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

[superdeath]

In a recent game, someone surprised me with 9 swordsmen in galleys, but they couldn't take my city because I had 1 archer, 3 axes, and walls on a hill.
I had only made axes because they have 5 strength, which is higher than spears or archers (and archers get researched later, too). No real planning, just adding a couple of extra units and a wall in a border city. BRAINLESS - and it countered the supposed "city attacking late classical unit" by default.
I panicked when I saw the galleys - but only because I was pessimistically afraid they might have xbows or chariots.

I've commented before that axemen are too much of a default unit and swordsmen excessively niche as a result, and not really special in that city attack niche anyway.

Directly changing the Axeman is certainly too radical.
But could swordsmen get something more, like +25% versus axeman-maceman, or +2 XP from barracks, or 7 Str, or +50% city attack bonus?

Axeman UU - (Vulture) gets +1 Str and in exchange had to be designed with 25% less melee bonus.
Meanwhile the Praetorian, with +2 Str, only needed what, a +5 hammer nerf in this mod?
Skirmisher is +1, Phalanx is +1, Impi is +1 movement, horse archer UUs don't have any +str, Cataphract has +2 off a 10 baseline and it's considered very strong.

The Praetorian is very strong at 8 Str, but we all know that they would become almost irrelevant if they had only 7 Str.
It's able to be a +2 UU off an early tech because the baseline unit is so weak.

Horse archers compared to swordsmen get to double move. They lose tile defense bonus and city raider promos, but they also get an extra XP building. Imagine if there was an 8 STR horse archer UU.

In conclusion - Swordsmen are so sad from every angle. PLS BUFF.

Personally I think 7 Str and 25% city attack would be nice.

The only thing i could think of to help with the swords vs axes in cities (besides... bringing catapults like ur supposed to) Is do what RTR i believe did, which is jack up the bonus vs city attack. Otherwise, axes are SUPPOSED to counter swords. Swords are supposed to help beat stacked archers in cities. Rock-paper- scissors.

[BING_XI_LAO]

The only thing i could think of to help with the swords vs axes in cities (besides... bringing catapults like ur supposed to) Is do what RTR i believe did, which is jack up the bonus vs city attack. Otherwise, axes are SUPPOSED to counter swords. Swords are supposed to help beat stacked archers in cities. Rock-paper- scissors.

Bringing catapults takes more tech and hammers and if you have enough of those it matters a lot less which units inflict the kills against weakened enemies.

Is the rock-paper-scissors playing out in practice? Because it seems to me that axemen work just fine as defenders compared to archers.

I just did some vodka-ing and if 10 horse archers attack a city with walls on a hill against 25%-fortify defenders, they suffer slightly more casualties against 5 axemen than they do against 7 archers (so equal prod). Increase the horse archer count to 12 and they have a 21% chance of taking the city against Axemen, and a 27% chance of taking it against the archers. If you reduce the fortify bonus and remove the walls, then the Archers start outperforming the Axemen, but is it by enough to justify the lack of offensive capability and the less crucial, later-researched tech?

I wonder how the game would play if Axemen became Dog Soldiers? 4 Str and 100% anti-melee bonus. Then it would be a counter unit instead of a general-purpose unit which coincidentally suppresses Swordsmen (and to some extent archers).

[Mjmd]

The recent classical start game had heavy use of swords. I think part of it is that IW is just not a normal popular early tech. That being said I've built them as an efficient way to Crack longbows and I've built them vs sd to retake a city even though he had a pile of axes. With cats I knew it would be fine and I needed cheap hitters that also could do ok vs elephants.

I've argued extensively for further Rome nerf but was voted down when charriu did last cth update. That being said if we have someone who does update again I'm still in favor.

[BING_XI_LAO]

Needing IW is arguably just another reason that Swords should be a bit stronger than they are. Though it's good they see use vs. longbows.

I always get corrected by experienced players when I argue that swords are useless - but the incident I experienced where 3 axes 1 archer defended vs 9 swords... that was a SERIOUS cuckening for the unit.

How about the following?

-Axemen bonus vs melee 50% to 40% (also macemen, and relevant UUs get -10%)

Besides giving swordsmen slightly more space, this could also make a 7 Str Praetorian palatable (perhaps with a cost reverted to 45 or even reduced to 40), otherwise nerfing it by a whole point of STR risks making the unit boring.

What's worse about the Praetorian, its rush potential or its status as a 'discounted musketeer' later on?

[chumchu]

Needing IW is arguably just another reason that Swords should be a bit stronger than they are. Though it's good they see use vs. longbows.

I always get corrected by experienced players when I argue that swords are useless - but the incident I experienced where 3 axes 1 archer defended vs 9 swords... that was a SERIOUS cuckening for the unit.

How about the following?

-Axemen bonus vs melee 50% to 40%  (also macemen, and relevant UUs get -10%)

Besides giving swordsmen slightly more space, this could also make a 7 Str Praetorian palatable (perhaps with a cost reverted to 45 or even reduced to 40), otherwise nerfing it by a whole point of STR risks making the unit boring.

What's worse about the Praetorian, its rush potential or its status as a 'discounted musketeer' later on?

