Add something new to the current tech tree

For ships atk upgrade, it can be split. But for castles and towers, i think introducing a new tech in university should be good enough. Currently, we have arrowslits that increases atk of towers. We may have techs that affects range of towers and castles for civs lacking bracer.

All the thing depends on whther people accept and support that the archer civs are always relatively more advantageous on water and defense. Because even if they lack certain water or defensive technologies later on, the Fletching line is always have to be researched as soon as possible in the build order, and that will help many aspects especially in the early game. In comparison, researching the Fletching line that is out of the build order by the cavalry civs is less helpful to their main power.

If people accept it and support it, the Fletching line doesn’t need to be split at all.
If people think it can be changed, then maybe…

  • In Docks: Naval Archery (II) → Springald Crew, or Oared Vessel Tactics (III) → Gunports, or Sailing Ship Tactics (IV)
    Provide range and attack upgrades to ships instead of the Fletching line.
    For more if possible, the Chemistry could visually change the projectiles of Galleons and Caravels into small cannonballs fired from naval guns like culverins.

  • As for buildings, it’s a hard problem:
    The Arrowslits specifically affect towers only, and not every civ has it, meaning building improvements shouldn’t rely on it. If the Arrowslits were modified to provide defensive buildings range and attack, that would nerf the towers of the civs that currently have it. Maybe it could be to have TCs automatically increase 1 attack when hitting the Feudal Age, and to have other defensive buildings like Watch Towers, Castles, Kreposts… have increase 1 more range and attack for the base stats, and two new techs could be introduced in the University to upgrade range and attack for all defensive buldings, like Emplacements (III) → Turrets (IV).

I say it’s a hard problem because the above changes to the base stats of buildings are risky and may encourage feudal tower rush. Probably the majority of players don’t care that the Fletching line affects as many as three aspects, so there’s no need to split it from the beginning or just need to split the effects on ships from on archers and buildings.

Sort of off-topic, but I think the reason it censors them is that j¡z and ### are phonetic misspellings of (mildly) rude words. Same for the n0b at the beginning of N0bunaga. Just to check my theory:

############ ############ nob

Edit: oh hey, it did let me have that last one, so maybe it won’t censor Nobunaga either.

On-topic, I actually disagree with this:

I think the actual situation is the opposite. Those UUs are rarely used because champions are similar but cheaper, more convenient to train, and better than fully upgraded. (I guess this doesn’t include serjeants, which are less like champions than the others.)

As for the other suggestions, I don’t really see any need for all this tech splitting, and especially not for the nerfs to archery range units. I do agree with removing the gold cost from Town Patrol, though.

1 Like

From my observation, these UUs are played much more often than their champions.
Around the late Castle Age, most players will have at least one castle anyway, and it is almost in the Imperial Age that infantry are used on a large scale. These UUs are of better quality than their opponents’ champions, or even their own champions, and most importantly require less cost and time to upgrade in total. People don’t build more barracks just for champions, and building second and third castles is still more attractive.

I see Berserks in the late stages of so many Viking game but I haven’t seen their champions in at least a few years. Similarly, whenever I see infantry in Aztec/Japanese/Teuton games, they are always UUs if not pikemen/halbadiers, never even two-handed swordsmen.

In fact, splitting is a buff in most situations. It usually gives you earlier access to a part of the effects of the original technology, or gives you access to a part of the effects of the technology that you originally cannot have access to.

I do slightly nerf the Feudal Age skirmishers and the Imperial Age arbalesters. The former is to adjust the current meta where skirmishers have become necessary and heavily used units in the Feudal. The latter is to slow down the power growth of archers at the beginning of the Imperial, as once you can have a decent and leading archer game with a number of archers in the Castle Age, then that jump of power of archers with hitting the Arbalester upgrade is so huge that even elite skirmishers cannot trade effectively in a while.
I don’t nerf crossbowmen in the Castle age as they don’t need nerfs at that time.

So the arbalester upgrade would reduce their rate of fire?

I know there are some screwy upgrades like that already (light cavalry and paladin, I think), but that’s no reason to add more.

