Planning thread for the Blitz Mod: Conquests Version

[lockstep]

Originally posted by korn469
Also you may want to take the religious ability into account. If you don't change the stats on temples any at all then they provide 1 culture per 15 shields. That's one of the big reasons I nerfed them to an extent.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with temples being more attractive even culture-wise than amphitheaters for religious civs. But I'll take this as an advice not to rule out 1-culture-temples from the beginning - maybe they have other positive side-effects I've ignored so far.

[korn469]

since i lowered happiness in the blitz mod they have more utility

[lockstep]

Originally posted by korn469
this is only a worry if one civ stops building cultural buildings and the other doesn't. if a civ has a lead and continues to build cultural buildings it will be hard to catch up.

I'm specifically worried about a smaller civ that continues building culture-only buildings vs. a bigger civ (say, 1.5 to 2 times the no. of cities) that starts building them in rapid succession in the industrial age.

also museums require both amphitheaters and opera's so that also slows done cultural laggards from catching up as quickly

Amphitheaters and operas could be rush-build rather quickly.

I consider buildings such as courthouses etc, a powerful tool of political socialization, which in Civ terms (imo) is one of the components of culture. Because of that it should fall under culture buildings. Additionally it lowers the relative cultural value for science and happiness buildings.

But it boosts the relative value of buildings I'd want anyway (science, happiness, anti-corruption) vs. culture-only-buildings.

EDIT: And it clutters up the F5 screen.

[korn469]

lockstep,

You've given me some ideas about the cultural side of the game. Here's what I'm thinking...

Amphitheater 60/5/4
Opera 120/12/9
Museum 180/20/14

You bring up some good points, including relative value of culture only buildings, and oppertunity costs for a culture strategy. I think that the best way to provide for oppertunity costs is through building upkeep. To have all three cultural buildings in a single city would cost 27 upkeep, or as 1.5 times much as all of the other cultural buildings combined. What do you think of that?

edit:

also i think it is possible to do this...make each opera require two amphitheaters, then make each amphitheater require two operas, so there would only be a few truly outstanding cultural centers

[lockstep]

korn, my last post for today (I'm still GMT +1 ): High building upkeep is a very interesting idea - 14 gpt for a single building may be way overboard, but I need to think about it. And I need to do some calculations about accumulated culture of bigger vs. smaller empires.

As for each cultural building requiring two of its forerunners - I'm not that familiar with the editor, but so far I've seen a tweak of this sort only for Wonders. I'd really appreciate some test results.

[korn469]

lockstep

You can make it so that each opera requires 2 (or more) amphitheaters, and the same goes for museums, but it had the unfortunant side effect that you could build an opera or museum in any city then.

[TechWins]

As far as hit points go I'm not changing them.

Yeah, I forgot to take into consideration that you have all of the values of units changed. Second time I overlooked other changes like I did with the cultural buildings.

Regarding that: I like how you have some of the values changed, because they create better ratios. However, there can be a large descrepancy in some parts. For instance the Swordsmen has a 4/2 ratio to the Spearman instead of 4/3. This puts even more demand on resources, and if you are the unfortunate civ to not have any iron around you're basically ****ed. You better hope that you can get to Feudalism quick enough to get pikemen to defend. Also, looking at the Numedian Mercenary it is way too strong.

Numideon Mercenary 3.4.1 30 (free upkeep)

No unit in the ancient age has a better attack compared to their defence. Then they still have a good attack. Plus with them being free in upkeep you can build them in masses without any side effects. The 30 shield cost is moot compared to the advantages of this unit.

A little side note about the NM: Why is it that everyone feels they should be that much stronger than the Hoplite, Impi, and Spearman?

Now to the early middle ages units:

Longbowman 7.2.1 40 {Musketeer}
Bezerk 12.4.1 60 (Amphibious, +1 hp) {Longbowman}
Knight 8.4.2 60 (zoc) iron, horses {Siphai}
Pikeman 5.5.1 40 {Musketeer}
Musketman 11.11.1 60/1 saltpeter {Rifleman}

Since you have it required for Gunpowder to req. Education, Gunpowder is out of the mix for the early middle ages units. Which leaves the Pikeman and Medieval Infantry (5 def) (or Swiss Mercenary at 8 def) as the best possible defending unit for a long time. What does this mean... It means you won't have an oppurtunity for a 1/1 att/def ratio until you can gain access to Musketman which will take a while to get to. So with Longbowman being cheap at 40 shields you can get rushed by tons of these with them having the edge at a 7/5 ratio. Then if you happen to be the misfortunate civ facing the Vikings you're gone. A 12/5 ratio is what you'll be faced with. Plus there is, also, the Knight at 8.4.2 with a lower cost of 60 shields. With all of that into consideration the early middle ages is extremely unbalanced.

