A new mod enters the ring - Introducing "Close to Home"

[xist10]

@superdeath
I simple quote Mjmd

[...]
- America UB being unique is what makes it broken Mig. [...]

Okay, this is about the America UB where I do slowly think a nerf to +1 is something worth thinking.
But still, amphibious collateral is unique in the game - not needing metal is not unique, this is the case for archers and gunpowder units or even a few other UU - dog soldiers, camel archers.

Something you agreed to in the PB77.

I agree, it should be easier to simple ban china on the water heavy maps, but on the other hand, not all maps are shown as water heavy, but they still feature a significant amount of water combat. - PB79 is a clear example, PB78 isn't water heavy but still banned china. PB70 got "decided" on the water.
I do agree, that the UU should be okay in general.


I general I do question a bit if you have the attack submarine later than the submarine.

   

Here the tech you need to beeline Nukes.
If you want submarines, you will need in addition either Combustion and Railroad (4 680 + 5 850 = 10 530) or Radio (7 800).
So the attack sub needs combustion, so it's about 2,7k research later (standard speed, map size and noble difficulty).
But how often do you delay Railroads ? How often do you delay Combustion ?

I do think that in most landbased games, you will research at least railroads before you think about nukes. And even in pure naval games, I do think you want Destroyers to be able to defend against transport based invasions. As such, the additonal research for attack submarines is less than for submarines.

I agree, it's a lot easier to beeline submarines (fission(or combustion) and radio) than to beeline attack submarines (fission and rocketry and combustion), but without payload, the subs are "useless".

And my main point is still the fact, submarines have no point any more. Although they can still prey on unescorted carriers and transports, they are outperformed in almost every point by the attack submarines.


In general my suggestion right now would be, to change the transport capacity back (missiles for the radio submarine), but add Combustion as condition for the radio submarine too.




And to bring some counterplay against the nuclear missiles from (attack) submarines, add a new unit class Submarines and give the attack submarine "attacks Submarines first" ?
This is maybe a bit far from home, but as idea I do think this could be something interesting.

[Mjmd]

BTW if we have anyone willing to code a new CtH yes please please lets nerf America. Reduction to +1 is probably fine (maybe bring back the minuteman).

I'm fine just leaving subs. Literally people only build them to ferry nukes. When the missile carrying was on regular subs no one built attack subs. I built 1 in PB66. It had to carefully wander around for a long time until it killed a galleon (unsure if loaded or not, but I suspect not, but at that point I just wanted it to do SOMETHING) and then promptly died to a destroyer. The main problem with building subs is destroyers counter them (as they should) and people build a lot of destroyers. How often do people send a fleet of transports out without an escort? Never. So to me its not worth the effort. I would love to entice someone to pick up some simple CtH changes and don't' want to scare them away with un-needed more complicated changes. I don't hate the change you suggested to increase tech cost for regular subs and move it back mainly due to yes decreasing the effective range, but to me its not worth whomevers effort (unless they say they want to).

[Dreylin]

Tweaking Sumeria is on my wishlist ... admittedly mostly because I keep starting next to them, but also because they seem to be an auto-pick in medium sized games and that is boring.

Vultures are painful, but should be manageable; my main issue is with the Ziggurat:

• cheaper = fine, there are other UB that are cheaper versions
  
• earlier tech = probably fine, it opens up different research options
  
• earlier & cheaper = not fine at all
  

I can see why they did it - who wants to build a 120h building that early - but that's exactly the sort of trade-off you should have to make. Add in the huge jump this gives Sumeria on EP generation - see PB81 - and now you know exactly how to best apply your Vultures.

I think the tech movement is the most broken part of it, but I would suggest we try just making it a full-cost 120h and maybe that's enough.

[xist10]

As long as we remain at XML/Python level, I would make the changes.

If I find general player approval, I would made v5.0.1
Right now the changes are relative short.
- Remove (parts of) Charrius log functions (if I interpret the code correct). Nobody uses it and it creates python errors in german (and maybe other languages) - see #1436
- America UB reduce to +1 - I think this should be a good compromise
- Add Combustion as requirement to the Submarine and revert the previous changes. This means missiles back to the submarine and to the attack submarine. - To should be better at reaching the state goal of the previous change, later availability of mobile nukes - see #1441


To discussion:
- Add new unit category "Submarine"
- Rename the Submarine to "Ballistic Missile Submarine"
- Add "Attacks Submarine outside of cities first" to the attack submarine
This change should create reason to build the Attack Submarine even if it can't carry missiles, because this makes the Attack Submarine a counter against the nukes from a submarine beyond a larger fleet (and a fleet wipe) and/or own nukes.
There should be still counter play ( Attack submarines defend first), but this should be an additional nerf towards mobile nukes.

@Sumeria I do see you points. I'm not sure how right this is - especial from one example with AGG vultures against non AGG units, but I understand and I do think, the cost increase on the ziggurat seems like a possible idea.

[Mjmd]

Thanks Xist.

America - I'm fine not reverting the UU until we evaluate if the +1 is still at least pretty good (which I expect is still the case, but at least maybe acceptable, so probably better to leave the later age UU for now).

I'm fine with the sub changes you outlined as long as you want to do the work.

As org Sumeria I at least partially lost PB63 because I built a 45h ziggurat instead of a vulture. Even 90h is pretty pricey for that early in the game (which was my theory for why going org was worth doing still). It is a "good" civ. Especially on larger maps where you aren't as worried about axes, but I'm not convinced its a "needs nerfed civ". If we are I would recommend 100h zigs as a minor nerf.

