DESIGN: Unit Values

[Tamerlin]

I must admit that I am almost never producing a Samurai unit. It is becoming obsolete too early (ad far as I remember), is very costly and not very resilient... and it is a rather "strange" unit as soon as you don't play an oriental civilization leader.

I think that Maq is right about the Samurai and Feudalism, the two should be linked. The problem is that there is a gap between the Warrior and the Legion and between the Legion and the next available unit.

About the War Elephant, I must admit that I don't really understand the debate. If it is true there were used all along the ancient era, their use was dangerous for both the ennemy and the side using them and proved to have a decisive impact on few battles, a very small number of fights indeed.

The very few times they were useful, it was because the soldiers of the ennemy didn't knew them and were afraid of what was certainly considered as a hellish creature. Elephants are no more a threat as soon as the soldiers are trained to fight against them. In a few battle, the Elephants have certainly been useful because horses are afraid of them (because of their smell)...

The War Elephants is thus a very marginal unit. It should only have an effect against an opponent that have not yet discovered the Technology allowing to produce it. In the same spirit, the War Elephant could only have an effect against an opponent that has not yet produced such a unit.

If we want to go further, a side with a War Elephant could prevent the opponent's cavalry unit from using its Flanking ability.

Not really an easy problem IMO.

[Ekmek]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I must admit that I am almost never producing a Samurai unit. It is becoming obsolete too early (ad far as I remember), is very costly and not very resilient... and it is a rather "strange" unit as soon as you don't play an oriental civilization leader.

I think that Maq is right about the Samurai and Feudalism, the two should be linked. The problem is that there is a gap between the Warrior and the Legion and between the Legion and the next available unit.

I the AE_Mod, IIRC I created a swordsman unit for ever civ and then a legion and samurai as civ specific units (legion for Rome, Samurai for japanese of course.

About the War Elephant, I must admit that I don't really understand the debate. If it is true there were used all along the ancient era, their use was dangerous for both the ennemy and the side using them and proved to have a decisive impact on few battles, a very small number of fights indeed.

The very few times they were useful, it was because the soldiers of the ennemy didn't knew them and were afraid of what was certainly considered as a hellish creature. Elephants are no more a threat as soon as the soldiers are trained to fight against them. In a few battle, the Elephants have certainly been useful because horses are afraid of them (because of their smell)...

The War Elephants is thus a very marginal unit. It should only have an effect against an opponent that have not yet discovered the Technology allowing to produce it. In the same spirit, the War Elephant could only have an effect against an opponent that has not yet produced such a unit.

If we want to go further, a side with a War Elephant could prevent the opponent's cavalry unit from using its Flanking ability.

Not really an easy problem IMO.

In the AE_mod my approach for the war elephant to just be a bonus unit, you can get it either by a hut or if you have an elephant good. This way it would be usedas a strong unit in te ancient period, but not overpowering and not comon, so a weak civ that gets it could improve its position or a strong civ could use it for rapid expansion. it added some randomness.

we can keep these things in the AE and leave it as is in ctp2. But seeing that there is a lot of debate i think we should use the AE_mod as 1) a place to test out new concepts tha might be made standard 2) be a place for nice features that don't go into the main game (strategic resources was voted out early on IIRC).

flanking units

On this topic why do the moves increase so much. IMO I think that civ3 did keep it balamced by keeping mounted units (well cav got 3) to a move of two until tanks arrive and they got to 4. I think a knight moving 4 in the early game is wau too much of an early game lead. On top of that I think the Knights defense is too strong. If they move fast/far and are good on offense tey should have a weak defense so they can get destroyed if they push to far with out other unit support. currently you only need Knights to sweep through everything.

Does our current CTP2 use SAP2 units.txt?

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by E


I the AE_Mod, IIRC I created a swordsman unit ...

A Swordsman unit could fill the gap between the Legion and the next upgrade.

In the AE_mod my approach for the war elephant to just be a bonus unit, you can get it either by a hut or if you have an elephant good. This way it would be usedas a strong unit in te ancient period, but not overpowering and not comon, so a weak civ that gets it could improve its position or a strong civ could use it for rapid expansion. it added some randomness.

we can keep these things in the AE and leave it as is in ctp2. But seeing that there is a lot of debate i think we should use the AE_mod as 1) a place to test out new concepts tha might be made standard 2) be a place for nice features that don't go into the main game (strategic resources was voted out early on IIRC).

