 |
| |
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:16
|
|
Back OT:
This may be a little heretical, but of the regular units, I think that the Swordsman might be unbalanced.
Consider that with ONE exception, the Swordsman will have a 50% advantage over defenders for a looooong time, at the most critical juncture of the game.
Think of the other typical attackers:
Horsemen: Generally, no point advantage.
Knight-level: A 100% advantage against Spearmen, true, but Feudalism is a prerequisite for Chivalry, and thus all but weakling AI civs should have upgraded. Only 33% on Pikemen, and 0% on Muskets.
Cavs: 50% on Muskets, but have you noticed how much the AI now values Nationalism? 0% against Rifles, and negative 40% on Infantry, which is a common match-up.
Tank-level: 60% on Infantry, good, but remember that at this point defense bonuses from city size will be much more of an issue. Negative 11% on MI. And, often, the game has already been won at this point.
MA: 33% on MI.
_____________________
In the 1337 game, hordes of Legions were simply unstoppable, even by the Greeks.
I would add that China, being militaristic and industrious, makes the Sword threat even worse, with cheap barracks, the fast development of a military road network, and the coup de grace of Riders. Persia, being non-militaristic and industrious, but with the Immortal, is almost as bad.
Thus far, we as a group have still been finding our way towards what early warfare can really do... as I've also thought about the rushing strats that have evidently become dominant in Civ2-MP, I have come to the conclusion that insane Sword rushing in SP will win just about any Large or smaller game (obviously not alone, but setting the stage for a later Knight / Cav / Tank win).
Boring, but true... and unbalanced.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
Theseus,
I tend to agree that the swordsman is the most unbalanced unit in the game.
It's advantage over the common units in the ancient age makes the rush to get Iron Working, followed by upgrades to the hordes of Warriors a boring, and predictible pattern for us. Can you imagine what an MP game will be like: it gets down to build 4 cities, get to Ironworking and then send your 8-12 swordmen after your immediate neighbour. You could use an archer rush if you felt like betting against the research times.
This overpowering effect was why I lowered the swordsman's attacking strength to 2 in the mod I was working on. It was still an effective unit, but it made combat more costly. My goal was to make the need for catapults apparent, but for them to do any good, you need at least 8 to damage 1 unit in a turn. What I will need to do is figure out if there is any way to improve their odds of hitting. I mean how hard is it to hit a nice big, stationary stone wall ? This means seige warfare, at which militaries like the Romans and Chinese were masters. Most of the medieval seige engines were imported by the Mongols from the Chinese.
Sun Tzu's contemporaries admonished leaders that attacking a fortified city would cost half your troops. Better to negotiate or use subterfuge. So let us use catapults as a siege engine, and make some rule changes for laying siege to a city. If you can surround it, then it starts to starve, and the AI Civ can either break the siege, negoitate or risk the city's governor surrendering. That at least would make the possibilites of a culture flip seem more like a revolt in a capture city, and not some lame statistical action. (As nice as getting a weakened town for nothing is) The AI will already negotiate for trade and all, so the coding to make it negotiate to break a seige shouldn't be that hard to do.
I can see it now: My troops are approaching a city. I surround it. The siege engines start pounding. An emissary contacts you: "What would it take for you to go away ?"
Cha-CHING!$!$
Makes a nice alternative to sulking when an AI Civ refuses to trade with you.
Nice tangent to the original theme, huh? In any case, from my test games with 2/2/1 swordsmen, they suffered more casualties, but you could still take an unfortified town from spearmen. I tried against a walled town and it would still fall, but again, your casualties increase. It makes building walls a worthwhile endevour for the AI too, as I have never seen a AI City with Walls.
D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
They are not unbalanced! They cannot upgrade to anything. Horsemen can. And swordsmen are slow, very slow. They cannot retreat. They are good for very rough maps, but normally they aren't very good as it is. Catapults do need to be strengthened, however.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
Smashing the AI with swordsmen is just as easy as with horsemen, only slower. I don't see any imbalance because the swordsmen are in the open longer and they can see the invasion coming from a mile away. Horsemen can take a city or two before the AI knows what hits them. Riders are incredible for this purpose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hr_oskar
|
|
Swordsmen are good, dependable units and most of us who play Emperor and Deity are very good at using them. But I wouldn't call them unbalancing, given their limited mobility.
