Apolyton University Mod (PTW version)

[Jawa Jocky]

edit: duh. Sorry I didn't even notice I was using the wrong thread

[alexman]

Sounds fine, but this discussion belongs in the Apolyton University thread.

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay
in the AU 206 spoiler
I'm curious as to how well that aspect of the musketeer's faster movement rate was thought out. AU Mod musketeers seem about as deadly to cavalry as riflemen are, or at least very close, and I hate to think what it would be like trying to fight them with nothing better than knights. At least going up against Impi, you have the option of using swordsmen instead of horsemen. But with musketeers, the only contemporary options available through much of the unit's useful life are knights and medieval infantry. It's a lot like fighting Impi with only horsemen and archers available - only worse because a much higher percentage of cities are over size six.

As Dominae first observed a few posts ago, this change indeed makes France a powehouse civ. The change was originally suggested when the commercial trait was all but useless. But now that Commercial/Industious is one of the best trait combos (IMHO), I think the stronger musketeer makes France too good.

Let's go back to the original stats!

Next question:
What do people think of player 1's recent unit cost changes in his mod?

1. Conquistadors cost 50
2. Keshiks cost 50
3. Cavalry cost 90 (Cossaks and Sipahi still at 80 and 100 respectively).

I don't think any of them are necessary, but what do others think?

[Dominae]

I would like to see those changes made to the Conquistador and the Keshik. They're both quite average UUs, so making them slightly better will increase the playability of Spain and Mongolia (a good thing).

I'm all for any tweaks that make less appealing UUs (and hence civs) more attractive. AU206 was a good experiment in determining if the Gallic was one of these. I believe something can be done with the War Elephant, but I would draw the line at Cossacks (which are so-so, but still pretty good).

I vote for leaving Cavalry at its normal cost.


Dominae

[alexman]

With player1's change, Gallic swordsmen and Keshiks are both cost-50 UUs of militaristic civs. But Keshiks are 4-3-2 and have reduced movement on Mountains (and hills for this mod), while GS are 3-2-2. Is that fair?

I can buy the argument for 50-cost conquistadors, as they are not a militaristic UU, even though they have identical stats to the GS (both are 3-2-2, but conqs treat all as roads).

By the way, since GS are staying at 50 cost, should the Celts be able to build medieval infantry? I think not. You would be nuts to "upgrade" to a cheaper unit, losing 10 shields towards the eventual guerilla upgrade.

Also by the way, we have already given Elephants the ability to ignore the extra cost of jungles. Probably not enough, but it's something.

[Dominae]

Keshiks are starting to become a pretty complicated unit:

1. Knight replacement
2. 4/2/2 stats
3. No Iron
4. Ignores movement in Mountains (and Hills)
5. Reduced cost

It is hard to decide how the reduced cost affects the rating of the unit overall. But 50-Shields Knights are probably not a good idea (although "fairness" with respect to the Gallic has nothing to do with it, IMO, since they're an age apart).

I used Medieval Infantry in AU206, but probably would have done better just using Gallics until Knights. So I agree that Gallics should uprgrade to Guerilla.

Does the War Elephant treat Jungle like flat tiles now (1 movement point cost)?


Dominae

[nbarclay]

I "upgraded" (side-graded?) at least one GS that had produced a leader to Medieval Infantry, giving a theoretical possibility of getting another leader later. Another possible reason to upgrade would be to get a higher attack value against invading knights, since the GS's ability to retreat is useless against knights other than preventing the knights from retreating. It's not something a player would do often, but it's not necessarily completely useless. And letting Celts build or upgrade to GS's after Feudalism when Rome and Persia can't do that with their UUs would be questionable.