IMO, a War Elephants unit is useless in both the standard game and the AE mod.

Does our current CTP2 use SAP2 units.txt?

As far as I can remember, the Updater needs the units.txt of the SAP2.

[HuangShang]

I like adding more units, because these were made for CTP2 anyway, might as well right?

Thing about a 15-20 legion is that this would mean that we have taken out an early game speed unit (I assume a 15-20 moving 2 would be imbalanced), which would mean we have made a very offensive unit into a very defensive one, and the hoplite would be less useful than the current samurai, so I would like an 15-10 hoplite, so an archer-hoplite would be much more effective in early small skirmishes, but cannot make it to the big battles once legions step in. Here we find that we have essentially added a stone in the road. There is now a useful unit at iron working, but also for bronze working. This would also help during upgrading.

Lets see what I mean so far:

		att	def	ran	arm	dam	move	vis	cost	require
warrior		10	10!*	0	1	1	1	2	150	toolmaki.
Legion*		15*	20!*	0*	1*	1*	1*	1*	245*	iron wor.*
Pikemen		10	25!	0	1	2	1	1	380	feudalis.
infantryman	25	35!	10	1	3	2	2	1000	gunpowde.

Hoplite		15!*	10*	0	1	1	1	1	175	bronze w.
elephant warr.*	20!*	10*	0*	1*	1*	1*	1*	210*	agricult.*
samurai		20!	10	0	1	2	2	1	460	feudalis.*
Machine gunner (attack... lol finally found out after playing)

m.archer
knight		25flank	15	0	1	2	4	2	740	feudalis.

Well, remember that samurai have movespeed of 2, so giving them 30-10 when knights move 3 would effectively mean the balance moves toward defensive units. Take this situation, should we build pikeman to protection against knights? yes. but where as before when you add in samurai not only do you need to wait for their half move speed to run up, but also they are not very helpful at 20-10, so an all pikeman front line can possibly just wait for the samurai to die without too much casualties, and thus the samurai don't get built anyway. However, a 30-10 samurai would make them an actual presence in battle, and the defense would like some too, which also pushes the pikeman to the sides where they quickly take out knights. I find it surprising that pikeman have only 10 attack. We would definitely need to change this since legion already has 15 and samurai have 30. If you want the mounted bonus can be 5 less, but the total would still be 35 or 40, not much different.

so now

		att	def	ran	arm	dam	move	vis	cost	require
warrior		10	10!*	0	1	1	1	2	150	toolmaki.
Legion*		15*	20!*	0*	1*	1*	1*	1*	245*	iron wor.*
Pikemen		15*	25!	0	1	2	1	1	380	feudalis.
infantryman	25	35!	10	1	3	2	2	1000	gunpowde.

Hoplite		15!*	10*	0	1	1	1	1	175	bronze w.
elephant warr.*	20!*	10*	0*	1*	1*	1*	1*	210*	agricult.*
samurai		30!*	10	0	1	2	2	1	460	feudalis.*
Machine gunner (attack)

m.archer
knight		25flank	15	0	1	2	3*	2	740	feudalis.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I must admit that I am almost never producing a Samurai unit. It is becoming obsolete too early (ad far as I remember), is very costly and not very resilient... and it is a rather "strange" unit as soon as you don't play an oriental civilization leader.

I think that Maq is right about the Samurai and Feudalism, the two should be linked. The problem is that there is a gap between the Warrior and the Legion and between the Legion and the next available unit.

I wouldn't say those are big gaps though.

Warrior (Toolmaking) to Legion (Iron Working), is linked closely with the Hoplite (Bronze Working). Neither Bronze Working or Iron Working is needed for Monarchy/Republic/Theocracy, so its specifically a war path. There are advantages and disadvantages with either path.

After Legion is the Pikemen, which is a long time away. But the Legion was dominant for quite a while, certainly until effective Cavalry. Perhaps the M. Archer as an early flanker could represent that.