The reason we're so successful with the Swordsmen is IMO that the AI does a bad job at exploiting their weaknesses. Swordsmen should be brought down in the field, using more mobile units (e.g. Horsemen).
This is what human players will do (the smart ones, that is), and that's why I think they won't be too dominating in MP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hr_oskar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph1944
The F-117 is an Ground Attack Fighter, not for Air to Air.
The new F-22 will be Air to Air. |
I must join in criticism of the Stealth Fighter unit. I have a hard time understanding its strategic role. It's the #1 unit I would remove from the game to make room for something more interesting.
Not sure what to suggest to improve this unit. The current air combat system is an improvement on Civ2 I think, but still somehow unsatisfactory. Why no dog-fights for example? Why can't we escort our bombers? And why only SAM batteries? - Air defence was developed much earlier than that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
Theseus has hit it exactly: what strategic challenge is it if you know each turn what you have to do to build swordsmen and nothing else ?
Part of the problem is that the combat model makes it the only option. With no way to bombard a city to destroy their walls and other infrastucture and maybe do a little damage to the units hiding in the city, they are all that is left.
All artillery units need to be made a little more realistic in their effect: ancient units will do more damage to buildings than to people, while modern artillery will do more damage to people.
That assumes they actually hit anything: catapults only hit 1 in 8 shots on average, and the damage they inflict is only1 hp.
When I looked at the bombardment settings in the editor, it confirmed that they are useless as siege weapons. The only use I have for artillery at Monarch and above is to either clear terrain improvments or defend. At least on defense, I know they will do 1 hp of damage to the first attacker.
Bombers are even more useless as they never hit anything either. Last time I checked, carpet bombing will ruin anyone's day... and should do the most damage of anything. You do remember pictures of cities in Europe during WWII and of the jungles in Vietnamn where the predominent terrain feature was the crater...
When I have the time, I think I'm going to have to learn to make animated gifs for a WWII vintage flak battery. That will have to be accomplanied by a mobile AAA ground unit. Actually it will simpler just to make it an improvement...
This is all kind of silly since the game is supposed to have units representing divisions, and they have made some less than balanced comprimises in units designs.
D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hr_oskar
|
|
Gen. Dragolen: I disagree about the usefulness of Artillery - it's critical IMO to soften up that entrenched Infantry; a healthy percentage of Artillery in your army will make the warfare more cost-effective, by reducing casualties.
I agree however about the need for some mechanism to simulate the difference between primitive and advanced artillery. Catapults and early cannons were only good for siege - field artillery only become really effective in the late industrial age, most notably in WWI.
As it is, the Civ3 catapult is more useful as a field weapon than a siege weapon - it has such a hard time cracking the high defence of an entrenched spearman.
I think for a better simulation of early siege warfare we would need more defensive improvements, and the possibility of neutralizing them.
Also why not cause bombardment to unfortify units? Either as a bonus effect, or as the first thing to happen before hp are lost, and possibly to have this disentrenchment easier than causing actual hp loss. I think if catapults only disentrenched (but more easily), and never caused hp damage, they would be more realistic and useful at the same time.
Must say though, Civ3 is a revolution in these matters when compared to Civ2, which didn't even have bombardment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
hr_oskar,
I have tried using Radar Artillery on the offensive and it is even worse for doing damage than standard Artillery.
One of the problems is that the RA should have a movement of 2 or 3 since then are supposed to be a mobile unit, where as the older towed artillery should move the same as an Infantry division. The other problem is effectiveness. Why use a unit that doesn't do anything on the offensive for offensive operations?
A catapult may be able to soften up a fortified spearman, but why use a catapult that needs an escort ? Not to mention that for the most part, heavy units could only be moved on roads, or they were built on site. What you saw at the start of "Gladiator" was a Hollywood version: catapults were used from fortresses or as seige engines only. And in ancient times, the primary way of defeating a city's walls was to build a ramp up to the top of them. Like at Masada for example.