I only looked at the early middle ages and ancient age, but just by looking at that it seems to me that the units need a lot of rebalancing. I would suggest going back to the regular values then making small changes from there. I don't think I'm oversighting anything this time, either.

I may or may not keep the mill. If I do I'll make it go obsolete with steam power.

Granted there are extra buildings to be built now that require you to have better production. However, giving civs the amount of production needed to build all those buildings takes away some of the strategy. Not having the extra production leaves you with a bigger decision on which buildings are most important to build. It sort of dumbs down the game in a way I think.

Monarchy does have low war weariness (feudalism doesn't), and Republic out supports it untill you have either 11 towns or 7 cities. Though if republic is too weak I could always increase the free units from 20 to 25.

The thing with Republic is in order to benefit more from the trade bonus you should have more cities, however, the corruption level counter effects that as does the limited amount of free unit support. So in a sense the low unit support and high corruption counter the benefits of the trade bonus. Then you are left between two choices, excluding Feudalism: take Monarchy which is more beneficial for larger civs with it's lower corruption and better unit support or take Republic with a trade bonus that is countered by it's higher corruption and poor unit support. Monarchy has no ww and Republic has high ww. The choice seems easy to me. I would recommend swapping the Republic's corruption with Monarchy's courrption level. Then giving Republic a 1/2/2 free unit support with 0 free units. That way a city in a Republic can support as many cities as a Monarchy town can.

[korn469]

Tech Wins,

I think that you may be right about UU balance. One of the trickiest thing is adding in the relative value of special effects such as free upkeep, and the benefits of maintaing the same ratios but uping ths shield cost. I really do need to go an reevaluate them.

However, as far as normal units go, have you taken the following things into consideration.

1) Most terrains no longer have a defense bonus.
2) Fortifying a unit now provides a 50% instead of 25% defense bonus.
3) Towns have a 50% defense bonus, Cities have a 100% defense bonus, and Metros have a 150% defense bonus.

So a 20 shield spearman fortified inside a town has a defense value of 4. A spearman fortified inside of either a walled town or a city would have a defense of 5. Also with chariots, horsemen, and spearmen all being able to counter swordsmen if they get a chance to attack them, there really is a good deal of strategy on the ancient battlefield.

Same goes for pikemen. A 40 shield pikeman has 7.5 defense if it fortifies, 10 defense if it fortifies inside of a town, and 12.5 defense if it fortifies inside a walled town or city. Although a Berzerk does have an offense of 12 it also costs 50% more than a pikeman.

Basically on the battlefield offense has an advantage, but when it comes to cracking cities (at all levels) open it will take either brute force, or a well planned seige, which requires the effective use of bombard units.

Does that change any of your unit arguments? If not what specific changes would you suggest?

I didn't thinking adding the mill would be a big deal, but I'm not that attached to it, so dropping it isn't a problem.

Monarchy does have low war weariness. Check both the quote, and the government description. Feudalism doesn't have war weariness, but Monarchy does. If Monarchy seems to have too much of an advantage over republic then I am in favor of dropping Monarchy down to the same corruption level as republic and upping republic's total free units to 25. However, I am not going to change from a free global units to free units by cities for republic. I think that it should fill the niche of the smaller sized builder civ. In certain cases for extremely small civs, republic would have an advantage over democracy throughout the game.

Despotism -> poor starting government, focused on war
Republic -> small builder civs
Monarchy -> good all around average government, doesn't excel at anything, but doesn't have many weaknesses
Feudalism -> great for sprawling, undeveloped war mongering civs
Democracy -> best all around builder government
Fascism -> best government for late wars
Communism -> fairly unique, suitable for just about anything

[TechWins]

I think that you may be right about UU balance. One of the trickiest thing is adding in the relative value of special effects such as free upkeep, and the benefits of maintaing the same ratios but uping ths shield cost. I really do need to go an reevaluate them.

