 |
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
I don't have C3C yet, so I might have NO idea... but wouldn't changing a unit graphic in the editor not require any file copying AT ALL?
I seem to recall that I could change which animation represented which unit on the units screen. Am I mistaken?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pvzh
|
 |
Canada
Aug 2002
time: 01:32
|
|
Ok. Ok. Look what a mess we are in. 2 version of the Cavalry of the same graphics and rework of all associated UU's instead of carefuly looking at the problem and fixing the problem. In my opinion, you looking at it upsidedown.
1. Cavalry (6) indeed has 50% advantage over musketman (4), but lowering attack value to 5 will make it even worse than Knight vs Pikeman, as nbarclay pointed out. Besides, everybody forgets that at that stage of the game musketmen are defending mostly cities, i.e. +50% to defence bringing efective defence to 6. Not that poor.
2. Cavalry indeed has 3 moves, but that play a significant role only if you have overwhelming advantage in numbers, i.e. 40-50 for standart map: you move on your roads, take city use its roads take another etc. Taking 5+ cities a turn. However, you amassed OVERWHELMING advantage: you built 50 horsemen (standard map), paid all their maintains, paid 150 gold (75 gold with Leo) per horsemen to upgrade. You won this game by sheer fact that you were ABLE TO DO this. Would have you built library/university and diverted that money and maintaince cost to research, you would had a tech lead, gtp-drained AI's -- won game anyway you put it. My advice: move to the higher level: this problem will disappear.
However, I agree that taking cities with cavalry if you beelined to MT in a tech even game is fairly easy before rifleman. But why? Because, when you do so, only first 1 or 2 defenders are musketman, the rest are pikemen if not spearmen. Against them Cavalry indeed "overpowered" and "needs a nerf". The PROBLEM is MUSKETMEN and their PRICE (remember, upgrade costs are 50% up).
Thus:
Musketman -10 or -15 to cost, same stats.
Consider, dropping saltpepper requirement and/or increase in defensive bombardment.
Addition: Improving rifleman the same way (cost reduction) with even more subtle change: switch tech requirement to MT from Nationalism to reduce AI drive to research Nationalism and shorten Cavlry lifespan, but this might go to far from the stock game.
This approach
(1) requires no additional units to create (Cavalry Mk I, Cavalry Mk II) messing with respective UU, problems telling units apart and all that nasty stuff;
(2) does not change game mechanics: Cavalry vs Musketman still better than Knight vs Pikeman;
(3) fixes enefectiveness of Musketman as a whole.
All benefits without any trouble.
Last edited by pvzh on 04-12-2003 at 04:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Risa
|
|
pvzh hits the nail right on the head.
30 shields for 1.3.1, 60 shields for 2.4.1 and 70 shields for 4.6.1 is just ridiculous. Either raise musketman to 3.5.1 (and musketeer to 3.6.1), or reduce musketmen's cost to 45 shields.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ision
|
|
I agree with the arguments that point to the culprit as being the musketman and not the 6-3-3 Cavalry.
There is no need to go through the gymnastics of a '2 stage Cavalry' for the sake of 1 attack factor. I also believe that a no-cost to upgrade/ 2 stage unit/ with identical graphics - IS a great departure from the stock game, and this is exactly what the AU Mod seeks to avoid.
A simpler solution is a very slight cost reduction to the Musketman - combined perhaps with a slight increase in defense or attack.
Given these 2 options - a reworking of the musketman seems far more reasonable than the Cavalry changes.
Ision
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
I decided to do some experimenting with cavalry and see what would happen. In my experiment, I set up a scenario with 100 pseudo-veteran cavalry attacking 50 pseudo-veteran musketmen fortified in a size-8 grassland city. Rather than make them veterans (which I don't know how to do any way but one at a time), I added a hit point to regulars; that reduces the retreat odds for the cavalry a little and adds a little to the chace of promotion for the musketmen, but the results should still be reasonably useful. (Also note that the occasional 6hp elite caused some anomalies.) I ended up using Rome as my attack victim, so the promotion chance was a little better than if the victim had been non-militaristic. The results of five assaults are as follows:
1) Assault failed. 24 cavalry dead. 46 musketmen dead.
2) Assault succeeded. 31 cavalry dead. 50 musketmen dead. Four cavalry left that didn't attack.
3) Assault succeeded. 33 cavalry dead. 50 musketmen dead. One cavalry left that didn't attack.
4) Assault succeeded. 25 cavalry dead. 50 musketmen dead. Six cavalry left that didn't attack.
5) Assault failed. 29 cavalry dead. 48 musketmen dead.
Unit for unit and hit point for hit point, cavalry and musketmen fortified in flatland cities (size 7 and over) are actually fairly evenly matched. The reasons why cavalry assaults are so successful are (1) AIs built lots of regulars instead of veterens and (2) AI defenders are spread all over the empire, allowing attacking cavalry to achieve massive numerical superiority at the point of attack. Once healthy cavalry are attacking injured musketmen, and especially musketmen with just one or two hit points left, it's pretty much over.