I think the easiest solution for a small buff to swordsmen that is close to home is to increase the city attack bonus to 25% or 30%. That way they will become slightly better at their role. I would also suggest a FS (for the pilum) on praetorians if they need a similar small buff.

America has been a heavily chosen civ in CtH. I would suggest that the Carnegie public library was a bit too strong. My suggestion for America would be to give it back its mall and instead change the weird navy seal to an earlier arriving unit. My choice would be a Pioneer, a settler that is slightly more efficient and much better in the wilderness. Cost 90 [100], ignores terrain costs and has strength 4 (defense only). I play with it in single player and find it to be unique without being overpowered.
Starts with Agriculture

[xist10]

An "old" quote from my PB79 thread

I found a possible python error in CtH which should be connected to special characters such as "Ä" a few days ago.
I'm not 100% sure how to replicate this, but I thought I shouldn't risk this for Zulan and changed to ENG.

Sounds interesting, care to share the details you do have? Not surprised, character sets are iffy, especially in 20 year old code

So half a year later, but I think I found this error again.

   

Something about a UnicodeDecodeError for the byte 0xc3 - traceback shows up in line 178 and line 501 from "e:/main/civilization4/warlords/assets/python/system\codecs.py" - which is a bit suspicious, because I have installed cIV under "D:\Civ4_Complete\Warlords\Assets\Python\System" - and this folder has only a codecs.pyc.

   

   

Further errors message pointed at line 557 in CvEventManager - and line 336 from BugEventManager.
I think line 557 from CvEventManager is the problem:
f.write("%s|" % (gc.getCivicInfo(player.getCivics(1)).getDescription().encode('utf-8'))) - and possible line 556-560 too.

UTF-8 doesn't really work with ä or â and similar characters, because ä is stored over 2 byte and UTF-8 reads only one byte. - 0xc3 is the first byte for most special character.

Because this is the log function from Charriu, I think we could (should) remove this from the mod. - or maybe change encoding ?

[BING_XI_LAO]

Temples suck
pls buff?

[xist10]

Temples suck
pls buff?

So that this is not alone - why ?
I do think temples are okay. I don't built them that often, but I don't think they need a buff. - And if you think, they need a buff, what are you suggesting ?

Other point: Submarine changes:
I do think, the missile carrying sub should be the weaker sub - and I don't think you got your aim to delay the ability to have long-range nukes, because there is no big tech difference between attack submarines and nukes or submarines and nukes.
Normal submarines don't need Combustion.
And I don't like the fact, that attack submarines are better at everything than submarines.
There is a difference between the missile submarine and the ASW submarine.
As such, I would undo the change (or you make the change completely and gives the radio submarine 30 strength, the submarine bonus and up the production cost to 200 (or even more ?) (and rename the radio submarine to Attack Submarine) and the rocketry submarine the 24 strength (and rename it to ballistic missile submarine).



Next point: city ruins are invulnerable to "Bomb improvements" missions - and as such, you can't destroy the (rail)roads under them. Either allow planes to destroy ruins or add a "Bomb (rail)roads) mission.

I can make a few code changes, but I would prefer to allow the destruction of ruins.


And maybe have a look at ChoKos ? They are the only source of amphibious collateral damage and as such per defintion OP, because this is unique. - i read this somewhere here about the america UB.
I have no good idea how to change this unit, but if I understand it correct, a big point about the Praet discussion is the fact, the remain viable even if the enemy attacks with Inf. Chokos remain viable if you attack with Tanks. - And yes, this is partial fueled by an unexpected city loss in the PB79.
I don't think there is a need o change something, but maybe I could get a bit discussion here ?

[superdeath]

And maybe have a look at ChoKos ? They are the only source of amphibious collateral damage and as such per defintion OP, because this is unique. - i read this somewhere here about the america UB.
I have no good idea how to change this unit, but if I understand it correct, a big point about the Praet discussion is the fact, the remain viable even if the enemy attacks with Inf. Chokos remain viable if you attack with Tanks. - And yes, this is partial fueled by an unexpected city loss in the PB79.
I don't think there is a need o change something, but maybe I could get a bit discussion here ?

China's UU, is not all that broken. It is a normal str crossbow (which dont usually get built alot) and gives it the unique collateral on boats. Outside of huge ocean maps (where it, and others are banned anyway) it doesnt see much use. You losing a city because of it (have NOT been paying any attention to pb79)

To be fair, almost anything is viable if u can attack with tanks. Tanks are a great leap forward (ha) in attack strength. Dont remember WHEN china can no longer build their UU, but having the ability to do something unique is not in itself "op"

Maya's UU doesnt require metal. Does that make it op because that is unique? Same with Aztec UU? (and a bunch i dont care to look at atm) 

IDR if the collateral was lowered on China's uu at any point, but i still wouldnt likely change it from where it is now.

[Mjmd]

Problem with buffing temples is you would also buff going for monk wonders, which are already very strong. Is it worth reworking monk wonders to buff temples. Probably not.

I don't see a problem with the sub change. All it did was push back when you can build subs that can carry nukes and who are we kidding that is about all they are good for.