I agree that it is very tricky to balance UUs. You have to take a lot into consideration when giving values to UUs. Non-ground units, also, should be given more of a bonus than ground units are given. UU ground units are lot better to have than a UU naval unit or air unit. Since naval and air units are less viable they should be given a bigger bonus. Early ground units shouldn't have too much of a bonus, such as the Numideon Mercenary. Since any sort of extra advantage in the early part of the game is more appearant than in the later game. It can be complicated trying to figure in all the factors for a UU; that's for sure.

Basically on the battlefield offense has an advantage, but when it comes to cracking cities (at all levels) open it will take either brute force, or a well planned seige, which requires the effective use of bombard units.

That's exactly why I think that a 2/1 ratio for att/def is too much for units around the same period of time. I like the fact that in order to take down a city you're going to have to have lots of units and/or lots of bomarding. I think it forces you to make better decisions when attacking. Plus I think, when it's easy to obtain a 2/1 att/def advantage, that the human can easily take more advantage of this than the AI could. I just like the idea of having to plan more for a battle when you know it's closer to a 1/1 ratio, before bonuses, rather than having a clear cut 2/1 ratio advantage. Over the next couple days I'll post my suggestive unit values for the early part of the game.

Monarchy does have low war weariness. Check both the quote, and the government description.

Wow, I'm feeling smart by how many times I've overlooked things.

Thinking about what you said I think that giving Monarchy the same corruption level as Republic might do the trick.

[korn469]

techwins,

Plus I think, when it's easy to obtain a 2/1 att/def advantage, that the human can easily take more advantage of this than the AI could. I just like the idea of having to plan more for a battle when you know it's closer to a 1/1 ratio, before bonuses, rather than having a clear cut 2/1 ratio advantage.

Here is the values for both the ancient and middle ages land units without any UUs, which we'll worry about later since balancing the core units is imperative.

Warrior 2.1.1 20
Archer 3.1.1 20
Spearman 2.2.1 20
Chariot 3.1.2 30 (wheeled, zoc) horses
Swordsman 4.2.1 30 iron
Horseman 3.1.3 40 (zoc) horses

Pikeman 5.5.1 40
Longbowman 7.2.1 40
Medieval Infantry 8.5.1 50 iron
Knight 8.4.2 60 (zoc) iron, horses
Musketman 11.11.1 60/1
Cavalry 15.6.3 80/1 (zoc) horses, saltpeter

Besides attack, defense, and movement to a lesser extent, hit points and defensive bonuses determines the combat odds. Saying that a swordsman has a 2-1 ratio over a spearman isn't true. First their is the matter of cost. A player can only buy two swordsmen for every three spearmen. Then their is defensive bonuses and hit points. All of this can make the odds of victory vary greatly. I'll rund down a swordsman vs. a spearman. The first number is the chance of the swordsman winning. The second number is the chance of the swordsman not taking any damage.

elite sword vs. reg spear 99.6/19.8
vet sword vs. reg spear 95.7/19.8
reg sword vs. reg spear 82.6/19.8
reg sword vs. vet spear 65.1/8.8
reg sword vs. elite spear 39.3/2.6
vet sword vs. vet spear 87.9/8.8
elite sword vs. vet spear 98.4/8.8
vet sword vs. elite spear 69/2.6

reg sword vs. fort reg spear 65.4/10.7
elite sword vs. fort reg spear 97.5/10.7
elite sword vs. fort elite spear 72.5/0.6
reg sword vs. fort elite spear 16.9/0.6

reg sword vs. fort reg spear in town 50/6.3
elite sword vs. fort reg spear in town 92.7/6.3
elite sword vs. fort elite spear in town 50/0.2
reg sword vs. fort elite spear in town 7.3/0.2

reg sword vs. fort reg spear in city 38/3.9
elite sword vs. fort reg spear in city 85.6/3.9
elite sword vs. fort elite spear in city 32/0.1
reg sword vs. fort elite spear in city 3.2/0.1

all of these percentages comes from the civ3 combat calculator http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3combatcalc.html

So combat between a swordsman and a spearman can range between an almost assured victory for the swordsman to almost certain victory for the spearman. Spearmen can also strike back at swordsmen. A vet spearman attacking a regular swordsman has a 74.6% chance of victory, along with a 6.3% chance of winning without taking damage.

