except if allied with a major.

rationale: currently minors do not attack barbarian camps because people complained that the minors were too efficient at removing camps and depriving them of their sweet yields. this however has the side effect that minors on islands get swamped by barbarians, even to the point where the barbarians capture the city states. so the idea is to make the behavior symmetric and introduce a sort of truce between minors and barbarians.

opinions?

Well I kind of like it when barbarians take a city. It's something different. But they aren't very good at growing and defending the cities are they? I feel like they really don't do anything, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[pineappledan]

proposal idea: barbarians do not attack minors except during the horde quest. minors do not attack barbarians except if allied with a major.

rationale: currently minors do not attack barbarian camps because people complained that the minors were too efficient at removing camps and depriving them of their sweet yields. this however has the side effect that minors on islands get swamped by barbarians, even to the point where the barbarians capture the city states. so the idea is to make the behavior symmetric and introduce a sort of truce between minors and barbarians.

opinions?

I’m with Brian in that I think it’s cool barbs can take cities.

But aside from that, wouldn’t preventing these 2 factions from interacting at all create a new issue with barbs crowing out islands? If the island is large enough for both barbs and city-states, but they aren’t pruning each other, won’t the barb camps fill all available space by the time a major civ finds them?

 

[randomnub]

I've floated this idea a few times to make spears and pikes a bit more viable without just heaping more stats on them. So here is the idea.

Spears and Pikes gain Common Soldier promotion. This upgrade is LOST on promotion to Tercio (tercio are just fine and don't need any help).

Common Soldier: Heals 5 at the start of its turn, even if it takes an action (not effected by medic).


Mechanically this is a "mini-march", but most importantly does not stack with any medic promotions (which I need to check if that is mechanically feasible). The thematic is, because these are the common cannon fodder, you have tons of these people compared to your more specialized and well trained military units. Aka where 1 man falls, another takes their place. And so they recover a little bit of health on every turn if they aren't destroyed. This gives them more staying power on defense, and makes attacking with them a bit more viable (as long as they aren't just destroyed before they can heal).

No, unnecessary complicated, not intuitive and makes battles last even longer in eras where they take long enough.

I would suggest just make these common soldiers cheaper, but pikes already are 25/40 hammers cheaper than longswordmen and knights and require no resources while holding the ground just fine, and spears are perfect for their era (best not even talk about berserkers and hoplites) hence I'm convinced you're trying to use them wrong, using them on assaults against massed comps/xbows or trying to keep them alive too long when it would be wiser to let them soak couple more hits, die and just replace them while the elite troops do the heavy lifting.

 

[randomnub]

Mounted melee's only use is to take out lone units without protection of ZoC (the flanking role has been taken over by mounted ranged). They're best suited for the tech leader because of the raw CS advantage when they first unlock. If you're behind in tech, they'll be fighting against their counters and will die easily from counter attacks.

Mounted melee 4+ moves are good as hit and run back to city garrison, or in general avoid retaliation even on the defensive when the AI superior numbers would otherwise crush an army of footmen who can't retreat. I think knights/lancers/tanks are the best units for their eras if you can field them (lancers might be weak by raw numbers but are relatively cheap), the horsemen feel weak in big battles but that's mostly because the AI fields an insane amount of spearment.

Instead I don't like to use any of my precious horses for skirmishers, they hit like a wet noodle and are a bit too pricy for the flanking bonus alone I'm afraid, the supply is a finite number and usually my medics are the archers or the scouts,.

 

[CppMaster]

currently minors do not attack barbarian camps because people complained that the minors were too efficient at removing camps and depriving them of their sweet yields.

Proposal: Remove this.
Rationale: If a city state can clear a barbarian camp then it doesn't need help with that. Instead, double the reward if you manage to complete this quest anyway. Also, why wouldn't barbarians attack city states? Those are easier targets. Attacks on a civ are almost always suicidical for them.

 

[pineappledan]

CS we’re blocked from clearing camps because they would often issue quests and then body-block you or compete with you for last hits on the camp. So they would issue quests and then waste your time by eliminating their own quest conditions. Pure feelsbad.

 

[azum4roll]

There's the +10% capital for tradition, and I think fealty's WLTKD bonus

Golden Age, Mausoleum + WLTKD.

 

[CppMaster]

CS we’re blocked from clearing camps because they would often issue quests and then body-block you or compete with you for last hits on the camp. So they would issue quests and then waste your time by eliminating their own quest conditions. Pure feelsbad.

Ok. Then CS shouldn't offer the quest randomly. They should give it when they struggle with the camp.

 

[pineappledan]

I think the current situation is the perfect compromise.

 

[hokath]

I agree on the barbarians. This version feels best to me. Barbs taking a city state outside of the horde event is very rare in my experience and therefore quite interesting.

 

[ma_kuh]

I like barbarian cities, I wish they showed up more often and actually built their economies. Almost to the point I wish Hostile CS just spawned as barbarians and your first "quest" was to subdue them (choosing to liberate them or conquer them as normal). They're a guilt-free way to get some city-capture rolling without ruining relations.

But I also don't have much of a problem with the current situation either.

 

[CppMaster]

Almost to the point I wish Hostile CS just spawned as barbarians and your first "quest" was to subdue them (choosing to liberate them or conquer them as normal). They're a guilt-free way to get some city-capture rolling without ruining relations.

Why "almost"? That would be cool!

 

[Rekk]

proposal idea: barbarians do not attack minors except during the horde quest. minors do not attack barbarians except if allied with a major.

rationale: currently minors do not attack barbarian camps because people complained that the minors were too efficient at removing camps and depriving them of their sweet yields. this however has the side effect that minors on islands get swamped by barbarians, even to the point where the barbarians capture the city states. so the idea is to make the behavior symmetric and introduce a sort of truce between minors and barbarians.

opinions?

What's wrong with a city state being captured by barbarians?

Also, If city states aren't allowed to attack barbarians at all, this is still going to result in islands filled with barbarians. At least now, city state can kill the barbarians that spawn.

 

[Bryan317]

What's wrong with a city state being captured by barbarians?

Also, If city states aren't allowed to attack barbarians at all, this is still going to result in islands filled with barbarians. At least now, city state can kill the barbarians that spawn.

Well here's what I think happens when barbarians take over a city. Whether this is good or bad is up to the player to decide. First of all the population will decrease. Barbarians don't seem to do a very good job at growing the population or producing more units either. So the city basically becomes free pickings to whoever can get there first. Whether you choose to Annex it or liberate it for a huge diplomacy boost, this is a huge boon.