Anyway, with a catapult having an attack strength of 4 firing on a fortified spearman with a defensive strength of in a non-walled size 1 city has a 4 in 7 chance of hitting when attacking according to the combat model. The actual rate is 1 in 8, and that is after recording a hundred attacks over the course of the last 6 months. And that one hit will do 1 hp to a unit or possibly destroy a building (which have a defensive strength of 8).
I'm not saying they need to make it like Stronghold, but they need to rethink how siege warfare is supposed to work if we are to end the imbalance from swordsmen. This means making walls the primary target of catapults and give the walls hit points. A couple of turns bombardment and they will fall. This would make the AI Civ (or at least the city's governor) want to negotiate or you can put the torch the city and put the people to the sword.
TacticalGrace,
I do miss the artillery as it was used in CTPII. For CivIII I would have made it like the other units, but with minimal defensive strength. I hate it when they attack down to their last hp , destroying all the other units, but not the artillery. The artillery should be able to fight back, a Final Protective Fire for each unit in the stack, and should only be captured part of the time: any good artillery man is going to spike his guns if they are about to be captured...
Like I said: these units are good on the defensive but that's all. Even then they are not as useful as the should be. So if we want a game where one unit can't dominate everything like the swordsmen do we need to improve the utility of the support units.
D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral PJ
|
 |
Southeast England , UK
Dec 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
I think normal tanks (ind.era) may be too powerful , though i would make them have higher movement than the cavalry(cavalry should be better for all terrain travel - legs are a good solution to rough terrain)
Edit: the tanks attack should be reduced and it should be given a short bombard attack(bombard is vital)
How about light tanks too, which are faster but weaker in attack/def, they could outrun and retreat from the heavy tanks though if they're well trained.
I think more units are needed later, to make it more realistic.. if you think of the different types of millitary vehicles developed in the cold war you see as we 'progress' there is a bigger variety. More industrial and modern units are needed - to make a more variable faster attack force, but for game balance sake they shouldn't be overpowerful.
Maybe there should be more gradual shifts in unit development.. bring back Dragoons! (make them fast and light) and once swordmen have become outdated , they must be removed and replaced with something sensible for the modern eras ( dosen't matter if its got crappy gfx as long as its suitable for modern era ie a militiaman) swords should go out of date with riflemen, when guns are effective enough.
Excellent game! lets hope they can make it even better.
Last edited by Admiral PJ on 02-09-2002 at 22:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
XOR
|
 |
Venezuela
Aug 2002
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MagnusMarcus
First things first....
This game is the greatest. I think the developers did an outstanding job with this game. All the nay-sayers can go code a game themselves. With that out of the way there is one thing that disturbed me.... I had, in a recent game, 16 brave marines preparing to spearhead an assault on another continent. Basically I planned on bombing a city and then assaulting with the marines from the sea. And then following up with 4 transports of tanks which could then unload from the city I had just taken and continue to move and assault the enemy. Through careful planning I also had available two "Armys". I thought it would be excellent to put together two armys of marines to minimize casualties. Imagine my dismay when I went to assault the enemy and found out that the Marine "Armys" had forgotten how to attack from the sea! The rest of the marines were able to secure the city but now I was left with two army's of marines which were tactically ineffective. So I guess my question is.....
Q.) Will there ever be a patch to allow Marine "Armys" to remember how to attack from the sea like all the other Brave Marines. Or are Marine Armies basically containers to house all the marines deemed cowards and failures?
 |
Happenned to me as well. I built 4 armies of Marines that time. Except I had no brave marines, I loaded tanks in the remaining space.
This thread about Paratroopers being totally useless. I, BTW, disbanded most of those 61 Paratroopers in cconquered cities, to hurry up temples and courthouses.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=60499
Proceding to self quotation and I hope this is not tought of as spam as I had not noted this thread until now. I posted the other thread to ask about what/if something will be done about these units.
quote:
1. Cruise Missile: This looks more like a shortened range scud missile to me. (The addition of scud missiles would be nice BTW). But the current cruise missile is all weird, it does not load into submarines or carriers, it can be fired from anywhere on the ground, it fires barely at artillery range and it can take up to 3 of them to kill a tank.
