Recruitable Unit Rebalance Version 7.51 Released.

[PvK]

I think 1 to 4 gold is about right for a militia.

On reflection, 0 is too low and would be used for Lobo Guards and Slaves.

I don't think being able to recruit a ton of them is too great an advantage - it's the advantage they're supposed to offer.

When I have excess gold (e.g., as Ulm) I will use Tribal Warriors and especially Tribal Archers for this, if I have them.

I almost never use slingers, but I will use shortbows.

I think there is a general error though in the accuracy ratings of units. It generally doesn't matter though, because only leaders can change equipment. Historically, archers or even slingers tended to be specialists, implying special training. So I would expect archers to have higher accuracy than regular troops. Generally, I think archers should be about as expensive as professional troops. I'd just lower the accuracy of non-missile troops (and most commanders) to about 8, leaving archers as is.

Unskilled or low-skilled troops would generally be rather less expensive than professionals. I'd think there would be about five tiers:

Slaves, lobo guards, summons - 0 gold
Militia, conscripts, unskilled fodder (skills 8) - 1-4 gold
Low-skilled troops (skills 9) - 4-8 gold
Professional troops, but not elite (skills 10) - 8-10 gold
Elite troops (skills over 10) - 11+ gold

Then I'd either jack up the costs of the powerful summons, or halve the costs of infantry as listed above.

Edit: Also, until Light Infantry gets the AI smarts to use their speed to avoid pitched battle with Heavy Infantry, I might lower their skills to 9's to justify charging 50-60% their cost, for balance purposes.

PvK

[Saber Cherry]

Those tiers and values sound about right, except for a couple things:

1) Conscription does not reduce province population in Dominions 2... therefore, fodder troops have to be a little more expensive to compensate for this "lack of a downside."

2) Archers seem fairly weak in Dominions 2. Possibly weaker than in real life? I'm not sure... obviously, real life has no "Staff of Storms", "Air Shield", and so forth. If Dom II archers are weaker than reality, the cost should reflect this (or something else should be changed). However, it certainly makes sense for someone trained as an archer to have higher precision than a militia, which is not presently the case.

But generally, they sound like good guidelines. Thanks!

[quantum_mechani]

I don't know about the rest of the ideas, but 0 gold lobo guards sound really scary. I already considered them a bargain...

[Saber Cherry]

quantum_mechani said:
I don't know about the rest of the ideas, but 0 gold lobo guards sound really scary. I already considered them a bargain...

They would still require 1 resource=) And I think Dom2 has a fundamental limitation of 1 gold per troop minimum. Not to mention that lobo guards are already amphibious and higher HP than a normal human.

Anyway, I'm modelling their effectiveness relative to other light units right now, and I don't plan to undervalue them =)

[Zen]

The easiest way to evaluate the gold cost of troops is to place Gold per pop 200%, then you can identify the discrepencies in gold/resource usefulness.

I don't think it's a fair accessment to base the value of archers on the effectiveness of Staff of Storms, Arrow Fend, etc, because of the overeffectiveness of these spells globally against one entire type of unit (archers).

It's obvious (at least to me) that these spells/magic items have to be toned down to provide a very real advantage but not totally negate the entire unit class.

Even with that argument, I don't think having more precision is a bad thing at all.

[Saber Cherry]

I've been fighting LI, militias, and archers against each other to try to get a feel for their relative power... basically, I tried to adjust the number in a squad (far left) so that the far right numbers ("Overall") would all equal 1000, indicating the squads are all of similar strength at that size. I tried to keep the numbers relative to 20 indy light infantry (the ones with javelins). Also, I didn't put in any shifters since they are not modeled yet, though I did include werewolves. No sacred units are blessed unless it is explicitly mentioned, and routing is not modeled.

Of course, this is all simulated, and there are no projectiles, just melee fighting. And it is just internal rankings... if I threw in heavy infantry, the relative standings would change, since (for example) flails are great against LI and bad against HI. But I thought I'd put up these numbers anyway, in case someone was interested, since they're helping me decide unit monetary values, and if any units simply need stat adjustments because no reasonable price can make them useful.

Edit: table removed, pending verification.

[Arralen]

Archers vs. Slingers

Ancient sources tell us, that archers (with shortbows) and slingers are roughly equal in terms of combat effectivness.

Arrows do more damager per shot, especially against troops with light armor and without shields. Slingers are actually better against troops with shields than archers, as they still cause full shock damage even if the projectile is caught with the shield, because of it's greater mass. Furthermore the volume of fire from slingers is considerably higher due to the easier availability of ammo ... .

The problems with slingers in Dom2 is actually their abysmal accuracy (-3 IIRC), which is IMHO not supported by ancient sources.

Longbowmen are an entirely different matter. In Dom, either their damage is too low or they should have "armor piercing" qualities.

Crossbow should have even more damage, much lesser range but even higher accuracy. Problem maybe: They start to run towards the enemy to get him in range and may end up in front of your inf. no big prob, though, they meet the slingers there

[Arralen]

Barbarians

What about making all Barbs berserkers?
(Thinking about it - AFAICR they where berserkers in DOM1, wheren't they?)

[Boron]

Arralen said:
Archers vs. Slingers

Ancient sources tell us, that archers (with shortbows) and slingers are roughly equal in terms of combat effectivness.

Yeah just look at Rome Total war .
Those Balearic Slingers are quite powerful .

A few suggestions :
You should make the ryleh freespawns upkeepfree .
Militia could be need not eat to reflect that they only get surplus food but in times of need they don't get food and can starve .
1 Gold Militia would also make the "good" free militia events less troublesome .
Maenads could also be need not eat because it is ridicoulous after 10 turns with 5 Pans you have like 500 Maenads . Their combat value is still almost zero but with need not eat they would at least be a nice "fodder horde" .

Do you intend to reduce resourcecosts also or will they be unchanged ?
I am anyways looking forward to your mod

[Arralen]

Boron said:

Yeah just look at Rome Total war .

That was what I meant

A few suggestions :
..
Militia could be need not eat to reflect that they only get surplus food but in times of need they don't get food and can starve .

Great. But starving militia would -even in reality- take a morale hit. Oh, wait, they do in Dom, too, if they're starving. So maybe starving milita should be exactly that - starving milita?

Maenads could also be need not eat because it is ridicoulous after 10 turns with 5 Pans you have like 500 Maenads . Their combat value is still almost zero but with need not eat they would at least be a nice "fodder horde" .

1) Their combat value is not zero. Use the Pans to cast Protection/Mass Protection and/or Berserk etc. .

2) If you play Pangaea, you know you will have lots of Maenads if a) you choose high turmoil and b) build lots of Pans. Plan accordingly, use high growth..