On the subject of "needs nerfed civ" Rome was on the fence last time we voted. I will point out that it literally gets picked almost every game and by different people (ie its not just the same person with a preference), which to me is a pretty good indicator.

On the subject of nukes, do we want to make them more expensive again? Also, not sure if its in your capabilities, but people seemed generally favorable to great people being immune. I would also favor Kremlin being much more expensive to build (or maybe just taking away stone bonus? / maybe both).

[Dreylin]

I know I led with my personal experiences of Sumeria, which was probably a mistake, but this is also true:

I will point out that it literally gets picked almost every game and by different people (ie its not just the same person with a preference), which to me is a pretty good indicator.

I have no issues with Vultures; out of the 3 recent games I neighboured them (75, 78 & 81), they were something that had to be managed, but were not broken.

Ziggurats on Priesthood creates interesting questions about when to build, because they are accessible before you would typically need to build courthouses, so do you invest? Side note: ORG always feel anti-synergistic since the Ziggurat now only saves 15h vs. 30 from a regular courthouse. Also, not needing to research CoL for Courthouses can lead to some interesting alternative research routes - Superdeath PB78 didn't research until very recently.

Having a courthouse on an earlier tech creates a trade-off on when to invest and it does so without needing a cost reduction; it feels like that was added after playtesting because no-one was actually building them any earlier, and also to give them a uniqueness in later era starts. The cost reduction is not needed to create the trade-off, but becomes more valuable later.

But my issue is with the whole package; Sumeria has a top-tier UU and a top-tier UB, both of which are available early in the game and therefore guaranteed to be impactful. There are few other civs that can boast that - even Rome.

-25% cost on a building is a USP that is not used elsewhere - and is enough on its own for a widely-built building. I think the earlier availability is a much more interesting USP, but the window of effect on that USP is much shorter. i.e. a cheaper Courthouse will always be good, but an earlier courthouse will only be impactful if also cheaper.

I'd love if there was an easy way to increase the cost of the ziggurat as the game progresses (back up to 120h maximum) so that the USP remains a trade-off - build early for cheap or regular cost later. I'd think by incrementing the costs by Era, or #of techs researched or just "Forge bonus doesn't apply", but I expect all of those would be hard to code and nothing is coming to mind that would be an easy way to do it.

[xist10]

So would agree to the additional unit category and the attacks first ?

Like I said, Sumeria seems like a potential target, but I don't know. Here maybe bias speaking, I had a successful game with Sumeria and an unsuccessful game with Rome - maybe others would like to chime in ?

How successful were the Rome picks ? High pick rate is a good point, but I still think the praets seems to be in a good shape. The last time Rome won was the PB66 ? This could be even the last "won" war ? - I do exclude the PB74, because Rick had no metal units.
I agree, the Praet is still great in comparison to the war elephant. - More thoughts ?

Towards nukes, I would like to wait till the PB79 ends
And if I recall the XML correct, there should be already a line <bNukeImmun> - or was that only on the buildings ?
I agree a bit on the Kremlin. Stone bonus should be easy. Still, any more thoughts ?

[Mjmd]

Having played an unsuccessful game with Sumeria maybe try a 10 hammer nerf on the zig?

PB66 was a draw for the record. But yes Rome hasn't won recently, but no one has lost in the era of Prats. I would also exclude PB75 (not 74). While they are somewhat stoppable if on offense, they are a real pain on defense.

I did suggest nerfing nukes before Miro updated PB79. My suggestion is something like an extra 1000 hammers for ICBMs and another 500 hammer for tacticals.

[xist10]

PB66 was a draw in the end, but there was still a successful (won) war with Praetorians. And this was the lates won war of Rome in the PRaetorian era ?
SD did agree to a White Peace a few times in the PB75 during the praet era, but from my PoV, this was more or less a loss.
Dreylin had a similar situation.
I do agree Rome has a high pickrate - maybe even the highest ? And Rome seems to stick around longer than other civs, but I still disagree that Rome is dominating this era. Okay, there is potential of a bias, that Rome gets attacked early before they get the war machine going.

And I do think the factor 5 in comparison to BtS would kill nukes. Okay, maybe we need data about the higher cost, but this would mean, a tactical nuke cost more than a wonder in the same era (1000 for Christo Redentor) and a ICBM even more ?
I do think it would be better to remove them completely (or ban them always) instead. Because I agree, they warp the game completely.

Other Idea: Could you rework the nukes to high collateral damage units ? Collateral to maybe 10 units, can kill over collateral ? Combat strenght of ~30 ? - And reduce the cost back to 250/500.

[xist10]

I also wanted to bring this up as a possible point of discussion:

Beyond the Sword did nerfed the Barack and I think the airport from 4 XP for new units to 3 XP.

I do like to think that this is a subtle nerf to the CHA traits, because as such, CHA doesn't get the third promotion with vassalage and theocracy.
In the other hand, this also nerfs the Pentagon for non CHA a bit, because even with the Pentagon, non CHA units need another source of XP to get the third promotion.

Is this desirable ?
If not, I would like to propose 2 changes:
1. Pentagon from 2 XP up to 3 XP - this would allow every player to get 3 promotion on every unit with vassalage and theocracy - not only CHA leaders
2. Drydock from 4 XP down to 3 XP. - this would remove the 3rd promotion for CHA ships (with vassalage/theocracy) and match the barracks/airport.

Yes, this is partly born from the frustration of building 9 XP units in the PB79.
I don't think this is really needed and only nice to have and as such maybe outside the scope of this mod (especial the first change), but on the other hand, why no discuss things ? - Or was that already a discussion and I missed it ?