 |
| |
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
The main advantage of the battlecruiser is its cheap cost. Make 4 battlecruisers and 12 ironclads. Wait 100 turns.
4 battlecruisers cost you 400 gold in unit support.
12 ironclads cost you 1200 in unit support.
But power wise, they are about the same. The 4 battlecruisers are about as strong as the ironclads, but they can't be spread out. However, they are actually cheaper to maintain! And... THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH NAVAL COMBAT.
Why make a destroyer if you could make a battlecruiser? It's weaker, costs the same, but you can make it a little faster. Maybe you would make it in an urgent situation when you needed a ship NOW.
Subs have stealth, at least. Ironclads are industrial era units, so it is ok for them to be weak. Destroyers are weak. Really.
I think the more powerful units should have higher maintenance costs, or the destroyer should have benefits the battlecruiser doesn't. Ironclads are just fine, the frigates should be made stronger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
Well, after having play tested some substantial changes to the Naval units, I went after the bomabrdment units to balance things out. This led to my doing some changes to the ancient units, just to see what effect it would have.
I used to think that catapults were almost useless units except maybe on defense, but now I have proof of it. Having fought almost continuously using catapults to soften up towns and villages before attackiing, I noted that only 1 attack in 8 actually hits. That one hit will do only 1 hp to a unit. The setting for this was a target size 1 village, with 1 spearman defending. Bombarded for 20 turns using 4 catapults. 1 hit destroyed the temple (the only buiding in the village) and I never did more than 1 hp to the spearman.
Last time I checked the stories about ancient siege engines, they were almost as nasty as a trebuchet for reducing buildings and fortifications. Not to mention their effect on the morale (and health) of units being attacked... a ballista could punch a hole through several rows of spearmen/hoplites/archers. Catapults flinging stone or urine would break up unit formations. Look at what the onagers and ballistae did in the battle scene in Galdiator.
Aside from the naval units being a joke, the bombardment code needs reworking. If I have a full siege train, then any ancient walled city will fall to me, unless relieved by friendly forces. I haven't had a chance to test the cannons and artillery yet, but I recall they worked a lot more consistently and with more impact.
What really made this apparent was that in the mod I'm working on, I reduced the attack strength of swordsmen to 2 and was unable to defeat a spearman without loosing 4-6 units in the assault. So Firaxis, let's get some decent combined arms happening for the ancient age. Let the catapults do something besides take space on the build list. Make Archimedes proud !
D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kring
In 1.21, if you have lethal land bombard or lethal sea bombard, then you can kill the unit. If not, then you can't. In a bigger city, you could also kill people. |
Kring,
My point was that the unit is useless in an offensive role. It simply doesn't do anything useful because it never hits anything more often than 1 in 8. Simply increasing it's bombardment strength in the editor won't change that significantly. It will still miss 7 out of 8 and on the one good shot it will do 1 or 2 hits.
Now if it did 1 or 2 hits to all units in the beaten zone, then it might make up for it. But then you would still need 8 of them and that is ridiculous. The problem is that they made the swordsman unit what the catapults should have been. Add in that the units have uniform support costs when a siege train should be an expensive unit, like any mounted or chariot unit, costing at least double the support of an foot unit.
I still remember thinking that Vel's tactic of driving a stack of 10+ swordsmen into the heart of an enemies empire seemed off from a historical point of view, but since it worked, why not. The thing is, any decent archer can riddle a target advancing at a dead run over 100+ yards, with arrows not much different from what an ancient Egyptian charioteer might have used. Against the armour they had at the time, mostly leather with wooden shields, anyone running into a flight of arrows was most likely to get one. Drop the swords man to a 2/2/1 unit and they are a more flexible unit like they should be, not the damn queens of the battlefield.
It makes for amore interesting battle when archers and spearmen can stand against a swordsman. The swordsman are still a better choice for a battle, being cheaper to build and maintain, but when you lack iron in your empire, it evens the battle a bit. This brings me back to the problem with catapults. They should be able to reduce a village to ruins in the first turn and with 3 or 4 of them, even the combat units are going to take a beating. Especially if the units are regular troops that do it for a living.