I think Keshiks are good enough in the standard game (and especially with the addition of the ability to ignore the movement penalty for hills) that there is no genuine need for further improvement. I've never played the Mongols because neither their traits nor their UU are especially appealing to me, but drop the cost to 50 and I think you unleash a horrible monster. For the same shields, you would get seven fifths the attack value of knights and 14/15 the defense value (albeit with individually weaker units). That would take an underwhelming UU and make it one of the most potent in the entire game, arguably the most potent, which I regard as outside the scope of the AU mod.

Suppose an enemy longbowman or medieval infantry comes out to attack a Keshik. The Keshik has a chance to retreat, and if he's killed, it's only a 50-shield loss. Then the Keshik's friends easily dispatch the offending longbowman or medieval infantry, inflicting a 40-shield loss. So even to the extent that an AI might have the brains and forces to preempt Keshik attacks, 50-shield Keshiks would still have a significant advantage.

I think the cost of cavalry is okay where it is, especially considering the AU enhancements to riflemen and infantry. In the best case, cavalry can provide overwhelming force at a good price. But their shelf life is very limited unless you can build up a sizeable tech lead, and raising their cost would eat into the already-questionable potential to keep using cavalry once enemy riflemen and especially infantry show up. Keep in mind that when you invest in riflemen and infantry, part of what you're paying for is the future potential to upgrade all the way to mechanized infantry, while cavalry are a dead end.

Nathan

[player1]

Originally posted by alexman
With player1's change, Gallic swordsmen and Keshiks are both cost-50 UUs of militaristic civs. But Keshiks are 4-3-2 and have reduced movement on Mountains (and hills for this mod), while GS are 3-2-2. Is that fair?

There is an age difference.

Let see this way.
If you wanna make some new Kinight UU, you could make it 4/3/2 Kinight with cost of 50 shields.
It would be in line with Samurai or Rider in its power.

Now if you reduce its defense you need to add up something for that.
You add better movment of Hills and Mountains.
But since that movmet is also not as good advantage as with normall Kinghts (you actuly NEED to be on hills in order to keep units alive due to lower defense), you add no need for Iron (as minor advantage).

Also Mongols are Militaristic and Expansionistic.
Not best trait combo (Milt. are much better if combained with some realitivly good "civilian trait")

Lets compare it to Elephant.
Jungle vs Moutains & Hills are similar advantages (since both Jungles and Hills&Mountains are found in clusters).

Now Keshik gets cost reduction to 50 shields
but Elephants keep defense of 3, and no need of any reources (with is much better advantage then no need for just Iron, since you can stay alive even with having only Iron, only Horses, or none of them). Ancient age can be easily survived with just one of these resources and Elephants guarantee that regarless if is it Horse-only or Iron-only you'll have your Elephants. On the other hand if Monglons get just Iron, it won't be good for then in middle age.

Also, Keshik has upgarde advantage at start, but is loses it with Cavaraly (50 --> 80 or 90)

Personnaly, I think that Elephants are fine (at least on some maps). You are never really in disadvantage with them, but you could get advantage in some times on right maps.


As for Conquistadors, I looked it this way.
You have a kinght. You lower its attack and defense, so that's worth 50 shields. Now it's unique unit so add it movment point. But since it's gained much later too, instead of adding movment point add treat all terrains as roads.


As for Cavarly, let it put this way.
In age or Rilflemen 80 cost Cavaraly is fine and balanced.
Also, in age of Riflemen 90 cost Cavarly won't make any real difference too (because of good producstion and rounding erorrs).
But, in age of Musketes, having ability to for just 20gp (or 10 gp with Leonardo), to add +50% movement and attack reating is just powerful. espeacily considering that there will be no Rifllemens for some time if you get Cavarly early.

This chanage done by me, uses same reasoning wich is done for GS to keep it with 50 shields. To double upgarde costs.
(it also, as side effect makes Cossaks a little bit better if they keep cost of 80).

[player1]

Just oine thing to consider.

Medivial Swordsmen in upderpowered unit for its era.
It's not realy worth its cost if you or your enemy have Knights.
(can't stand chance on open)

On the other hand it really does not need beffing up, since it's assumed that it can be helpfull if you or your enemy have no Horses. And you need get some use of your old Swordsmen.