About the War Elephant, I must admit that I don't really understand the debate. If it is true there were used all along the ancient era, their use was dangerous for both the ennemy and the side using them and proved to have a decisive impact on few battles, a very small number of fights indeed.

The very few times they were useful, it was because the soldiers of the ennemy didn't knew them and were afraid of what was certainly considered as a hellish creature. Elephants are no more a threat as soon as the soldiers are trained to fight against them. In a few battle, the Elephants have certainly been useful because horses are afraid of them (because of their smell)...

The War Elephants is thus a very marginal unit. It should only have an effect against an opponent that have not yet discovered the Technology allowing to produce it. In the same spirit, the War Elephant could only have an effect against an opponent that has not yet produced such a unit.

If we want to go further, a side with a War Elephant could prevent the opponent's cavalry unit from using its Flanking ability.

Its true they weren't widespread, this is why we could make them only be buildable with the elephant resource, perhaps even limited only to that city with the resource.

On this topic why do the moves increase so much. IMO I think that civ3 did keep it balamced by keeping mounted units (well cav got 3) to a move of two until tanks arrive and they got to 4. I think a knight moving 4 in the early game is wau too much of an early game lead. On top of that I think the Knights defense is too strong. If they move fast/far and are good on offense tey should have a weak defense so they can get destroyed if they push to far with out other unit support. currently you only need Knights to sweep through everything.

I agree that moves go up generally too much in CtP2. Knights 4 moves in one example. Pikemen can defend them, but even two Knights together can do so much damage, pillaging or attacking small cities where you cant defend quick enough with Pikemen.

Its tricky though. I would prefer to fix these problems making as little changes as possible. My feeling is some units are still too fast though.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by HuangShang

Thing about a 15-20 legion is that this would mean that we have taken out an early game speed unit (I assume a 15-20 moving 2 would be imbalanced), which would mean we have made a very offensive unit into a very defensive one

Well considering the Samurai was never used, we didnt really remove anything. We just added a Legion to the early game.

and the hoplite would be less useful than the current samurai, so I would like an 15-10 hoplite, so an archer-hoplite would be much more effective in early small skirmishes, but cannot make it to the big battles once legions step in.

Again this might be fixing problems that arent there. Samurai wasnt doing anything where it was originally. It was too expensive (to build and support), and it was easily killed by Hoplite+Archer, which was cheaper.

The Hoplite is already useful IMO, even with Legions right around the corner, Iron Working takes a long time to research so early in the game. If youre going to war, Archers and Hoplites are still the units of choice to start with.

Also AFAIK, swapping attack and defence makes little difference, due to how the combat system works. Units on the front line use attack and defence (whether theyre defenders or attackers), so the Hoplite will have weak defence, and youll get similar results to a 10/15 Hoplite.

Well, remember that samurai have movespeed of 2, so giving them 30-10 when knights move 3 would effectively mean the balance moves toward defensive units. Take this situation, should we build pikeman to protection against knights? yes. but where as before when you add in samurai not only do you need to wait for their half move speed to run up, but also they are not very helpful at 20-10

I already improved Samurai to 30/10. Their movement stays at 2 because a) theyre not mounted, and b) they have stronger attack that Knights. This will need some testing though, especially against Pikemen. We dont want Pikemen to be more useful than Samurai. Pikemen have a specific use, but Samurai should destroy them.

Ideally the Samurai is a strong attacker to defend your land (doesnt move as fast as Knight), and the Knight is an invading-attacker.

so an all pikeman front line can possibly just wait for the samurai to die without too much casualties, and thus the samurai don't get built anyway. However, a 30-10 samurai would make them an actual presence in battle, and the defense would like some too, which also pushes the pikeman to the sides where they quickly take out knights.

This is the point. Samurai should take up the assault line in the middle-front.

I find it surprising that pikeman have only 10 attack. We would definitely need to change this since legion already has 15 and samurai have 30. If you want the mounted bonus can be 5 less, but the total would still be 35 or 40, not much different.

Pikemen already has higher damage than Legion, i see no point in changing Pikemen, which are primarily a defensive unit, against mounted. Pikemen is also really cheap, so it remains a good counter.

[HuangShang]

My bad, i forgot that damage also has a multiplier. 20 would be no problem for the cheapest feudal unit.