I do have decided to nerf the base Arbalester in the original post… from a certain perspective.
As I said, I wanted to suppress the explosive power growth that comes with the archers when them just get upgraded to Arbalesters in the early Imperial Age, especially when leading.
Meanwhile I have intorduced the Windlass after the Arbalester upgrade.
If you’re ahead, you could still get Arbalester’s current rate of fire with the Windlass, it just takes longer in totall.
If you’re behind, then at least you could access the Arbalester upgrade at a cheaper price.
I know this seems like an unpopular change, but I think the rationale is sound.

Nice suggestion for balance-wise. Then, non-cavalry, non-Cav Archer civs should only get +10 HP (No access to later part of upgrade). Now civs with bloodline with good eco bonus just can play as Knight civ, which should be improved. Khmers should be more centered on Elephant. Burmese should be more centered on Elephant + Monk. etc.

It is unnecessary for reducing arbalester rate of Fire though,

So you want to stay the same for the upgrade of Arbalester + Windlass compared to current Arbalester cost?
I don’t see reason for increasing even more cost to archer upgrade. Meta is already more dominated by knight and as game goes imp it is even more important to get mobile unit. It means time window when Arbalester can work is already quite short.

The arbalest should not be nerf. The xbow upgrade nerf is understandable but the arbalest upgrade nerf is already an overnerf.

I would prefer windglass to increase the projectile speed of archers for several archer civs.

That should not increase the total cost in my original intention.
The cost of Arbalester upgrade + the cost of Windlass = the current cost of Arbalester upgrade.
You would not need to pay more and would even be able to access the upgrade at a cheaper cost. The point is that it’s just need more time to fully upgrade the units.

I think people generally think that the cost of Crossbowman upgrade is high enough to limit their use, so Crossbowmen are the ones who shouldn’t be nerfed. In comparison, the cost of the Arbalester upgrades isn’t considered high enough to raise similar concerns, and their power growth are very powerful when leading in my opinion. Basically you always hear Fast Imperial Arbalesters instead of Fast Imperial Cavaliers.

The windlass is a tool used to help soldiers draw their arbalest faster to reload.
I don’t think there’s any need for arrows in the game to fly faster. They’re fast already.

How about when archer civs are behind? And arbalest fall off after that window.

Windlass help store bigger energy and shoot farther or heavier bolt and also the bolt speed increases. So increase in range/damage/bolt speed.

The cheaper upgrade should help when behind.

I think we can think of the original upgrade as a large staircase, and after the introduction of the Windlass it could be divided into two smaller staircases.
The upgrade cost is relatively less of an issue when the archers are ahead, so taking a longer time in total helps slow down the power growth a bit.
The upgrade cost could be a burden when the archers are behind, so allowing them to grow for less is also helpful.

This all also helps provide more detailed balancing work. The Windlass would be like another Thumb Ring specifically to the Arbalesters, so there could be something like the Vikings could gain the Thumb Ring and lose the Windlass to benefit skirmishers.

It makes senese too. I just think that projectiles rarely need to fly faster, especially since the arrows/bolts from archer units with a speed of 7 seem to have been the fastest projectiles already in the game.

I think this helps knight players more. I would rather introduce imperial skirm with cheaper upgrade cost.

Just harder to be dodged. I think range/atk will not get buff easily. Maybe improve the movement speed of xbow slightly?

It helps the side behind in the game, more strictly speaking.
The Crossbowmen would get the +1 attack from the Arbalester upgrade more easily (and maybe also faster) when they’re behind to against enemy Cavaliers.
The Knights could have more time to struggle before encountering fully upgraded enemy Arbalesters when they are behind.

In fact, reducing the rate of fire by a dozen percent has much less impact on DPS than the +1 attack respectively from the Arbalester upgrade and the Chemistry. In the other hand, when the cavalry civ is behind the archer civ, the archers must have gathered to a large number around the time of hitting the Imperial Age, and the behind Castle Age Knights will be easily shot and unable to continue to gather. The cavalry’s capability to counter archers is not always effective, that’s why the cavalry and archers both have become the two major meta.

