Moding dilemma

[player1]

Background info:
One of the features in my MOD, is that some very good UUs got slightly higher price (so that Aztec don't feel

nerfed). For example, Immortals cost 35 shields, Swiss Merc. cost 40, etc...
(see MOD link for more details)


Now, I realized that in that case, I think that knights type UUs, which get extra movement, should be slightly

more expensive. So Ansar Warrior should be 70 shields and Rider 80 shields.

But now, there is a problem. Cavalry costs 80 shields.
So, I figured out, that Cavalry is already very powerful unit for its time, so maybe changing its cost to 90

shields would not be bad idea.

But, here is my dilemma.
What should I do with cavalry type UUs?
I figured out that Cossacks could stay at 90 shields, since Blitz won't make that much a difference, considering

that numerically, they are still same as Cavalry.

But, I'm not sure about Siphai. Should they cost 110 shields, or be kept at 100 shields?


EDIT:
Also, what if I made alternate version of the MOD with Austrians in?
If Hussar gets 7/3/3 stats, what price should they get then?

[MattPilot]

assume a city produces 30 useable shields. I fail to see how a unit costing 70 or 80 or 90 shields would make any difference at all in this particular city. They will all cost 3 turns. Granted, in 'some' cities that produce a few shields less, one extra turn might be required, but then a lot of other shields go wasted and i end up building something where i get more bang-for-the-buck!

I don't think balancing units should be done with cost (unless it is a early unit where cities are not productive or the cost difference is significant which affects the rate of output more), i think the units should be balanced by their stats.

You know what i'm saying? Where's the difference if the cavalry costs 80 shields or 90 shields? Most likely it will get done in the same number of turns.

[alexman]

So the whole reason for this train of changes is so that the Aztecs don't feel nerfed?

Just kidding.
I vote for keeping Sipahi at 100 shields but reducing their attack factor.

By the way, I don't like UUs that are more expensive than regular units. I prefered the vanilla Civ3 style when UUs replaced units of the same cost.

[player1]

Originally posted by MattPilot
assume a city produces 30 useable shields. I fail to see how a unit costing 70 or 80 or 90 shields would make any difference at all in this particular city. They will all cost 3 turns. Granted, in 'some' cities that produce a few shields less, one extra turn might be required, but then a lot of other shields go wasted and i end up building something where i get more bang-for-the-buck!

Well, when you get Cavalry and thats before industrial era, you won't have cities with 30 shields production.

[player1]

I vote for keeping Sipahi at 100 shields but reducing their attack factor

Problem: when I make an alternate mod with Austrians it I play them having 7/3/3 stats (like Firaxis intended befre they got cut).

[player1]

By the way, I don't like UUs that are more expensive than regular units. I prefered the vanilla Civ3 style when UUs replaced units of the same cost.

I know what you mean.
That when I was calculating increased cost I considered this question:
Will making this unit more expensive made player waht to build regular version of unit?
That's why I put Immortals and M. Warriors and 35 shields and no more.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by alexman
By the way, I don't like UUs that are more expensive than regular units. I prefered the vanilla Civ3 style when UUs replaced units of the same cost.

Agreed. The UU, imo, is supposed to represent some aspect that one civ does remarkably better than the others. An increased cost UU means they don't necessarily do it better, just throw more money (shields) at it.

[Mad Bomber]

* Saiphai to 7.3.3 and 100 shields

*Cossacks should go to 95 shields as the blitz ability is more powerful than one would think at first glance.

*Immortals should be 40 shields (they are identical to MIE's which are 40 shields) as should the Celtic Swordsmen and MW's.

[pvzh]

Tell me how is blitz more powerfull than it seems?

If you calculate odds to win than 6/3/3 unit has about 10-15% chances winning with no or 1 HP loss against veteran musketman. So in ~10-15% of attacks I can try my luck again. And that cost me extra losses in shields in the 85-90% of the attack where I even cannot use this ability. That is even worse than having +1 def on attack unit as it was before.

The only "advantage" of a cossack that it can take a worker and than attack, but this rather insingnificant to justify 10 let alone 15! shields increase.

Blitz is good on tanks and up: on the unit that IS powerful enough to do several attacks per turn.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by pvzh
Tell me how is blitz more powerfull than it seems?

If you calculate odds to win than 6/3/3 unit has about 10-15% chances winning with no or 1 HP loss against veteran musketman. So in ~10-15% of attacks I can try my luck again. And that cost me extra losses in shields in the 85-90% of the attack where I even cannot use this ability. That is even worse than having +1 def on attack unit as it was before.

The only "advantage" of a cossack that it can take a worker and than attack, but this rather insingnificant to justify 10 let alone 15! shields increase.

Blitz is good on tanks and up: on the unit that IS powerful enough to do several attacks per turn.

First off this is assuming that the Cavalry unit is moved to 90 shields, so to move it to 95 isn't that big a deal. Also using significant bombardment units in conjunction with the Cossak will allow you to beat up on one HP and obsolete units, making a cossak force elite in a far less amount of time than a regular cavalry force. Of course you will not be able to blitz with all of your cavalry (BTW the Russians are one civ that should definately beeline to Military Tradition) but the 35-40% of your force that will be able to use it is enough of an advantage to justify a 5 shield increase.

[player1]

I think that at the end I'll go for 105 for Siphai and 90 for Cossak.

Cossak could have been 95, but that so small difference that's insignificant.

[ducki]

Just out of curiousity, wouldn't it be alot easier and have far less side-effects if you made the Jaggie cost 10 shields?

[player1]

Originally posted by ducki
Just out of curiousity, wouldn't it be alot easier and have far less side-effects if you made the Jaggie cost 10 shields?