I'm liking .86 for being sparser on the goodie huts and for not allowing champions to rule the day, and for toning down easy to access mobility. Overall it made me rethink what I was doing.
That said, I'm still seeing dominant strategies after playing a few games. Definition: strategic dominance (commonly called simply dominance) occurs when one strategy is better than another strategy for one player, no matter how that player's opponents may play.
I like games where the best strategy is reactive based on environment and circumstance. I'd like to go in ready for war and find a super defensive player who completely makes me go down another path or lose.
Here's the breakdown by looking at the smaller choices of why conquest is the dominant strategy.
Strong Units vs Weak Units
Units gain small advantages or lose small advantages with traits, but gain or lose cost significantly. For instance, militia cost 35 base. By adding "weak", the cost drops by 15, which is 43% discount. Attack and HP only drop 1 (about a 13% loss). By adding conscripted, the cost drops to 10 points, a further 50% reduction by only losing 10% of initiative. In comparison, switching from a club to staff only saves 5 points but decreases attack by 3 points, which can be a 50% loss or more. So the best units have great equipment and horrible traits. Also, gildar upkeep is based on cost, so weak units are more upkeep effective.
Champions vs Units
For military damage, champions now are less important. A starting champion might have 3-12 attack or so, while a very weak clubman will still have 18 attack. Units are also now just as fast if not faster than champions. Champions also split XP, and use the same mana pool, so one champion per army is ideal.
Champions are still great for picking up items, gaining buffs for the army, questing, and otherwise. So now they play two different roles, but units are now the bulk of the damage and since weak units are more efficient than strong units, weak units should be produced in quantity. Early weak units also help control the countryside faster.
Magic vs Units
Magic has several prerequisites. You need sufficient mana. Harvesting mana from shards requires researching the technology (15 or so turns at the start), plus building the node (20 turns or so at an outpost), and then waiting for the mana to accrue before you will have a significant source of mana. In addition, magic is best used by higher level heroes who have selected the path of the mage.
In comparison, on turn 1, I can found a city with 10 production that can create 1 weak militia a turn. By the time a magic strategy focused player has gotten up to speed, I could have several significant armies roaming the countryside.
That said, right now fireball evens the playing field. Fireball is still a 1 turn cast, cost about 20 mana, and destroys pretty much any produced unit in one hit. Taking that spell out of the equation and blizzard, though, and magic will always lose vs units as an overall strategy.
Few vs Many Cities
Few cities are supposed to benefit from levels faster, being easier to defend, concentration of resources via outposts, etc, but fail to the many city strategy due to growth rate. Buildings like the inn and the pub provide static bonuses to growth. The bonus from buildings can easily double the base prestige growth when you have 10+ cities, and it means that the grain cap is less of a problem, plus multiple cities produce MUCH more. Multiple cities in conjunction with trading also provide a highway system that allows for quick mobility not provided by fewer cities. Not to mention, more cities deny your opponents resources and expansion opportunities.
High vs Low Tax
The best strategy is to maintain 0% tax rate as long as possible to maximize production and research. Gildar just functions as a cap for maximum armies and buildings. If you avoid the marginally beneficial buildings such as barracks, lumber mill, workshop, etc, then you will not need to tax, and if you build weak units, even less so. Plus, less taxing allows faster research which allows for more gildar which allows for less taxing.
Civic vs Warfare vs Magic Research
The best technology is the trading tech which provides for significantly increased mobility. The warfare tech for greater army size and for squads, etc are also great. Magic and questing is slow to get anywhere good, and most other civic techs only help big cities to exist and function.
Conquest vs Diplomacy vs Questing vs Spell of Making
So, the conclusion is that conquest beats all. Diplomacy requires teching to Alliances, and also having good relationships. Good, but slow. Questing requires all sorts of things like a strong army, completing all the quests, and teching far down the tree (though not as far as diplomacy). Spell of making requires about as much teching as diplomacy, plus access to resources and lots and lots of production plus time.
Conquest, though, is quick. Weak units can easily swarm the map, create lots of cities, take all the resources, and can't be repulsed because there is no way to be defensive. The only caveat is fireball (which the computer doesn't seem to get/use).
Solution
I think it all comes down to weak units beating out strong units in terms of efficiency and also multiple cities being a double win mechanic.
To compare to Civ5, a player with an army of scouts would have a difficult time taking even the least well defended city. Plus, investing in scouts so much would put the player at risk of losing the culture/tech/expansion wars. Also, multiple cities in Civ create a burden. I would sometimes stop wars because I had too many cities and the internal strife was bringing everything down.
So, either reduce the value of negative traits or get rid of them. Then create more benefits to fewer cities or more detriments to multiple cities. This is especially important before multiplayer is introduced. I'd hate if this became a game of swarming. It's also frustrating that to see the latter parts of the tech tree, I need to pursue non-dominant strategies.