The concept of adjusting the base HP of Paladin and introducing the Jousting may be similar.

Why we need to change units’ current dodge capabilities? In the Imperial Age game, they are rarely microed anymore. Then the Ballistics will still be effective without the need for faster projectiles.

Besides, a projectile speed of 7 is already very fast, which means that a bolt fired by a standard fully upgraded Arbalester can hit the targetable unit in nearly 1 second. Unlike gunpowder units or siege weapons, there is barely apparent benefit to archers having faster projectiles.

Firstly I’m not sure if the fully upgraded archers need better stats. Then, I think the faster movement speed (like +10%) is a very good buff for archers and should be used as a civ bonus or UT effect.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the proposal, but it seems to be a nerf to arbalesters both before and after the windlass upgrade, and the value of non-windlass arbalesters over crossbowmen is questionable. Here’s what you proposed:

Currently crossbowmen and arbalesters with thumb ring have a rate of fire of 0.59. You would reduce the base rate of fire of arbalesters (without windlass) to 0.4838.

Assuming 7 damage for crossbows and 8 for arbalests (i.e. they have bodkin arrow but not bracer yet), this gives crossbowmen a DPS of 4.13, and arbalesters a DPS of 3.8704, so the arbalester upgrade would actually reduce their DPS. Yes, it would still provide +5 HP, but you’ve removed its main benefit of increasing their damage.

With windlass, arbalesters would have a rate of fire of about 0.57, a little less than their current rate of 0.59, so this is a nerf to fully upgraded arbalesters as well.

I think a better way to achieve what you’re aiming for would be to decrease the arbalester’s damage by 1, and then have windlass give +1 damage. This way the arbalester upgrade would have no drawbacks relative to the crossbowman – although it would be conceptually silly, since the change from a crossbow to an arbalest would provide no offensive benefit, just +5 HP.

All that said, I don’t think there’s a problem with arbalesters personally, and would rather leave them as they are.

This is good one. Now we have civs that will definitly benefit from +10 hp for cav but +20 is a little too much (Like Byzantines) and other whos +20 i a little too much (Like Khmer)

This is another nice thing, but maybe it should give larger rate of fire instead of training time? In Late Game you can easily add more Ranges to boost Training Speed, but RoF is something thet is main gunpowder drawback.

Others are not nesecery in my opinion.

Also, I have idea for some time already.

  1. Move Herbal Medicine to University
  2. Add at its place int Monastery Imperial Age technology “Infirmary” that boosts Monk Healing rate 2x or even 3x. Its to add Monk Utility in the late game - now Monks are super usefull as counter units to knights and siege in Castle Age, but they not very usefull in Imperial Age, when number of troops grows and micro is less practical, so shifting Monks usage from active to passive would be very nice.

The Thumb Ring provides the Archer line units +18% rate of fire, so you could just consider the Arbalester with Thumb Ring but without Windlass as the current one without Thumb Ring. Therefore the new fully upgraded Arbalester with Windlass is supposed to be exactly equal to the current fully upgraded Arbalester.

As far as I know, the reload time is 2 without Thumb Ring and 2 / 1.18 = 1.69 with Thumb Ring.

A Crossbowman with Bodkin Arrows and Thumb Ring has a dps of 7 / 1.69 = 4.142, while an Arbalester with Bracer and Chemistry has a dps of 10 / 2 = 5, higher than the former.

A Crossbowman without any attack upgrade but with Thumb Ring has a dps of 5 / 1.69 = 2.959, while an Arbalester without any attack and Thumb Ring upgrade has a dps of 6 / 2 = 3, still slightly higher than the former.

An attack upgrade is basically always more beneficial than a rate of fire upgrade. The original intention of introducing Windlass to split the Arbalester upgrade was to make the important parts of the effect easier to obtain, but it would take longer to obtain the full effect. If the important attack part is placed in Windlass behind the Arbalester upgrade, it is putting the cart before the horse.

I never claimed that the ideas in this thread were all necessary for the game. They’re just something I personally think would be nice to have.