Presenting these statistics doesn't validate my unit values, nor does it torpedo your arguments that I need to change them. I just hope to show that there is much more than just attack and defense values coming into play, and it may have an effect on what values you'd propose. Encouraging combined arms is one of the most important things I'd like to do in the Blitz Mod.

Here's a thought, what if we gave all defenders the zero range bombard, and their bombard value was the same as their defense value? What do you think of that?

I'll change Monarchy's corruption to problematic, making it have the same corruption as republic.

EDIT: i edited my first post to show things i've implemented so far, now i'm down to units, improvements, and natural resources before i release the beta

[TechWins]

Unit listing goes in order by these traits:

1) value that doesn't require resources
2) value that has the lowest shield cost
3) unit with the highest potentcy regardless of 1 & 2

I'm going to list all the suggestions I have for each individual unit. I'll order them by 1,2,3. So a value that doesn't require a resource will be the highest in order, then comes shield cost and lastly units with higher potentcy come last. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the order I'm trying to use.

Warrior 1.1.1 10
*Warrior 1.2.1 20
*Warrior 2.1.1 20

Archer 2.1.1 20
*Archer 3.1.1 30

Spearman 1.2.1 20
*Spearman 2.2.1 30
*Spearman 1.3.1 30

Chariot 1.1.2 15 (wheeled) horses
*Chariot 1.1.2 20 (wheeled) horses
*Chariot 2.1.2 30 (wheeled) horses

Horseman 2.1.2 30 (zoc) horses
*2.1.2 25 (zoc) horses
*3.1.2 30 (zoc) horses

Swordsman 3.2.1 30 iron
*3.2.1 35 iron
*3.3.1 40 iron
*4.2.1 40 iron

Pikeman 1.3.1 30
*Pikeman 1.3.1 40
*Pikeman 2.3.1 40
*Pikeman 1.3.1 30 iron
*Pikeman 2.3.1 40 iron
*Pikeman 1.4.1 40 iron

Longbowman 4.1.1 40
*Longbowman 4.2.1 40
*Longbowman 4.1.1 50
*Longbowman 4.2.1 50
*Longbowman 5.1.1 50

Medieval Infantry 4.2.1 40 iron
*Medieval Infantry 3.3.1 40 iron
*Medieval Infantry 4.2.1 50 iron
*Medieval Infantry 3.3.1 50 iron
*Medieval Infantry 4.3.1 60 iron

Knight 4.3.2 60 (zoc) iron, horses
*Knight 4.3.2 70 (zoc) iron, horses
*Knight 4.4.2 70 (zoc) iron, horses
*Knight 5.3.2 70 (zoc) iron, horses
*Knight 6.3.2 80 (zoc) iron, horses

Musketman 1.4.1 50 saltpeter
*Musketman 2.4.1 60 saltpeter
*Musketman 3.4.1 60 saltpeter
*Musketman 3.4.1 65 saltpeter
*Musketman 3.5.1 70 saltpeter
*Musketman 4.5.1 80 saltpeter
*Musketman 3.6.1 80 saltpeter

Cavalry 6.3.3 80 (zoc) horses, saltpeter
*Cavalry 6.3.3 85 (zoc) horses, saltpeter
*Cavalry 7.3.3 85 (zoc) horses, saltpeter
*Cavalry 6.4.3 90 (zoc) horses, saltpeter
*Cavalry 7.3.3 90 (zoc) horses, saltpeter
*Cavalry 7.4.3 90 (zoc) horses, saltpeter

There may be a few more small values that are possible, but for the most part that should cover them. What can be done is decide what level do you want each unit to be at. I think it can be used as a guide to decide which combination of values for each unit is the most balanced. The cost and potentcy of each unit generally increase appropriately. Although. an increase in cost may decrease the potentcy of a unit in a real game. Also, decreasing a unit's potentcy in order to lower its shield cost may decrease the unit's potentcy in a real game. Choosing one option for a unit may force you to choose another for a different unit. Below is a possible combination for all the units in a balanced manner:

Warrior 1.1.1 10
Archer 3.1.1 30
Spearman 1.2.1 20
Chariot 1.1.2 15 (wheeled) horses
Horseman 2.1.2 30 (zoc) horses
Swordsman 3.2.1 30 iron

