2.0.9.1 RtR Mod Discussion

[dtay]

Have we actually witnessed sword-army dominance anywhere? Like they've been extremely useful in a lot of games since the change (and do retain utility far longer than other ancient trash), but they're a) 1-movers and b) have nothing to help on the defense, so aren't exactly best for one of the hardest hurdles to cross when invading : surviving the defenders right to first collateral (unless we're talking pre-construction invasions).

They are especially good at naval though, since their weaknesses are essentially rendered irrelevant. Don't know if that would lead me to change anything, but worth noting.

[Krill]

All I can say is hills, walls and fortification bonus stops swords having odds directly from boats, even if you have CR3/C1 or C2/amphib/CR1 swords. So there are counters, you just can't get them in a moments notice. When it comes to landing units, that's where unit tactics and having a balanced naval game actually matters.

I'll note here though, that a true astro beeline gets galleons about 1.5k after it unlocks Xbows: swords are still relevant at that point and these issues have to be considered holistically. It's stuff like swords that actually makes those attacks viable in the first place and I'd disagree that even in this best case are swords OP.

[Bacchus]

Maybe make the Carrack a regular Caravel, but available at Compass and, say, Monarchy?

I'm not sure whether we discussed the possibility of letting Caravels take Settlers and Workers, I think it's worth trying at least. Maybe give Explorers +50% to city defense (colonial garrison), so that they don't die to barb axes. That would also take some edge off the Astro beeline for maps alike to PB27.

[Krill]

I think it is possible to add settlers and workers to the special units type, that caravels and subs can carry. I agree that making those changes would be a great help to making PB27 type maps more viable, I would still expect an astro bulb to be too good to ignore though. It would take the edge off though.

I would consider if compass and monarchy would be too early for carracks though. Machinery, optics are 2k plus beakers, plus MC? Compass and monarchy are classical era techs and quite cheap. Would it make Portugal difficult to counter in early era naval warfare?

[RefSteel]

I would consider if compass and monarchy would be too early for carracks though. Machinery, optics are 2k plus beakers, plus MC? Compass and monarchy are classical era techs and quite cheap. Would it make Portugal difficult to counter in early era naval warfare?

Flavor-wise, Carracks (which were basically an evolutionary step between Caravels and Galleons) make much more sense as Galleons available at (say) Optics + Engineering, but if we're just making them early Caravels, why not unlock them directly en route to Optics at Compass + Machinery? That does make Optics a pretty unattractive tech for the Portuguese of course: +1 tile vision on water, and prereq for Astro, but otherwise blank.

On Galleons getting an extra cargo slot, I still don't get it: Reducing the cost of the cargo fleet by 25% doesn't change the basic calculus of invading someone's mainland from overseas: You still need a massive edge in production even relative to a land neighbor's needs. It does mean you need a less massive edge, but also means everyone needs to stack even more defenders in border coast cities and (practically all) island cities. And considering Astro beelines are already a thing, and that they ~force competitors to run up to Astro too, do we really think Galleons need a buff?

On Swords: This is based on an old recollection from a player's comment in (I think) PB13 about Swords being relevant even against Rifles (and even getting better odds than other rifles did in certain circumstances) so it may be out of date, but I would extend their -40% against Archery units to also apply against Gunpowder units. (And I guess Machine Guns?)

[chumchu]

On swords: Is the general opinion then that they are 1) exceptionally good in their role beyond their era 2) but that they are not OP due to defenders advantages? If so, it is still an issue that they are too good as it makes other attackers less useful. If the game is too defensive (I personally do not think so) then a small nerf to defensive units would be in order. A smaller changes is to decrease their bonus to 40% vs. cities. That means that they are at least at an disadvantage vs crossbows and muskets before promos and terrain come into play.

[dtay]

On swords: Is the general opinion then that they are 1) exceptionally good in their role beyond their era 2) but that they are not OP due to defenders advantages? If so, it is still an issue that they are too good as it makes other attackers less useful. If the game is too defensive (I personally do not think so) then a small nerf to defensive units would be in order. A smaller changes is to decrease their bonus to 40% vs. cities. That means that they are at least at an disadvantage vs crossbows and muskets before promos and terrain come into play.

My point would be that swords are 1) very useful part of a combined arms force, and can potentially be your backbone hitter (though imo prefer HA ceteris paribus) and 2) retain utility (in a combined arms force) longer than other units. They aren't OP because they neither obviously obviate the need for some other similar-era unit nor are they in any way uncounterable when defending. 