The reason why I chose to improve the training time is because I think that when you urgently need hand cannoneers, you have already spent a long time waiting for Chemistry, so we can make subsequent training faster to gather the required number earlier.

On the other hand, the invention of the matchlock device greatly improved the accuracy and made it easier to train new soldiers due to simpler operation. The Cartridge would be better suited to reflect improvements to faster firing. However, the Hand Cannoneer with both Matchlock and Cartridge might be a super unit.

I’m just curious why you wouldn’t rather just let the Herbal Medicine improve the Monk’s healing speed?
In the Castle Age, it is difficult to gather Monks in a number (such as more than 10), so having the Herbal Medicine provides faster healing should not seriously affect the balance. Anyway, almost no one would research this technology on purpose in the Castle Age, except the Aztecs.

However, I have my doubt about whether faster healing are fine. Particularly for civs that are likely to use large numbers of monks, such as the Aztecs, Burmese, Portuguese, and Bohemians, this will make their units very difficult to kill.

I mean the arbalest powerspike is delayed. If the upgrade cost cannot be reverted, then I think it is fair to buff them a bit and delaying their falling off in imperial age.

You’ve got your maths wrong, then. If you decrease something by 18% and then increase it by 18%, you don’t get back to where you started, because 0.82 × 1.18 = 0.9676, not 1.

Irrelevant, disingenuous comparison. Obviously the arbalester will have higher DPS if you give it bracer and chemistry. The point is to determine the value of the arbalester upgrade, so you should keep all other upgrades the same. I compared with bodkin arrow and thumb ring, because those are the upgrades you’re likely to have in early Imperial Age, which is the point in the game you’re trying to target.

Ok, fine, but personally I think this applies to DPS as well as attack.

Sure, and I disagree. That’s fine. I really don’t think a unit upgrade should make any aspect of the unit worse.

So you indeed give them a better quality when fully upgraded.

If I remember correctly, this game’s calculation tradition is usually based on the original value.
For example, the work efficiency of the Goth Barracks is 1 * (1 + 0.2 + 1) = 2.2 rather than 1 * 1.2 * 2 = 2.4, the work efficiency of the French Stables with a Huns ally is 1 * (1 + 0.2 + 0.4) = 1.6 rather than 1 * 1.2 * 1.4 = 1.68.

In the same way, what I have always tried to express in this thread is 1 * (1 - 0.18 + 0.18) = 1, no more, no less.
To be honest, the value 18% is not really important, because the point is that Windlass could bring the rof of Arbalesters back to the original.

What does the value of the arbalester upgrade mean? It’s an issue.
I also did a comparison of just an Arbalester without any upgrades, and it still has slightly better performance than a Crossbowman with just Thumb Ring, which means that in terms of value as a single tech alone, the -18% rof Arbalester upgrade is still slightly better than Thumb Ring which brings +18% rof, that proves the increase in attack power has a greater impact on strength than rof.
Surely, since attack is more important than rof, when you take Bodkin Arrows into account, the performance of Crossbow becomes slightly better than Arbalester, but this does not mean that Arbalester upgrade is not valuable. You will eventually research it and Windlass like researching Bracer and Chemistry.

If you value the comparison with Bodkin Arrows, it can be not -18% but -14.75% or lower. As I said, the value of 18% is not the point. When the Arbalester has -14.75% rof, with Bodkin Arrows and Thumb Ring it will have exactly equal dps as a Crossbowman with Bodkin Arrows and Thumb Ring too. Lower than -14.75%, like -10% for a beautiful number, the Arbalester upgrade will always bring a higher dps.

I’m starting to get tired of discussing rate of fire of Arbalesters.
I listed the 25 items, but people only seemed to discuss this one in depth.

I would like to express my gratitude to my friends who support Caparison/Saddletree. I see your thoughts on elephant civs, especially the Khmer, extending from this idea. I have tried to help the elephants by introducing the Mahouts in Stables to give them more speed. The speed bonus of Khmer might be changed to free Mahouts or faster but cannot access to Mahouts.

Maybe introduce a conversion resistance upgrade exclusive to the elephants in Stables? Not sure.