Pikeman 1.3.1 30
Longbowman 4.1.1 40
Medieval Infantry 3.3.1 40 iron
Knight 5.3.2 70 (zoc) iron, horses
Musketman 3.5.1 70 saltpeter
Cavalry 7.3.3 85 (zoc) horses, saltpeter

That's not an exact combination that might be the best by any means at all. It's still fairly well balanced, and my point was to show you a general idea of where I think the unit's values should range from. When choosing each unit's values it should be down from bottom to top. When deciding the values each unit before it should be taken into consideration along with the production rate of the time, the possibility of having certain resources, and the chance of moving up the unit chart based on technologies ahead, and like you said possible defensive bonuses. However, I still don't think too much emphasis on unit values should be based on defense bonus considering that's exactly what it is a bonus. IMO, I think it has to be a rather precise decision. This isn't to say that you were choosing carefully before, though. I just think that parts of it came out unbalanced.

Here's a thought, what if we gave all defenders the zero range bombard, and their bombard value was the same as their defense value? What do you think of that?

That is an interesting idea, but that takes away the bonus of units like the archer and longbowman. I like the realism part of how those units get an initial defense bonus and how most other units don't.

[korn469]

Techwins

Below is a possible combination for all the units in a balanced manner:

Warrior 1.1.1 10
Archer 3.1.1 30
Spearman 1.2.1 20
Chariot 1.1.2 15 (wheeled) horses
Horseman 2.1.2 30 (zoc) horses
Swordsman 3.2.1 30 iron

Pikeman 1.3.1 30
Longbowman 4.1.1 40
Medieval Infantry 3.3.1 40 iron
Knight 5.3.2 70 (zoc) iron, horses
Musketman 3.5.1 70 saltpeter
Cavalry 7.3.3 85 (zoc) horses, saltpeter

At first glance here's what I'm thinking

1) Even without the increased defensive bonuses of the Blitz Mod, stationary defence looks like the best way to go.

2) The use of combined arms in the ancient age seems to be less potent

3) Comparing middle age units to ancient units, there really isn't much of a difference. This is a biggie for me. Better tech should give players better weapons

However, that's just a first glance reaction. I don't want things to be too defensive. Without proper defenses offensives should proceed along at a fairly good pace. Good units mixes, and making the right moves should be crucial to an effective offensive.

also two other things...

I still don't think too much emphasis on unit values should be based on defense bonus considering that's exactly what it is a bonus

That is an interesting idea, but that takes away the bonus of units like the archer and longbowman. I like the realism part of how those units get an initial defense bonus and how most other units don't.

I disagree with both of those statements. The fortification bonus is a deliberate action. Setting up a defensive position at the right time in the right place can and should make all of the difference. Actually your statements started making me think about increasing the fortification bonus to 75%. I think that you cannot overlook the significance of defensive unit bonuses(even with the normal civ3 defensive values) when developing unit stats. Otherwise things won't function properly.

Also zero range bombard hasn't existed for two years in Civ3 Conquests just added it, so I think it's a tool that we should use to encourage combined arms. Realism is only a second priority, and to be realistic all ranged units should get the bonus, but I'm not sure if that is good for gameplay. That being said I think its best fit is with defense units not assault or general purpose units. I also like the fact that with my combat values defenders can effectively counter assault units or general purpose units. However, lets try some compromise. For now only worry about ancient units. We'll go one age at a time.

Warriors 2.1.1 15
Warriors are basic attack units. They shouldn't have any special considerations, except that since they are attack units their offense should exceed their defense.

Spearmen 2.3.1 20 (zero range bombard: 3 strength)
Spearmen are basic defensive units. Their defense should exceed their offense, yet their offense should still allow them to effectively counter assault and general purpose units.

Archers 4.1.1 20 (zoc)
Basic assault units. Although they lack a resource requirement, they should have a better attack/shield ratio than swordsmen which are a general purpose unit. Possibly by giving assault units zoc would make them nice additions to a stack.

Swordsmen 5.2.1 30 iron
A tough general purpose unit. These should be the mainstay of an ancient military, but they should need backup from other units. They should be all around robust.

Chariots 3.1.2 30 horses (wheeled, radar)
Good for picking off stragglers. Giving them radar gives them a 2 square vision, so they should make useful scouts.

Horsemen 4.1.3 45 horses (radar)
Again good for picking off stragglers and scouting for the main invasion force.