Switching attack and defense type does not change much, but the game is pretty smart (maybe) about lining up units once theres a certain number of them, it generally prefers 2a-2d-3f setup but should be able counter this stack well with a 3-4-0? It seems we cannot as the game is right now. Attackers will always stand between defenders. So, it would be advantageous to have attacker hoplites stand between defender warriors, and at the same time deter stacking hoplite with legion, which effectively removes some of the punch new legions would do (same with infantrymen coming before machine gunner). So this way there is more balance in the early game and we essentially added the old concept samurai back into the game.

Somehow though, Activision broke their own system because there doesn't seem to be defensive unit after the infantrymen.

EDIT Hmm. I learn something new every day. Apparently defense units are centered while defending and attacking units are centered while attacking... goes to show you how often I have been on the defensive end. It didn't give me a 2-2-3 when defending either.

[LemurMadness]

Hello,

Woah, why the sudden change of Hoplite's values? It's supposed to be a defensive unit, I always carry Hoplites with Archers and now, Longbowmans with Pikemens and it's a very nice defensive combination -- While the Hoplite and Pikemen has poor attack, they are compensate with the Archers and Longbowmans ranged damage. I'd say we leave their values as they are.

About the Samurai, I always considered that unit as the Knight predecessor. If it's build value is more than Archer+Hoplite then it should be lowered down. Why a new Legion unit? We already have a defensive, offensive and ranged unit in ancient and with the addition of the Longbowman, medieval.

I'd say we must decrease one movement point of Knight, Cavalry, Tanks, and Fusion Tanks, and adding one to the Mounted Archer.

Now, in modern times the Tank is almost unstoppable, althought it's difficult to adquire because of their scientific requisites, it's Flanking/Ranged abilities can tear down any well defended cities in a second. I've seen Tanks taking down 6 Machine Gunners / 6 Howitzers inside a Fortification like cheese. One thing I noticed is that the Infantryman's Defense is higher than it's Ranged power, but it's the contrary of his modern upgrade, the Machine Gunner. I'd suggest increasing it's Defense to 40 and decreasing it's Attack to 30, like HuangShang says, the system seems broken since there are no defensive units after Infantryman.

However, Diamond age faces a problem, since a Leviathan is very expensive to build althought it serves as an absolute defense, it's mobility is a problem if you need to defend against a group of fast-moving Fusion Tanks. I'd also suggest a Diamond age defensive unit with high mobility but without Active Defense (Plasmatica?).

How about making the Scout Sub carry Cruise Missiles/Nukes? (or revive the Stealth Sub?) The Nanite Defuser might kill Nukes off, but I guess there's still a good use for Cruise Missiles.

I always carry an equal number of attackers or defenders and ranged units (unless they're attacking ranged/flankers like Cavalry/Tanks/Fusion Tanks) I feel it's useless to carry 12 melee attackers or defenders without any ranged unit involved. Sorry if I don't share some points with you guys, or if I am missing something, I just want to contribute with some thoughts.

[HuangShang]

I wouldn't lower the movement of calvary... an alternate solution to the modern defense/attack issue would be to to switch the places of marine/paratrooper and machine gunner.

I had 12 melee to demonstrate that the game would automatically order the units.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by LemurMadness
Hello,

Woah, why the sudden change of Hoplite's values? It's supposed to be a defensive unit, I always carry Hoplites with Archers and now, Longbowmans with Pikemens and it's a very nice defensive combination -- While the Hoplite and Pikemen has poor attack, they are compensate with the Archers and Longbowmans ranged damage. I'd say we leave their values as they are.

I agree absolutely. We should avoid changing things to fix different problems.

About the Samurai, I always considered that unit as the Knight predecessor. If it's build value is more than Archer+Hoplite then it should be lowered down.

Lowered down in what way?

Why a new Legion unit? We already have a defensive, offensive and ranged unit in ancient and with the addition of the Longbowman, medieval.

It depends if you view the Warrior as a useful attacking unit, and with 10/10 att/def it doesnt do much anyway. An Archer does everything a Warrior does (att/def 10/10), but costs the same, so theres no need to build a Warrior once you get Ballistics.

