Mod idea: Units gaining stats from buildings

[Anskiy]

So, I randomly got a mod idea: the units are the same as in MoM/current CoM, but gain stats based on the buildings constructed. Say, Barracks could grant +2 attack, Shrines could grant +1 resistance, and so on. What do you think?

[JustOneMoreTurn]

Units already get stat boosts from military buildings and Alchemist's Guild. The Warlords mod has some spells that give unit boosts from tiles (FE: iron = +1 defense).

The problem I see with it is that it complicates things for balancing and AI programming, without really improving the game overall. You could pile on the bonuses, and have Spearmen with +100 to various stats, balanced by monsters and rival units having +100 to stats ... so how is that an improvement? If the new bonuses had a strategic or tactical cost to them, so that it required a challenging decision (sacrifice town growth for +1 ATT), then it might make the game more interesting. Just changing the magnitude of the numbers--for all units--doesn't seem much different from changing the colour of the numbers; it just doesn't change the nature of the game.

Mods such as Warlords does add more complexity: new units, spell, abilities, etc. All the extra scripts for calculating the bonuses and whatever else do slow the turns down quite noticeably, making it not worth playing on a slow system. I'm wondering whether the game might be better improved by mods that reduce complexity.

[zitro1987]

I only partially agree with it being a good idea, but i’d take it in a different angle …
*when you build A midtier military building, units below that tier gain an advantage (whether it is experience or something else)
*when you build something like armorer’s guild, mid-tier units gain that advantage, low tier gain double the advantage

Otherwise, the scaling problem of how much worth unit is vs buildings or trade goods will tilt the balance in a bad direction early and late game

I say early too because base stats would need nerfing to overall balance against summons

[Anskiy]

The problem I see with it is that it complicates things for balancing and AI programming, without really improving the game overall.  You could pile on the bonuses, and have Spearmen with +100 to various stats, balanced by monsters and rival units having +100 to stats ... so how is that an improvement?  If the new bonuses had  a strategic or tactical cost to them, so that it required a challenging decision (sacrifice town growth for +1 ATT), then it might make the game more interesting.  Just changing the magnitude of the numbers--for all units--doesn't seem much different from changing the colour of the numbers; it just doesn't change the nature of the game.

I would say that it isn't just a game of raising the numbers, rather I think it rewards focusing on city development more by ensuring it leads to having the better army. Generally speaking, in either MoM, CoM or mods for them, trying to invest into city infrastructure rather than conquering or spreading out more cities is often fruitless, and pays off too late to matter in most games. I think something along the lines of my idea could solve this pretty well.

[Blake00]

I like it!

[JustOneMoreTurn]

If you want to make infrastructure investment pay off earlier, can't you simply edit buildings.ini to reduce the costs? Adding buffs from the buildings seems to do the same thing with a lot more complications in the rest of the game (rebalancing units, summons, monster frequency/numbers, AI choices, etc). I just don't see adding yet more buffs for city-produced units to really improve the strategic depth of the game, once you've rebalanced everything else.

Something like a new treaty option, to enable joint attacks on lairs or cities (sharing the booty), would add a new strategic decision to the game. Changing the values of some existing numbers doesn't change much.

[Anskiy]

Err, having to choose between making units now and making them later with bonus stats after sinking a bunch of money into expensive infrastructure does very much add a very important decision to the game, since it means the player has to think about when it's worth making armies, while also making all of the investment pay off in a tangible way. Reducing the cost of infrastructure would sort of defeat the point of them being significant investments, and would also affect balance by having more sophisticated races outdo the others faster. And there are several races which are designed around overwhelming the opposition early before they gain a significant technological edge, like the Barbarians, Lizardmen, Gnolls, Draconians etc.

[Seravy]

Based on how Armorer's Guild had to be restricted by a spell and turn count in the past, my intuition says being able to invest more gold into stronger units is bad for the game's balance because early game gold is easy to obtain compared to other games and concentrating more stats on your best unit instead of building more weaker units is also significantly more effective than in other games.
But of course mods can work around some of these issues by adjusting the economy and unit stats.

[JustOneMoreTurn]

Playstyle makes a difference in whether a mod is a good idea or not. What works well for one choice of settings (map size, mineral rarity, etc) will work poorly in another. If you add in personal modding, such as changing the frequency and strength of lairs, or costs of some things, the effects of more buffs from buildings will ahve more or less effects. I prefer building to lair-hunting, so in my style of gaming, the extra incentive to build buildings isn't important. Other people might really like those extra buffs.

Create the mod and see how popular it is?