If you doubt the power of the seige engines, check out the History channel's show about trebuchets. They build two full size trebuchets from the drawings in some 14th century manuscripts, and they were no less effective on tearing down fortifications than modern artillery. The only difference is range. A trebuchet can hurl a stone slightly further than a longbow can send an arrow. The show was supposed to show how Edward "Longshanks" had conquered the Scots with his Warwolf trebuchet. One 250 lb stone shot connected on a section of wall made as a target and it knocked a small hole in the front side and blew out a huge amount of stone and earthen fill from the inside of the wall.
If that isn't enough evidence for getting a unit changed for the better, there's more on the internet...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geekinstein
|
|
Humm, I use massed cats, 8-10 in a group along with about the same number of workers and a glob of pikemen and horsies/swords (& then knights when I can get them); sit next to alien cities, build forts and pound snot outta the black hats. The kewl thing about cats: they upgrade. Another is, there comes a time when nothing else is able to be developed that will upgrade except for the cats/cannons so build them waiting on the industrial/modern times and upgrade to artillery. BTW, veggie (veteran) cats seem to do OK. Plus, they be cheap vis-a-vis "real" units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
King,
I'll make them upgrade to pikemen or longbowmen. The idea is that for the ancient age, they were the shock troops. after thinking about the Scots and their claymores, swordsmen should upgrade to musketmen. (and gainsay who dare, laddie if you ken my meaning)
And yes the only good thing about catapults, at present, is that they upgrade to cannons. And I don't think increasing the bombardment strength will help as they still won't hit often enough to do anything useful. The point to keeping them at strength 4 was to balance against the ancient age units that mostly had a defensive strength of 2. City wall were there to make it damn hard for an enemy to take a city and the assaults were usually so costly that Sun Tzu's contemporaries thought that it was a desparate last act that would cost you half your army. Hence the need for guile, diplomacy and in my mind, many siege engines.
---
Punkbass, I'll have to setup some test battles and use them on troops in the open and see if they hit any better. I seem to recall that they don't perform much better when I've used them that way in past battles...
---
Part of the problem is that Firaxis seems to have skipped some developement work in making the units consistent and effective. Warfare from age to age hasn't changed all that much from when we used to use swords and spears. Specialist units are supposed to be force multipliers not subtractors, and because of the nature of hand to hand combat, morale was the main factor. As long as that held up, not many people died. As soon as an army broke, then the slaughter began.
(Another nice rule change possibility: no retreat for a defender/attacker if the target stack has a mounted unit)
The way I see what they tried to do was have the same roles for units in each age: foot soldiers, mounted, bombardment, naval (and later flying). As a game design, it would work nicely but they left out a medieval bombardment unit (trebuchet?) to replace the catapults, and left out any futuristic units like walkers or jump infantry that could deploy from orbit. The rest are ok, but unbalanced when it came to unit strengths. Musketeers should mowwed down swordsman and pikemen, while Musketeers should be mowwed down by riflemen who could shoot further and faster and them infantry should decimate riflemen because of the machinegun.
It makes keeping up in the technology race even more important and if you make things like espionage more affordable, then you should have a more interesting game. Well, it works better for me...
D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blake
|
 |
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:16
|
|
One of the most effective fixes to the effectivness of mobile units, and their ability to retreat, is to make repairing cost a simialler number of resources to building the unit in the first place.
This would balance the game almost perfectely, as well as making it more realistic (because, if a unit is at 1/4 hitpoints, it means that three quarters of the troops have been KILLED and need to be replaced.).
It would still, generally be worthwhile repairing units for the elite bonuses. Understand that a unit healing at no cost is getting something for nothing, which cannot help but be unbalancing.
Unfortunately, this wouldn't work well in Civ3 because of the resource model, it'd basically have to steal repair costs by skimming some production from several bases... not very nice. (It did work in CTP2 mods, because of public works)
The other thing which could be done is making "field repairs" less effective than in-base repairs, ie the last HP is only healed in a base. The no healing in enemy territory is a good start, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geekinstein
|
|
quote:
Trebuchets! Man, there should be an immobile siege unit you can make outside of a city! I hope we can do that stuff in PTW! |
Yeah, I like that! Can only be built in forest squares? How about a forest square within distance two? three?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
Blake,
I like your idea that units can only heal in the field up to 1 hp short of full strength. It was a nuisance in SMAC/X and would make it alot more interesting if you needed to constantly send cavalry back to the stables to rest up.