Has anyone had a different experience and also can win games within 40-80 turns on medium size + hard?
Also, defense! If defense outweighed offensive, then my strategy would change.
Your strategy sounds mathematically sound (and practical).
Couple of things I'd like to add/point out/agree with:
I agree that the negative traits for units, the cost savings need to be reduced or basis changed (ie from percentage to flat rate or visa versa).
I can't remember how many constitution points you lose for the particular trait, but constitution matters lots after level 1. Can you check to see how much health those units have at lvl 3 or 4? The base militia (that doesn't have any negative traits), gain 9hp per level. 18 > 27 > 36 >45 etc. It might be that the decrease in constitution adversly effects their survivability. Still the cost saving should be decreased to reduce spam as described in OP.
Fireball is a 3 turn cast (I think there is a bug somewhere that the AI doesn't have to respect that). Maybe you're thinking of a different spell?
Definately agree with the multiple cities are always the way to go in the current build. Even the Ai knows this!! More cities = more production = more dominance. And to add to what you said, even with the global prestige being split between all your cities, AND research and money being based on population at a FLAT rate, there is NO difference between one city and many cities other than the special level buildings. Also, having every city being able to build city prestige increase buildings mean that, more cities IS better regardless! Mathematically: Growth of Population = Global Prestige * Number of Prestige buildings. Therefore to maximise population quickly, you MUST build as many cities as possible!
My two cents for a possible solution:
If Unrest is increased based on the number of cities you have, THEN there is a benefit to keeping the number of cities small, as unrest acts as a negative to all production, money and research! This, as well as inputting a couple of mid to late game techs that give you a one time reduction in global (number of city based) unrest, would allow a few extra cities in the mid to late game just to flesh out the map.
Weak militia go 17 -> 24 -> 31 -> 38 -> 45, gaining about 7 hp per level. The catch is that HP is only of minor significance. Let's say I have 5 stacks of militia and they are level 2 with 24 hp. I get first strike and deal about 45 damage. The remaining enemies hit my units, and might be smart enough to concentrate and kill one of my guys. If not, I can retreat them out and continue with 4 remaining. Plus, even if one dies, it only takes 1 more turn to produce another weak unit.
Fireball should be a 3 turn cast. But try this out: sovereign with impulsive plus about 26 initiative or so. Then cast fireball. You will see that it does take at least one "turn" to build, but before anyone else has a turn, you get to go again and fireball before the enemy moves. Very effective at killing stacks of units and not so effective against big single units.
Yes, agreed on unrest for multiple cities!
Um, fireball is a three turn casting spell, unless I missed an update. Takes so long that it's mostly worthless actually, as you could have done about the same damage using other 1 turn casting spells 3 times, except that you don't have to worry about a melee furball forming that makes the fireball no longer useful.
This is a good basic strategy. Let me tell you about mine.
(Large Map, Challenging World, 2 Factions on Hard, 5 on Challenging, default sliders.)
I start off with one large city and rush tech to get prestige quickly. I only build Pioneers in the beginning. Once I have 4-6 prestige in my only city, I start researching techs that let me capitalize on nearby resources. While that is happening I pump out a few spears or staves to tank for my custom Lady Irane Sov. She starts with the hunter's bow, allowing me to knock out some powerful beast type creatures right away. This allows for further expansion with outposts. I use pioneers to scout as far as I can in hopes of meeting new factions to start trade treaties with. I rely on peace to expand. I consider choke points more valuable than resources to start off. Once I have cut out a swath of land, I focus on gold and consider where to build my second city. My expansion strategy is to expand once my current lowest level city is at 3. If the map is boxing me in, I find the nearest empire capital and capture it. The AI is too weak to stop me. Once I have Cooperation (best tech in the game), I go after longbow, which is easy to get due to all the research I can do with my large cites. They get better research buildings. I consider this act I and II.
In act III I cast all possible Auras on my main production city and only train units from there. I train Longbows with high Initiative and Leather Armor. It only takes 3 of these Groups to win every battle without challenge. At this point war usually breaks out across the map as the Faction Power seems to think that I have much less power than the other factions. Because I was previously not building many units and my Kingdom is so easy to defend, I only need two armies to defend while the third and forth can start taking all those cities the AI loves to build. It is basically just a rush to sack their capital before they scorch the earth. After the wars die down, I focus on Wildlands to give me dominance over the rest of the factions. At this point I have so many level 4-5 cities and so much research, the techs flow freely, allowing me to train some invincible units that surpass heroes. The game could be won at any moment, but I choose to sit back and test the game until I am forced into winning.
If you watch my longwinded Tarth Rising video series, you can pretty much see this play out.
Balance:
The city needs better defense. City level should decide how impossible it is to take a city. Anything over level 3 should require some serious numbers and late game techs. A level 5 city or a capital should take an act of the gods. The ease of conquering is the most glaring balance issue on a strategic level.