With the Samurai moving to Feudalism that leaves a gap for a new attacker. In this case 20/15 (att/def) might be better for the Legion than 15/20. But then does it upgrade the Hoplite? I would still say yes, as it still has the same 15 defence as Hoplite.

I'd say we must decrease one movement point of Knight, Cavalry, Tanks, and Fusion Tanks, and adding one to the Mounted Archer.

What do you think of assigning movement based on type? Foot=1, Mounted=2, Wheel/Track=3, Hover(and other future)=4? (only exception would be special units, spies etc, which all move 2).

Id like to run a full test game, but i see it making defence much easier. If you've played the early game of Ages of Man mod, thats an excellent example of how CtP2 warfare should be IMO. Wars actually requiring planning to break through. Instead of throwing together a stack of fast units, and capturing lightly-defended cities, before the defender can respond.

Civ4 actually has a similar idea, although defence is far too easy, compared to attack there.

Because enemies cant use your railroad (silly idea, but it creates a similar situation), attacks on cities are much slower, and it takes much more force and careful planning to get close and conquer a city.

Now, in modern times the Tank is almost unstoppable, althought it's difficult to adquire because of their scientific requisites, it's Flanking/Ranged abilities can tear down any well defended cities in a second. I've seen Tanks taking down 6 Machine Gunners / 6 Howitzers inside a Fortification like cheese.

Yeah, Tanks are far too fast. If they were slower or same speed as Artillery, the defender would at least have a chance to bombard you to pieces after you take a city, greatly slowing down your attack. Its fair that getting Tanks first should lever some advantage, but the defender should still have some hope, in this case bombarding.

One thing I noticed is that the Infantryman's Defense is higher than it's Ranged power, but it's the contrary of his modern upgrade, the Machine Gunner. I'd suggest increasing it's Defense to 40 and decreasing it's Attack to 30, like HuangShang says, the system seems broken since there are no defensive units after Infantryman.

I doubt it would make much difference to be honest, but it does seem odd.

However, Diamond age faces a problem, since a Leviathan is very expensive to build althought it serves as an absolute defense, it's mobility is a problem if you need to defend against a group of fast-moving Fusion Tanks. I'd also suggest a Diamond age defensive unit with high mobility but without Active Defense (Plasmatica?).

Why add another Diamond Age defensive unit?

The Leviathan is actually a weird unit, seemingly out of place at the end of the game. I think its supposed to be the "unit to end all units". Of course they messed up the movecost in units.txt aswell. Its meant to be a 10 move unit, not 1 (that still needs fixing in the playtest BTW). Its still probably too strong though, even for its high cost, it just means stronger civs can build more. Maybe it should have less armour and damage, make a little closer (but still better), than Fusion Tanks.

If you look at the units before these, its always the weaker/slower units (pikemen/infantryman/m.gunner/h.infantry) that cost less than the mobile-flanker unit (knight/cav/tank/f.tank), and then you have the ranged/bombarders (catap/cannon/artillery/warwalker) backing up.

In the same way as Tanks and Artillery, if Fusion Tanks and War Walkers were the same speed, you would actually have a chance to defend the F. Tanks. Throw in a few Hover Infantry as meatshields for your War Walkers, and it should become easier. Maybe H. Inf should be cheaper though, compared to F. Tank power and cost, theyre useless at killing.

I always carry an equal number of attackers or defenders and ranged units (unless they're attacking ranged/flankers like Cavalry/Tanks/Fusion Tanks) I feel it's useless to carry 12 melee attackers or defenders without any ranged unit involved. Sorry if I don't share some points with you guys, or if I am missing something, I just want to contribute with some thoughts.

Well that's the way it should be. The problem we need to eliminate is stacking 12 flankers, and still being successful. If you dont bring any bombarding units to a fight, you should be destroyed.

[HuangShang]

lol it was supposed to have 10? that would be so different, i think it is better with zero...

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Maquiladora


I agree absolutely. We should avoid changing things to fix different problems.

I agree, the less we change the better.

Because enemies cant use your railroad (silly idea, but it creates a similar situation), attacks on cities are much slower, and it takes much more force and careful planning to get close and conquer a city.