And yes, Geekinstein they would be nice. Something intermediate between the useless catapults and marginally usefull cannons.
I would love it if all units that attacked a stack/village with a catapult/cannon would have to pass a pot shot instead of just the first unit, no matter how many cats/cannons you have fortified there. In modern terms it's called Final Protective Fire: you have the ground in front of a prepared position measured out so you can call artillery down almost up to the edge of your own trenches.
D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
publius
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Heres a disspasionate plea to make the Paratrooper better.
After a paradrop, the paratrooper can no longer move. This renders it totally useless. Any AI or human will quickly concentrate all of its tanks on them and kill them before they can do anything. If the Paras could move/attack/pillage after they paradrop, they could capture towns, pillage roads, and wreck havoc.Why would I want to use them if I can use a chopper and a marine (which is stronger on attack) to do the same thing.
So essentially what I am asking is to make a paratrooper be able to move/attack/pillage on the turn that it paradrops. I dont mind if they get slaughtered after that.  |
agreed. this ability would make it analogous to the marine, which is as it should be.
to me the main change needed is an attack chopper unit. ideally it would work like other air units but it would have an attack rather than a bombard ability, so that it could be destroyed by defenders. at the same time, it would have the ability to kill ground units. the range would be short, maybe 4? the attack would be weaker than modern armor, but still fairly high. the defense would be low, so that patrolling planes could destroy it easily.
this would give us additional tactical options in the modern age and make air power more important. it would provide a good use for the airstrips that will be in PTW. to me it's almost like firaxis looked ot the gulf war for their model of modern warfare... modern armor dominates in certain terrains, but in other places the MO should be helicopter warfare. certainly it was that way in vietnam. btw this mod would also make carriers more powerful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirian
Also, why are Stealth Fighters nothing more than cheap/weak versions of stealth bombers? Why can't they FIGHT? They ought to be able to execute anti-air-superiority missions, to clear out enemy fighters so the bombers can go in. That's what they are there for in real life: to fight more than to bomb, although they can bomb, too, with a JDAM, for instance. If they weren't meant to kill enemy aircraft, they'd be called bombers, wouldn't they?
- Sirian |
The F-117 is an Ground Attack Fighter, not for Air to Air.
The new F-22 will be Air to Air.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
Naw, the immortal can't retreat. Mounted warriors are stronger, but IMO none of the UU's are too powerful. Not even the rider or the hoplite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
Thawn05,
I have had some similarly interesting results using swordsmen on knights.
My longbowmen never once succeeded in killing a knight during a protacted conflict with one of my northern neighbours. So much for superior English strategy and weapons at Agincourt and Crecy... Meanwhile, my veteran and elite swordsmen made a meal out of the equine tin cans. Granted, I was covering them with Musketmen while they were in open ground, they never once failed to kill a knight in about 30 battles vs 10 losses with Longbowmen.
The swordsmen did almost as well against cavalry, and I noticed that combat against units of equal offensive vs defensive strengths, combat was about 70/30 win to loss. Much stronger units, like longbowmen versus other longbowmen, or spearmen, and the longbowmen would die almost every time, and without inflicting a single point of damage. Just try and tell me the combat system in this game isn't a little screwwed up!
The results of this was my armies were able to hold off a superior foe and inflict enormous casualties, and each regiment that was destroyed had accounted for at least one more expensive unit. I may just beat them yet, as now I have a small tech lead and am bringing Infantry and Artillery to bear on the target of the latest AI civ feeding frenzy. All thanks to the lowly swordsman...
D.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-06-2002 12:39
Otherwise, they deserve an attack value of 3.
I think a nuclear war should have more drastic worldwide effects. It is relatively a minor event considering the shield cost of a nuke. It should be like the Alpha Centauri planet buster nukes 
|