A faction with only one city should be able to get to level 5 very quickly if that is the faction's only goal. Citylevelup seems to be the appropriate place to define a small faction with one large city or a larger faction with several cities at level 1-3. I don't know how to balance this unless the building added +5 Prestige that went down by 2 for every additional city you built.
I want to avoid trying to convince the devs to nerf cities any more than the current prestige penalty. Many cities is well balanced. We need few cities to be more desirable now. The best way to do this is to add some better citylevelup bonuses than what we currently have. They do not accurately reflect the time it takes to level a city and offer no changes to how we play the game or use that city. If you took all the level 2-4 bonuses and made them all level 2 bonuses with rarity differences, you would be on the right track. The level 3-4 bonuses need to fundamentally shape the city.
If only the prestige was the problem. Food requirements stop city growth more often then prestige.
right now: I just level up my sovereign. Other heroes are mostly for city defense/administration (I aim for governor heroes if I get a path choice)
Suggestions on my end:
I think unrest should increase with number of cities, but no other nerfs.
Added trait: Mediator, Gives unrest reduction when stationed in a city. Branches from Path of Governor.
Level 4 and 5 buildings should be buffed- except for those that benefit all cities. Level 5 city bonus buildings should be wonder quality, for the city only.
Negative traits for units outside of city militia should be eliminated: As shown above, its main use is cheesing, and it isn't really fun for the player to deal with a ton of units. Addition by subtraction.
High-level city defenses need to be buffed.
Tax rate income and item income need to be balanced out
I'd like to see weapon masteries added, for champions on path of Warrior/Defender/Assassin, and for norrmal troops when they reach a certain level. That might help high-level normal troops be more useful.
I'm reluctant to make defense mean more, because that might make boss monsters too strong.
The catch is that HP is only of minor significance. Let's say I have 5 stacks of militia and they are level 2 with 24 hp. I get first strike and deal about 45 damage. The remaining enemies hit my units, and might be smart enough to concentrate and kill one of my guys. If not, I can retreat them out and continue with 4 remaining. Plus, even if one dies, it only takes 1 more turn to produce another weak unit.
well it seems your tactic is only based on ai flaws allowing you to tank what you want and always deal first strike
its been already discussed in many threads, ofc you can ignore defenses and hp if you exploit the ai always standing at+1 range, waiting them to move and attacking first
seanw3, I understand where you are coming from and it sounds like a fun strategy. I saw a portion of those videos, and I wondered how gilden got so powerful, though. Aggressive use of clubmen can end the game long before anyone reaches longbows. And that's the problem with dominant strategies; they override others in terms of % success rate.
City defense might work, I like that idea, and removing negative traits.
The grim future otherwise; medium challenging map, default sliders (scale is 10 years, 40 turns):
yeah this would be very good
right now cities mean nothing really
defenders are melee so easily destroyed by any champion/archers
either improved more (maybe with some peculiar research) strenght of town militia or add some ranged instead of militia
not yet
many cities is just too good
you dont get enough penalties and since that gameplay is very boring (and laggy too end game if you dont have 24 giga ram) i rather it to be nerfed much more
but yeah i agree we need few cities to have some bonus
i dont think 1 city should be viable as well as 3 good cities but in case you dont have good spots i think 1 city should just be better than 3 weak and very close to 3 medium cities
lets hope they work in this sector cause cities are still one of the less convincing aspect of the game
Don't agree about removing negative traits. They should be less effective though, but I like the idea of using numerous but individually weak units.
Yeah the clubman spam is the most powerful strategy I think, primarily because they can be produced at astomishing rates (build and buy with each city each turn) and they cost no maintenance therefore there is no cap on how many you can build.
Another response to these cannon fodder units should be to cast pillar of fire on em using the strategic map and then attack to mop up.
There are some defences in that you can only cast some strategic spells in your territory but there arent any things as effective as Galcivs military starbases and any defences brought in could potentially boost zombie spamming even more (starbases benefitted small fighters hugely).
Possible nerfs could be:
1) minimum maintenance of 0.1 per turn - that way there is a cap on units albeit very small
2) weak trait halves all stats except movement so it only makes sense for scouts and pioneers
3) conscripted could be harsher too though tbh I don't think this one would be too bad if weak is heavily nerfed - it's the two together thats the problem
4) weaken club - either by attaching a labour cost or nerfing its stats, as is it's actually pretty good for rank and file
5) reintroduce mechanisms from WoM like useful citizens as a resource (hmmm pros and cons with this)
1) I like the idea, but I'd prefer it higher - one other possibility. A hard unit cap based on the amount of grain you have. Armies cost food just as much as citizens if not moreso. Maybe some formula like amount of grain of all your cities= # of mundane units you can field? Some improvements might add a unit, such as granaries or command posts.