But comparing Keshik to Med. Infantry is not really fair.

[player1]

Originally posted by nbarclay
For the same shields, you would get seven fifths the attack value of knights and 14/15 the defense value (albeit with individually weaker units). That would take an underwhelming UU and make it one of the most potent in the entire game, arguably the most potent, which I regard as outside the scope of the AU mod.

Hmm...

let's see.
Immortal gets 4/3rds or Swordsmen attack, Mounted Warrior gets 3/halfs of Horsemen attack.
That's all better then modified Keshik (7/5ths).
Does this make those units hevily owerpowered?
No not at all, just powerful.

So will it make Keshik overpowered?
No, and they still get lower defense, and their attack is not better then of other units (but they are more cost effecive).

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by player1

Hmm...

let's see.
Immortal gets 4/3rds or Swordsmen attack, Mounted Warrior gets 3/halfs of Horsemen attack.
That's all better then modified Keshik (7/5ths).
Does this make those units hevily owerpowered?
No not at all, just powerful.

So will it make Keshik overpowered?
No, and they still get lower defense, and their attack is not better then of other units (but they are more cost effecive).

Actually, 7/5 is higher than 4/3. That leaves only Mounted Warriors and War Chariots with a bigger advantage in terms of attack value vs. price. And War Chariots pay for their power through more limited ability to handle hostile terrain, whereas Keshiks have a movement advantage.

Consider, also, the matters of prebuilds and golden age timing. War Chariots have no prebuild at all, and a civ has to deliberately delay obtaining Horseback Riding in order to prebuild any significant number of chariots for upgrade to Mounted Warriors. Further, prebuilds for Mounted Warriors come early in the game when barracks are expensive and time consuming for a non-militaristic civ. And if Egypt or the Iroquois use their UU before very late in the ancient era, they get stuck with a despotic golden age.

In contrast, the Mongols have excellent prebuild opportunities. Further, knight replacement UUs provide what is generally considered essentially ideal timing for a GA. Conquer your continent with Keshiks, use your GA to gain a tech lead, use your GA to build or a leader to rush Leonardo's, and you're set up perfectly to clobber the other continent with cavalry (which, by the way, those cheap Keshiks provide a fantastic prebuiold for).

If you want the Mongols to be one of the great powerhouse warmongering civs of the game instead of merely mediocre, by all means, reduce the cost to 50. But I don't view creating additional powerhouse civs that can steamroll over the opposition as what the AU mod is about.

Nathan

[player1]

But that Cavarly upgrade will realy be expensive.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by player1
But that Cavarly upgrade will realy be expensive.

Cost didn't deter me from upgrading over 70 horsemen to cavalry in the AU 206 game. Nor is that the first time I've used massive cavalry upgrades to end a game around the dawn of the industrial era.

[aaglo]

I don't know if this suggestion is already made:

Make the medieval infantry 4-3-1. And as I don't know the cost of it, propably add 10 shields to the cost. This would make the unit an option to the persians and the romans.

And about the gallic swordsman - people complain about it's high cost. what if you keep the cost, and add something like "treat all forests as grassland" or something like that? It could shut up all those whiners.

[nbarclay]

After AU 206, there's a strong consensus (something like 80% of the vote last I looked) that the Gallic Swordsman is okay as is.

[yxhuvud]

aaglo: the problem with the med inf is not that persians and romans don't or wouldn't use it. The problem is that the window of time when they are good (ie prior to chivalry) is kinda short, and while it is quite possible to to a bit of conquering with them (they are totally sick against opponents that doesn't have either iron or fundamentalism, or havn't had the cash to upgrade). The problem is that compared to knigths they are kinda costineffective. doing the changes you propose would lessen the power of the unit even more..