2. Paratroopers: Jumping from airbases and non-airport cities and increasing their range to about 8 or 9 would make them nice. I was trying to mod that but I dont know how to do it...
3. Explorer: So useless that people use it to... pillage? And I cant imagine an explorer pillaging. I dont know how could it be improved, but I know it's not any usefull.
4. The submarines: They're so damn weak... They should be scary, maybe a bit fragile but definately very scary.
|
Carriers also dont carry much, but they work just fine when building them in groups of 4. Or I could be saying that you cant have a decent airstrike from carriers unless you build them in groups of 4. I dont mind, I just go with the groups of 4 thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blue Moose
|
|
Columbus, Ohio USA
May 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
Admiral PJ:
The normal tanks are WWII equivalent tanks, in which case they should have a movement of 3, I think. Though, they should be able to handle pretty much any terrain as well as Cavalry (though perhaps Tanks shouldn't be allowed into unroaded mountains). Tanks were originally made as attacking vehicles that could withstand machine gun fire and go over trenches (WWI tanks did this, though they mostly stunk). As such they are pretty good at going over most terrain. Even in WWII the german Panzer's could easily run over most small trees (one a few inches thick wasn't a problem at all). So they could manage forests, though at a slower movement rate (which is how things are). However...they should be able to move as fast as horses...a bit silly, in my opinion....Calvary is a bit strange too, really...where'd these fast horses come from? If anything, Horseman and Cavs should be just as fast, but knight not (weighted down by all that armor)...but I realize why this isn't how it is (game balance).
Other thoughts:
The main problem with artillery is that is moves far, far too slow. It is useless for offense, since you want to move quickly. Take multiple cities a turn if you can....and you just don't have time for the dinky 1-MP artillery to get into position. Things are better with bombers, since a neighboring city or multiple carriers are good enough; though you need a heck of a lot for cities (and you kill all those people too...). Artillery is really only good for defensive positions, forts and cities....hitting them when they attack cities, and as they approach. Then again...bombers can do this job pretty well, and bombers have other uses as well....so typically I just build a bunch of bombers and use them as need (with rebasing they are fairly mobile). I hardly ever use artillery...captured ones come in handy though...but that's just because they are at the scene of combat on occasion. Really, from cannons on, these things should have at least move 2...as they were either mechanized to some extent, or horses were used to move them around.....then again, this wouldn't be as much of a problem if you had a good way to defend your borders...or if infantry was needed for anything other than a defensive role. Oh well.
-Moose
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trebor
|
|
Minnesota
Jul 2002
time: 23:16
|
|
AA
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Explorer579
|
|
Chicago
May 2002
time: 23:16
|
|
Immortals are my favorite! They are too powerful if you start making them before other civilizations.
Wanna win a game early, easy and at higher difficulty levels? Here is my scenario:
1) Play persians;
2) start researching iron working;
3) give other civilizations what they want (don't get them angry at you yet);
4) before you are about to find iron working, have a settler protected by a spearman ready to move for settling and have two workers ready to build roads;
5) as you discover iron working, find the iron closest to and safest to you and go build a city next to it and have the workers start building a road to it;
6) trade maps with other cultures around you;
7) prepare two spearman a boat if needed;
8) take/land these two spearman on your first designated enemy's potential source of iron. never make him connect to this resource. you can wait if the enemy does not have a road to the iron yet.
9) build barracks first then immortals. you will have trained immortals.
10) as soon as you have 3 immortals, keep producing immortasl (just immortals) and start invading the enemy city next to you.
10) finish off the first cvilization (or reduce it to one city)then start with the second.
11) do not forget to accept peace with enemy form time to time after you beat them hard just to get all their technology, money, and maybe a city or two.
Enjoy! Iran rule!
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-08-2002 02:08
.
|