So tear those numbers apart and lets see what we come up with.

EDIT: I removed a blurb about upping the fortification bonus to 75% with these values there isn't a need for it

[TechWins]

1)...

Defence should be the best way to go.

2)...

I agree. Catapults aren't very effective at all compared to other artillery. Also, the close gap of a.d.m values make this the case. However, in the ancient age should there really be that much combined arms capability?

3)...

I agree again that better techs should open up better available weapons. However, if a unit is sort of the last new unit for a while, then it should be balanced among the other units. Such as with Invention and Chivarly those are the last two techs of the early middle ages. It will take some time before you're able to get to Gunpowder. So Longbowman and Knights shouldn't be overly powerful, because it could create some inbalanced.

I think that you cannot overlook the significance of defensive unit bonuses(even with the normal civ3 defensive values) when developing unit stats. Otherwise things won't function properly

Defensive bonuses are very significant I agree. However, I don't think that is justification for overdoing attack values. In some instances it might be the right idea, but not with every unit I don't think. From all of my playing it seems rather easy to win a battle when attacking a town/city when you have a 3/2 att/def advantage regardless of all the defensive bonuses. It's not quite as easy with a 4/3 advantage, but it's still effective enough with the right planning. My point is that with the right planning it can be easy as is when attacking let alone giving more of an advantage to the atatcker by altering the unit values in favor of the attacker.

Also zero range bombard hasn't existed for two years in Civ3 Conquests just added it, so I think it's a tool that we should use to encourage combined arms. Realism is only a second priority, and to be realistic all ranged units should get the bonus, but I'm not sure if that is good for gameplay

Yeah, I know that it has just been added. I did like your idea of adding it to more units, but I still like the realistic aspect of ranged units getting the bonus. An idea would be to give ranged units a 1-2 bonus, to keep the realism, then give all other units that have the bonus their def value as the bonus, for gameplay purposes.

Spearmen 2.3.1 20 (zero range bombard: 3 strength) Spearmen are basic defensive units. Their defense should exceed their offense, yet their offense should still allow them to effectively counter assault and general purpose units.

Hmm I think changing that to 2.2.1 20 (zero range bomard: 2) would better. It still gives them a 1/1 def/att advantage against Warriors and a 2/1 att/def ratio against them as well.

Warriors 2.1.1 15
I think trying out 2.1.1 15 might be a good idea to see how it works, even though, I may have some doubt.

Spearmen 2.2.1 20 (zero range bombard: 2 strength)
They are still a viable defensive unit, especially early on. Then the 2 attack gives them a good attack defense against 1 def units.

Archers 3.1.1 20 (zoc) (zero range bombard: 1 strength)
Still a good attacking unit with a 3/2 advantage over Spearmen. The zoc and zero range bombard gives them an extra edge, too. I think making them 25 shields might be better; I can't decide on that.

Swordsmen 4.2.1 30 iron
Initially I thought they should have a 3 def rating since there needs to be a unit that can defend better than 2 against the 4 attack. But I realized that the civs that are the only ones that have iron will be too powerful. Since Swordsmen can still be taken down by the resourceless Archers they're not overly powerful in that sense. I'm still a little worried about the 2/1 advantage it will have when attacking over all units. It can't hurt to try it out I guess.

Chariots 2.1.2 20 horses (wheeled, radar)
With the radar, 2/1 possible att/def ratio against many units, and 2 movement they will become great units to use to pick off low defence units.

Horsemen 3.1.2 30 horses (radar)
The same as Chariots except with better attack. 3 movement with the radar would only make them too strong.

Also, you have to take into consideration of not giving early units. like the archer, to big of an edge over the warrior since only certain civs get to start out buidling archers right away. I know I wouldn't be happy seeing a big hoard of archers 4.1.1 coming in within 15-20 turns into the game when I still only have warriors 2.1.1. That's one reason why I think the archer should have no higher of a value than 3, which is still a high value for a 1 def to defend against. At any rate certain sacrifices to unit values have to be made. It's a matter of trying to find the right values for the most balanced way. It would be really hard finding a perfectly completely balance between all of the units.

[korn469]

Techwins,

Those values looks good to me, I did like a 2.3.1 zero bombard spearman, but 2.2.1 works as well. I think adding zero range bombard to assault units is a good idea as well.
The only changes I would make is to have chariots cost 25 and horsemen to cost 35.