I next reduced the attack value of cavalry to five. In the one battle fought with 100 cavalry attacking 50 musketmen, the attack failed with 39 cavalry lost and only 35 musketmen killed (although the survivers were down to one and two hit points). I then added another 50 cavalry (making 150 total) so the attacks would be at 3:1 odds favoring the attacker, with the following results:
1) Attack succeeded. 35 cavalry dead. 50 musketmen dead. 31 cavalry left that didn't attack.
2) Attack succeeded. 28 cavalry dead. 50 musketmen dead. 43 cavalry left that didn't attack.
3) Attack succeeded. 47 cavalry dead. 50 musketmen dead. 22 cavalry left that didn't attack.
4) Attack succeeded. 38 cavalry dead. 50 musketmen dead. 41 cavalry left that didn't attack.
5) Attack succeeded. 49 cavalry dead. 50 musketmen dead. 20 cavalry left that didn't attack.
Note that actual losses would be a tad less under normal rules than they were in my test scenario. The pseudo-veterans had a bit less chance of retreating than genuine veterans had, which made them more likely to die but also a tiny bit more likely to win. Also, the slightly higher promotion chance for the defenders and especially the occasional 6-hit-point elite gave the defenders a bit of an edge.
We're probably looking at somewhere in the neighborhod of one third higher death rates among attacking cavalry if we adopt the "light cavalry" modification. That may be just about right to make cavalry blitzes less overwhelmingly powerful while still leaving them clearly useful. My worst fears that the power of light cavalry might be hurt too much seem to have been unfounded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vulture
|
 |
Leeds, UK
Jun 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
To summarize alexman's summary of the problem:
It's too easy to get into a cavalry vs pike war even against the more powerful of your AI neighbours, and this gives the human player a big advantage over the AI that we want to reduce.
Cavalry vs muskets isn't so much of a problem - it is not that hard to win a cavalry vs musket war, but you won't roll over them in the same way you can with pikes.
Possible solutions (most of which have been proposed here already - combinations of these may also be viable). Some of these are almost certainly outside the realm of not changing stock C3C too much, but are thrown in for completeness and maybe to spawn other ideas:
* Nerf cavalry (and cavalry UUs) until nationalism, to give the AI more time to get decent defenders in place.
* Lower the shield cost of muskts, so the AI can upgrade more pikes straight away upon getting to gunpowder (the relative shield cost / defence of pikes, muskets and riflemen is crazy anyway IMHO)
* Use flavours to encourage the AI to beeline to gunpowder (I've noticed the AI do this - I had a tech lead in the ealy middle ages, and went straight for MT - this lowered the cost of the MT branch techs enough that the other AIs all found them more attractive, so they all did the same)
* Improve the musket units (doesn't really solve the problem)
* Improve the musket units to 5 defence, and add in a new 4 defence unit between pikes and muskets (at Invention, presumably). Might be seen as a very big change, but we could just say that it is the pike becoming more effective (zero cost upgrade?) 
* Prevent the beeline to MT - make it require a Theology branch tech as a pre-requisite, so it is almost impossible to get to MT before gunpowder has been around for some time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
pvzh made an interesting suggestion, which is worth considering. However, I'm not convinced that it will completely solve the problem we are trying to tackle. |
Yes, but if it alleviates the problem and does not require a new unit, I'm all for it.
quote:
A big reason that Cavalry is so powerful is the fact that you can beeline for MT and catch the AI with pikemen. |
While I'm not sure if this is true, I'm very sure that the argument comes up for the first time. Until now, it was only 'Cavalry vs. Musketman is unbalanced'. Is the Light Cavalry proposal already sort of a 'beloved feature'?
quote:
Note that if you get MT before the AI gets Gunpowder, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are ahead in the tech race, so it can happen even at your 'normal' difficulty level. |
If I get Military Tradition before the AI gets Gunpowder, this means at least a 4-tech lead in the Engineering branch. Unless the AI has a 4-tech lead in the Monotheism branch, I am ahead in tech.
IMO, pvzh's suggestion to reduce the shield costs of Musketmen is very interesting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Risa
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vulture
* Prevent the beeline to MT - make it require a Theology branch tech as a pre-requisite, so it is almost impossible to get to MT before gunpowder has been around for some time. |
Interesting. Perhaps Education to Chemistry? There doesn't seem to be strong relation between any two of other techs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lockstep
Yes, but if it alleviates the problem and does not require a new unit, I'm all for it.
|
If that's the case, with no side effects, I'm all for it too. But if this solution also shortens the lifespan of Knights (which have a short lifespan to begin with), I'm not so sure.
quote:
Is the Light Cavalry proposal already sort of a 'beloved feature'?
|
Not really, although I like it because it does kill two birds with one stone (Nationalism + Cavalry). If we can accomplish the same thing without adding a unit, I would be the first to embrace the idea.
quote:
If I get Military Tradition before the AI gets Gunpowder, this means at least a 4-tech lead in the Engineering branch. Unless the AI has a 4-tech lead in the Monotheism branch, I am ahead in tech.