Please, never use this kind of solutions. As far as I am concerned, war in Civ4 is so long that it becomes boring. I have modded my Civ4 files so that all the units can use ennemy roads and railroads.

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
The Leviathan is actually a weird unit, seemingly out of place at the end of the game. I think its supposed to be the "unit to end all units". Of course they messed up the movecost in units.txt aswell. Its meant to be a 10 move unit, not 1 (that still needs fixing in the playtest BTW).

Are you sure? I seem to recall reading in the CTP1 manual that they're deliberately given move 1 to be slow, even over roads, etc..

[LemurMadness]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Lowered down in what way?

Im just quotting someone, I just can't remmember who

Someone mentioned that the build cost of the Samurai was higher than a Hoplite + Archer.

Originally posted by Maquiladora
It depends if you view the Warrior as a useful attacking unit, and with 10/10 att/def it doesnt do much anyway. An Archer does everything a Warrior does (att/def 10/10), but costs the same, so theres no need to build a Warrior once you get Ballistics.

I didn't meant the Warrior as an attacking unit, I meant the Samurai. The Warrior is an early multipropose unit before Archers, Hoplites and Samurais come avaliable, and can be used as early scouting before Mounted Archers.

Originally posted by Maquiladora
With the Samurai moving to Feudalism that leaves a gap for a new attacker. In this case 20/15 (att/def) might be better for the Legion than 15/20. But then does it upgrade the Hoplite? I would still say yes, as it still has the same 15 defence as Hoplite.

I still don't get why the Samurai needs to be moved to Feudalism when you have an attacking unit in Medieval ages, the Knight. Maybe I am missing something...

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Why add another Diamond Age defensive unit?

The Leviathan is actually a weird unit, seemingly out of place at the end of the game. I think its supposed to be the "unit to end all units". Of course they messed up the movecost in units.txt aswell. Its meant to be a 10 move unit, not 1 (that still needs fixing in the playtest BTW). Its still probably too strong though, even for its high cost, it just means stronger civs can build more. Maybe it should have less armour and damage, make a little closer (but still better), than Fusion Tanks.

Nope, it's movement is one on all terrains. Even on Maglevs. That's why the problem: the Leviathan is way too expensive, it doesn't moves fast enought to effectivelly protect your cities, and I think it's purpose was to protect very important cities like capitals, or those that are researching Wonders. I don't remmember exactly the build cost of a Leviathan, but im very sure it's higher than a Fusion Tank, that's why I proposed another defensive unit, cheaper than the Fusion Tank but faster moving than the Leviathan, and removing the Hover Infantry as the Machine Gunner's upgrade (or maybe we could use the Hover Infantry as a defensive one? or equally defensive as offensive?).

I believe a horse would fatigate just carrying the Knight's heavy armor than a lMounted Archer, or a Cavalry.

Oh, it does seems odd seeing a Machine Gunner as a defensive unit, but they were used in trenches, and I assume they were used to hold or keep defensive positions. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_war#Machine_guns )

~~~ Lemur

[HuangShang]

Well yea I agree that knights moving at 4 is ridiculous because they certainly don't ride everywhere fully armored, they use someone to carry their armor, and in turn takes longer to get ready to fight... but the point is the knight is too strong in the game because of its movespeed. I certainly remember mods that had mounted archers moving at 4 and knights moving at 3, and I came to think this was standard...

Samurai to feudalism makes iron working a more attractive option because legions would dominate the battle field unit feudalism. Then feudalism opens this rock paper scissors which we can hopefully balance. The new samurai would definitely need playtesting.

I still don't like the idea of starting with a line of defense units then the flankers come in (knights to tanks) and we have the removal of the defense units. I can't really argue it is wrong or broken, but for the reasons I stated I think more maintaining an attacker and a defender throughout the game would be more fun.

Machine gunner, historically, should be slightly more defensive simply because it is harder for them to run around the battle, but perhaps making machine gunner the next defense unit (even switched techs with marines) is much too fast. I really think there needs to be another defense unit after infantryman though, because there is definitely a difference between attackers and defenders, so I would think a defensive hover infantry and a still very viable marine/paratrooper attacker (because of transport rules) would be good, but I haven't got to war walkers in any recent games, so I honestly have no idea what they do.