Combined arms is important there. In land combat, stacks of basically just swords would get beaten up by (cheaper and earlier!) axes. They are countered by the mainline combat unit of the (previous-ish) era. And they're obviously near worthless on their own later, only when they can be guarded by an actual stack of modern units are they useful (basically b/c they still retain amusingly non-trash odds attacking even rifles iin cities, and are way cheaper*).

Fwiw, I would consider pretty much every collateral unit, every two mover, and rifles as more fundamentally gamechanging / important for their era / "OP" units than RtR swords, and wouldn't really want to do anything to any of those either. RtR just moved swords from "basically never build" to "in some games build a lot of, in most build at least a few".

I'm don't really have an opinion about whether the true optimal attack bonus is +40% or +50% since it is such a small change, but mostly just don't see what the reason for a nerf is. 

*Though how to consider their "cheapness" in later eras is a bit of an interesting question, b/c you probably can't actually build them

[Bacchus]

Swords are fine.

[GermanJoey]

In itself that proposed change is not to do with privateers, but with the current design of naval warfare: it is simply the amount of hammers you can dump into a navy that lets you win unless you are CHM and have 4XP boats, at which point you'll win anyway with even production. This point is not just a revelation from PB37, it is something that has been accepted for a long time. So long as the tech level and promotion levels are even, to defend you just spam galleons. This change is to make it harder to defend just due to production changes, and make players look to other tactical and strategic methods of defending and attacking.

As far as another transport slot for Galleons goes: sure, fine, whatever. You could even trade that off with removing their ability to gain terrain defense, if you still wanted to weaken an Astro bulb somehow.
  
As far as problems with medieval/ren era naval warfare goes: if not PB37, could you provide some examples of other games where you think it is unbalanced? Or where this has been accepted for a long time. The only game I can think of where early Astro brought a big benefit to the player was PB27, but that was because of New World islands, not because it allowed one team to predate on another that knew it was coming and yet was defenseless to stop it. OTOH, I can think of numerous games where early Astro brought very little to the player... for example, my own miserable whiff in PB29.

There's been some discussion in my own PB37 thread since you posted these changes, and although its a lot more PB37-specific, the replies so far have also stated that they don't think there's any problem with the current balance or strategic/tactical decision space, or whatever you want to call it.

[GermanJoey]

On swords: Is the general opinion then that they are 1) exceptionally good in their role beyond their era 2) but that they are not OP due to defenders advantages? If so, it is still an issue that they are too good as it makes other attackers less useful. If the game is too defensive (I personally do not think so) then a small nerf to defensive units would be in order. A smaller changes is to decrease their bonus to 40% vs. cities. That means that they are at least at an disadvantage vs crossbows and muskets before promos and terrain come into play.

My point would be that swords are 1) very useful part of a combined arms force, and can potentially be your backbone hitter (though imo prefer HA ceteris paribus) and 2) retain utility (in a combined arms force) longer than other units. They aren't OP because they neither obviously obviate the need for some other similar-era unit nor are they in any way uncounterable when defending. 

Combined arms is important there. In land combat, stacks of basically just swords would get beaten up by (cheaper and earlier!) axes. They are countered by the mainline combat unit of the (previous-ish) era. And they're obviously near worthless on their own later, only when they can be guarded by an actual stack of modern units are they useful (basically b/c they still retain amusingly non-trash odds attacking even rifles iin cities, and are way cheaper*).

Fwiw, I would consider pretty much every collateral unit, every two mover, and rifles as more fundamentally gamechanging / important for their era / "OP" units than RtR swords, and wouldn't really want to do anything to any of those either. RtR just moved swords from "basically never build" to "in some games build a lot of, in most build at least a few".

I'm don't really have an opinion about whether the true optimal attack bonus is +40% or +50% since it is such a small change, but mostly just don't see what the reason for a nerf is. 

*Though how to consider their "cheapness" in later eras is a bit of an interesting question, b/c you probably can't actually build them

To add to this: not only swords, but *all* classical units are exceptionally useful beyond their era. (except the actual exception, the Explorer ) 

- Catapults are extremely useful defensively for knocking down advanced invading stacks, up until rifles even.
- Elephants are useful on defense post-engineering when defending against Knights or Cuirs.
- Horse Archers are good for moving 2 spaces in a turn, and can thus still snipe straggling units/workers/filler cities when you don't want to waste a Knight

Crossbows and Maces needed their recent buffs not because they were being outshined by earlier-era swords, but because they were still exactly as useful as they were in BTS: pretty much not at all, and so nobody ever built them.