|
I didn't say anything different. If you beeline for MT, and don't trade anything with the AI to keep them from Gunpowder, the AI will often get to Education/Chivalry before you get MT.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
donZappo
|
|
Looking at the tech tree I can see how making chemistry require education would work to reduce the power of cavalry and really extend the age of knights. Would this actually be a workable solution that the AU would consider? I noticed that when you change around the tech prerequisites that the arrows on the tech tree don't actually change at all, so this might not be such a great change as it may cause a good deal of confusion to newer players and make it obvious that you're playing a mod. I remember some discussion in the past about changing tech prerequisites, or maybe just required techs (I believe it had to do something with Astronomy/Navigation but I can't recall the details), and wondered if this problem has been solved before. Has the AU ever incorporated this into one of their mods, or has it just been left as a theoretical discussion?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vulture
|
|
Leeds, UK
Jun 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
One of the big problems with the tech-tree-change approach is (much like the light cavalry) either the user has to install some new graphics along with the mod (although installing a new tech tree graphic is probably less work than a new unit), or we stick with the not changing graphics approach in which case the average user could easily get confused. I'm not sure there is an easy way to get around this problem.
The suggestion of playing around with resources to get the same effect is a good one, if we can find a good way of implementing it. Making gunpowder appear with Education, for instance, would have the desired effect re cavalry, but would mess up the musketman balance I suspect - unless we find that the vast majority of the time the AI gets Education before or around the same time as gunpowder normally.
One alternative (which is probably a can of worms) would be to create a new resource, available with education, that is necessary for cavalry (we could have 'schmorses' - like horses but they can run 50% faster  ). Again, there could be the need for more graphics, and it could arguably change the feel of the game. Is it possible to make a resource invisible (no graphics problems) and have no food/shield/trade bonuses? Then all we have to do is make it abundant enough so that everyone with more than 1 or 2 cities is certain to have the resource, and we have forced education to be a pre-requisite for building cavalry, without screwing with the tech tree.
One very possible problem with this is that the resource has to be pretty common, or else even fewer civs will have all the resources to build cavalry than they do at the moment - which I suspect would weaken the AI relative to the human in practise. But if we have the resource very common, then there is a danger that we mess up the allocation of other resources. We don't know which order bonus, strategic and luxury resources are allocated on the map, but I suspect that luxury resources are allocated last (on standard, 5 billion year old maps, mountains are rare, and consequently, it is quite common for only one or two gems resources to exist) - and adding in a new common resource could throw the balance of other resource types out of whack by leaving them with too few locations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Strollen
|
|
This is a very apropos discussion. I was playing Emperor as the Greeks and having a difficult time making progress against the Carthage. This despite having Zesus (awesome wonder 25+ ancient cavs) a Golden Age, and allies.
Than I got Cavalry. I upgraded all my Knights took out 2 cities. Than I got an army and my Cav army took out a city rested a turn, took out another rested... . Eventually I captured Carthage and Leonardos, and soon Carthanians were down to handful of cities and I made peace.
We all know that Cavs are way too powerful. I think the sure sign is what people build. Once I discover Military tradition, I build Cav and basically only cav (and maybe some artillery in cities without barracks) until I discover motorized transport. Even after tanks are in the field Cav and (especially Cav armies) are still useful until modern armor is discovered. So Cavs are still viable for almost 2 full eras. The only non UU unit that is good for so long.
Adjusting the Musketman cost to 50 helps but not enough. I played most of my PTW games with a 50 cost but as other have pointed out only the first defender is likely to be a musketman. Than the Cav starts attacking regular pikeman, and spearman and cities fall blitzkrieg style.
I think the idea of having a separate nationalism Cav is too complicated. Lets simply reduce the attack factor of Cav to 5 (and subtract one from the Civ UUs). In no war game are Cav considered better at attacking cities than infantry. Yet a 6-3-3 Cav is a much better offensive unit than a 6-10-1 Infantry. Despite being 30-60 turns less advanced.
At 5-3-3 for 80 Shields I will still build Cav's rather than Rifleman
I'll probably buy a mix of Cav and Infantry, basically I'll build Cav if they take less turns than infantry, and Infantry if they are the same turns.
In fact, I'd even argue for making Cav 4-3-3 and maybe 70 shields, (i.e. Chinese Rider) which would make them useful for pilliage, killing weakened units and retreating to avoid the counterattack but not great city killing units.
The thing I had hoped that conquest had provide was a line of improvements to the 1 move swordsman, medieval infantry line.
Marines are now an almost viable alternative to tanks.
But there is a long gap between a medieval infantry and Marine for 1 move assault troops.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Strollen
Lets simply reduce the attack factor of Cav to 5 (and subtract one from the Civ UUs). |
I've been considering this idea for a while now, but never had the guts to suggest it (I believe Theseus was the first to throw it out there).
Would it really hurt so much just to flat-out reduce the Attack of Cavalry to 5 (without adding a new unit at Nationalism)?
I bet we could all still do some serious damage with it. The major difference would be that once Riflemen show up, it's time to look toward Artillery/Infantry for offense. I bet the AI would benefit from this too, since I'm doubtful it would upgrade Light Cavalry all that often.
Dominae
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2003 00:58
|