[badams52]

I always just thought the med inf was in line only so that the swordsmen you build in the early game are no longer useless by the time of the late game. Whether they're effective attckers in their own era is not as important as having the swordsmen become useful in later stages.

[Fosse]

I agree with badam. This mod shouldn't be interested in giving every attacking unit an "era" that it's the most effective. Medeival infantry aren't as good as knights, adn they shouldn't have to be.

I think they already fit their niche perfectly.

[Theseus]

Straying too far...

Please, no changes for change's sake.

It's OK if the AU Mod settles down into a "standard" version, short of addressing new issues introduced in patches and new releases.

I think we are at the point where significant unit changes should only come after testing, such as AU206.

[Dominae]

Playing AU206 I noticed that Catapults upgrade to Artillery, skipping Cannons. I assume this is a mistake...


Dominae

[alexman]

Thanks for finding it. It was an accident, of course.

[Dominae]

Let's just say 'finding' is not right word', because I was not really "looking". It just sort of came up and slapped me across the face...So I built 4 Cavalry Armies to quell my anger. And so they did.

I assume the switch was made when fiddling with the Koreans, correct?


Dominae

[alexman]

Correct. By accident I changed the Catapult (in addition to the Cannon) to upgrade to Hwach'a. Don't ask me how...

1.17 will fix it.

In addition, it will put Musketeers back to stock.

I still like the removal of Med. infantry for the Celts. It just seems more natural, but I realize it's a change that does not directly fall into any of the mod's goals.

Anything else?

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Dominae
So I built 4 Cavalry Armies to quell my anger. And so they did.

I feel better too.

[player1]

As it's pointed out here, 50 cost Keshik can become too much powerful, since he'll be +40% more cost effective at attack, and barely, 6.7% less effective at defense then Knight. These benefits alone would make a good UU, without need of further boosts, like better movement at Mountains and Hills.
But since such change (removing mountain movement) would remove some Keshik flavor, maybe something else need to be done.

What about giving them defense of 3, with price of 60?

Or even better, give them blitz attack with original cost of 60 instead? (blitz is in flavor with quick rushes with mounted archers)


Also, one thing with the Elephants.
How would they work, if movement bonus in Jungles is removed and cost reduced to 60 shields?
(like in Beta Tester MOD)
Is it out of flavor (Elephants are supposed to be expensive), or out of balance?

[nbarclay]

I view major rebalancing of UUs as out of scope for the AU mod. A little tinkering around the edges like letting Keshiks get their movement bonus on hills too or letting elephants move through jungle quickly doesn't bother me. And I was willing to consider much more drastic changes to the Gallic Swordsman when people were arguing that he might actually be worse than the unit he replaces. But changing stats or costs around just because players wish civs with weak UUs were more powerful seems like too much of a departure from the stock game for too little reason.

Further, playing a "weak" civ gives players an extra option for testing their abilities if they're interested. It could even serve as a handicapping mechanism in MP if a group of players wanted it to. ("Okay, Aeson, we'll let you in, but only if you play England." )

Edit: Although given Aeson's skills with expansionist civs, the words, "Please don't throw me into that briar patch," come to mind.

Nathan

[player1]

That's why I was suggesting some minor tweaks.
Like Blitz for Keshik (it just goes so well with flavor)

Or cost 60 Elephants as alternative for good Jungle Elephants
(I have no idea which Elephant version is better)


I agree with you that defense 3 Keshik would be just out-of-scope for a AU MOD.

[player1]

It's surely more minor then "bombardment" for Longbowmen.

[Dominae]

Blitz is a very powerful and significantly different ability. This makes it far more "out of flavor" for AU than an added Defense point.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by player1
It's surely more minor then "bombardment" for Longbowmen.

This added ability is significant, but only for the AI. I see this addition as a balancing act between the "improving the AI" and "not changing too much". I think it succeeds, as in 90% of games it does not change human strategy at all (since humans usually attacking, not defending).


Dominae