I'm in complete agreement with you that the middle ages is two seperate era. You have the early middle ages which is like era 2.0, then you have the late middle ages which is like era 2.5. I haven't quite made up my mind about the late middle ages yet, but taking your vales with what I was thinking earlier today how does this sound for the early middle ages.

Pikeman 4.5.1 35 (zero range bombard: 5 strength)

The primary defender of the middle ages. Their attack gives them an offensive edge against all other units besides pikemen, and their defense is the best of the era.

Medieval Infantry 9.4.1 50 iron
Again the mainstain of a middle ages army, they are good defenders and have quite an offensive punch.

Longbowmen 7.1.1 35 (zoc)(zero range bombard: strength 2)
A cheap assault unit, that can dish out more damage per shield than a Medieval Infantry unit. It's low defense and exta abilities make it a good support unit.

Knights 10.3.2 70 horses, iron (radar)
Knights are the masters of the medieval battlefield. They fill both a scout/raider role, and can serve as a primary offensive unit. However, their high cost when coupled with their low defense will make players think twice before relying solely on them in the middle ages.

All in all the Middle ages has a slightly more defensive tilt than the Ancient age, and combined arms is still important.

[TechWins]

Warriors 2.1.1 15
-when attacking-
*Spearmen - 0% adv
*Archers - 100% adv
*Swordsmen - 0% adv
*Chariots - 100% adv
*Horsemen - 100% adv

Spearmen 2.2.1 20 (zero range bombard: 2 strength)
-when attacking-
*Warriors - 100% adv
*Archers - 100% adv
*Swordsmen - 0% adv
*Chariots - 100% adv
*Horsemen - 100% adv

Archers 3.1.1 20 (zoc) (zero range bombard: 1 strength)
-when attacking-
*Warriors - 200% adv
*Spearmen - 50% adv
*Swordsmen - 50% adv
*Chariots - 200% adv
*Horsemen - 200% adv

Swordsmen 4.2.1 30 iron
-when attacking-
*Warriors - 300% adv
*Spearmen - 100% adv
*Archers - 300% adv
*Chariots - 300% adv
*Horsemen - 300% adv

Chariots 2.1.2 20 horses (wheeled, radar)
-when attacking-
*Warriors - 100% adv
*Spearmen - 0% adv
*Archers - 100% adv
*Swordsmen - 0% adv
*Horsemen - 100% adv

Horsemen 3.1.2 30 horses (radar)
-when attacking-
*Warriors - 200% adv
*Spearmen - 50% adv
*Archers - 200% adv
*Swordsmen - 50% adv
*Chariots - 200% adv

Warrior -> Swordsmen -> Medieval Infantry
Archers -> Longbowmen
Spearmen -> Pikemen
Chariots -> Horsemen -> Knights

Since it's easy to know what each unit is an upgrade of we should try to keep the same sort of bonuses that are given to the units in the ancient age. Meaning that the bonuses a Swordsmen has over an Archer should be similar to what the Medieval Infantry has over the Longbowmen. I'll try this method for selecting unit values and see if it works. It may wind up being unbalanced; I'm not sure.

I thought I'd just show you the advantages each unit has over one another, so you can easily see them.

Btw, I agree that the Horsemen and Chariots should have a 5 more shield cost.

Pikemen 3.4.1 40 (zero range bombard: 4 strength)
This still gives Pikemen an advantage when attacking any ancient age unit and no ancient age unit has an advantage over it when attacking it. Still has a good defence at 4 against a 6 attack unit. The cost should be 40 since it doesn't have a resource requirement.

Medieval Infantry 6.3.1 50 iron
A general unit like the Swordsmen with a good attack but deceptable on defence. It can easily take out any ancient age unit and protect itself fairly well against all ancient age units. Then still good attack against Pikeman.

Longbowmen 6.1.1 50 (zoc)(zr bombard: strength 2)
A good attacking unit that is not too expensive and doesn't require any resources. This gives Civs without resources to field a good army with Pikemen and Longbowmen.

Knights 6.3.2 70 horses, iron (radar)
The most feared unit with its good attack, decent defence, ability to retreat, and radar to easily pick off units. Even with the 3 defence Knights will be very hard to destroy since they will be able to easily manuevar out of the way of danger.