Maybe going over this limit can be done, but cities gain unrest if you do so (you're starving the population)
2) If you're nerfing it to uselessness outside of scouts/pioneers, why have it in the first place? That's why I suggested removing it- I don't think it can be balanced out easily, and it's not worth making a huge effort to keep, since it doesn't add much fun.
3) Conscript should be militia only. I like the idea of ranged militia on higher level cities.
4) Not a bad idea.
5) I don't really like this.
@ Alstein
With regard to 2 & 3, they could ditch these traits I guess although I would prefer them kept in, as there is a role for low maintenance quick units I think - they just need to be lamer troops than they currently are.
In the early game, I'll build conscripted spearmen - they take about 5 turns to build and have a maintenance of about 0.4 - I think that unit is perfectly fine as is but it is clearly inferior to the spammable weak conscripted clubmen. Similarly I'll build weak, conscripted scouts and they are great for recon but die easily in combat - I also think thats fine too.
The problem is that mass club zombies are actually decent when they should be rubbish. It also breaks immersion when you can have limitless hordes of these guys and it creates a total disconnect with the slow population growth of villages
Master of Orion 2 handled negative and positive traits well. If I recall correctly, you'd get 2 or 3 points or so from a -1 to a basic stat but it would cost you 4 points to get a +1 to that stat. The idea being that negative traits are okay, but are really inefficient and are a strategic choice. A better balance would be to have weak and conscripted only give back 5 points or less.
I really like grain providing a cap on units, but it also encourages multi-cities. So we'd need the unrest per additional city mechanic in place.
Hmm. 5% unrest per 'extra' city beyond the first is an interesting idea ....
Low maintenance quick units= poorly equipped units without the good traits.
As for unrest from buildings, I'd tie into prestige and number of cities, and military size if beyond a certain point. This would solve the endless hordes problem, as you'd get out-teched quickly as your unrest rises.
I think since heroes are finally less powerful compared to units they should get buff and debuff spells that effect all targets in 1 tile radius or all units like pandaemonium.
If you have spells like firestorm, the evoker I talent and 2 fire shards you can wipe complete armies of the map. That is the reason why resistance against damage spells is needed.
Magic would be nice to get mage units if warfare would be not required to get bigger groups.
It'd be nice if we had a quick little 'world builder' so that we could place spell levels on our Champions to test out spells ...
I didn't even know Firestorm worked in tactical (thought it was like pillar)
i think implementing 4 and 5 would fix the spam problem
It works like pillar, BUT it has a damage of 15 + 15 per shard
As some saw in my videos, archers are the best counter to stacks of zombies. Adding Crude Bow to the first weapons tech would stop militia spam in its tracks. You would need leather clad troops and wood shields to become pretty much immune to archers.
I would say leave the weak trait for the beginning of the game and put conscription in the Civics Tree. It would make sense that a civics minded nation would be able to pump out large numbers of units to compensate for their lack of weapon refinement and weak armor. But it is the red-headed stepchild of the early game and needs to be moved somewhere else.
I would like there to be Faction traits that provide unique bonuses to armies in their own territory. From what Hf has told me about the xml capabilities, this is easy to make a reality. Some factions should also get a bonus when fighting in certain terrain. For instance, Tarth should get a dodge and accuracy bonus in forests. It's time to differentiate factions.
A good idea, I always hated how long it took to get any ranged units.
I think the best way to regulate weak units is to remove them from combat entirely. It's a trait for scouts and pioneers not cheap soldiers, that should be what conscripted is for.
My dominant strategy is too grab units that cannot be worn down by weak swarms, drakes and earth elmentals. Also I create armies of high dmg fast longbowmen and charge, fast wargriders. Add tactician and I can kill light armies before they can strike back.
Part of the problem this strategy is so viable is that city militia no longer improve with technology. Previously researching leather armor was a massive upgrade to city defenses as all militia would come equipped with it. Sadly they remain equipped with no armor and basic clubs well into the highest level of the tech tree.
As far as unrest is concerned, this needs to be based on map size. My recommendation would be 6 - tiny, 5 small, 4 medium, 3 large, 2 huge.
I second the "fodder" unit strategy as being far too powerful at this stage in the game. I created army tiles of 7 squads (7 units each) of "fodder" units as per the OP's recommendation and I was able to topple some lesser cities and armies. While I lost many units, I was able to create new units every two turns at my major cities.
If I was able to attack first, I would deal significant amounts of damage to any squad-based unit. Against some city sieges and higher level units, this strategy was less effective, but the AI often obliged me by sending lesser armies to deal with the "weak" threat of my fodder units.
Fodder can be an important part of an armed strategy, so I would caution the designers against nerfing this too much. Instead, how about an increase to the effectiveness of strength on melee damage or an increase in the reduction of stats for "conscripted" and "weak."
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
