 |
| |
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by player1
In order to balance out increased Stl. Fighters bombard efficiency (compared to Stl. Bombers), Stl. Bombers get reduced cost of 200 shields (was 240).
|
This makes Stl. Fighters much more [Edit: less] cost-effective than Stl. bombers. With the new stats, two fighters are the same as one bomber for a defender of strength 10. But now they cost less [Edit: more] than half of one bomber.
With all your changes, the two units are equally effective for a defender of strength 1!
By the way, the two units should have this quantity the same to be equivalent:
(ROF/Cost)*Strength/(Strength+DefStrength)
Last edited by alexman on 13-08-2002 at 02:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
Sorry, I meant Stl. Bombers are much more effective now.
With your new stats they are equal for a defender of strength 1. Anything more than that for the defender, and bombers are better.
Last edited by alexman on 13-08-2002 at 01:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
I will provide you with some facts, and you can decide what to do.
Here are three tables. The original values, your MOD, and what I propose:
code:
ORIGINAL
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
-------------------------------------------------------
Fighter 2 1 8 0.17 16
Bomber 8 3 10 1.33 100
Jet Ftr 2 1 10 0.17 13
F-15 4 2 10 0.57 43
St. Ftr 4 2 12 0.57 36
St. Bbr 8 3 24 1.33 42
Patch Suggestion
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
-------------------------------------------------------
Fighter 2 2 8 0.33 31
Bomber 8 3 10 1.33 100
Jet Ftr 3 2 10 0.46 35*
F-15 5 2 10 0.67 50*
St. Ftr 5 2 12 0.67 42*
St. Bbr 8 3 20 1.33 50
Proposed
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
-------------------------------------------------------
Fighter 2 2 8 0.33 31
Bomber 8 3 10 1.33 100
Jet Ftr 3 2 10 0.46 35
F-15 6 2 10 0.75 56*
St. Ftr 6 2 12 0.75 47*
St. Bbr 8 3 20 1.33 50
Values assume a 10-strength defender
Str = Bombard Strength
ROF = Rate of fire
Cost = shield cost / 10
Dmg = expected damage in HP
Value = Percentage of cost-effectiveness of bomber.
* = lethal land bombard
Comments:
- The stealth fighter has more upkeep than the stealth bomber but also has lethal bombard. So these two should be the same in cost-effectiveness. St.Bombers are better against battleships, St.Fighters better against Destroyers.
- The F-15 should be more cost-effective than the stealth units, exactly because it's not stealth. Also because it's a UU!
- The Jet figher should be less cost-effective than the fighter, because its attack and defense stats are much better.
Last edited by alexman on 13-08-2002 at 12:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Comments:
- The stealth fighter has more upkeep than the stealth bomber but also has lethal bombard. So these two should be the same in cost-effectiveness. St.Bombers are better against battleships, St.Fighters better against Destroyers.
- The F-15 should be more cost-effective than the stealth units, exactly because it's not stealth. Also because it's a UU!
|
There is an eror in tables.
Fighter bombard Strenght is 2, not 3.
F-15 doesn't need to make Stl. units obsolete, since he can do one thing which stealth units can't.
And that is: Air superiority
From lethal bombard persperctive, it is better then Stl. Fighter (more cost effecive), if not used against defended positions (enemy air superiority).
Stl. Fighter is tactical bomber, and in order to make him most effective, you need to use him like that.
So bomb that Detroyer with Bombers and Stl. Bombers and then attack it with Stl. Fighter when he is low at hp.
EDIT:
And don't foget that there are rounding errers too:
City with prod. of 100 shileds would make Stl. Fighter in 2 turns, and Stl. Bomber in 3 turns. (good for bomber)
City with prod. of 120 shileds would make Stl. Fighter in 1 turns, and Stl. Bomber in 2 turns. (good for fighter)
City with prod. of 60 shileds would make Stl. Fighter in 2 turns, and Stl. Bomber in 4 turns. (good for fighter)
quote:
[*]The Jet figher should be less cost-effective than the fighter, because its attack and defense stats are much better. |
Hmm, like that Tank is more cost effecvive then Modern Armor?
Not likely.
Jets make Fighters obsolete.
If they would be cost-effecive, then they would not be obsolete.
Last edited by player1 on 13-08-2002 at 11:23
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
Civ3: PtW and several "What if" questions.
This small "What if" discussion will not apply to this build of PS mod.
It's about possbile build for Civ3: PtW version.
First,
I'll assume that exept adding new units, base units are left the way they are in v1.29
Second,
Current (I assume that Firaxis is still playbalancing) version of Medivial Infantry has stats of 4/2/1. I assume that they will give it the cost of 50 (since orignal Longbowmen has cost of 40).
Now, since Longbowmen from this this MOD, has cost of 30 (becasue 40 was to much), what do you think that should be done with Med. Infantry? Since extra 20 shileds cost for 1 extra attack just doesn't seam like good trade (Knights will just take them out easlity).
Option 1, give them cost of 40. Could work.
Option 2, give them defense of 3, and keep 50 cost. Could also work. Will also make Immortals and Legionares upgarde more "normall". They would have defense of Pikemen, but would be much more expensive (anyway, nobody used Swordmen for defense, when Spermen is available).
Third,
Screenshots reveled that Guerrila have stats of 6/6/1 and that it would be chepr unit. I assume that it's unit at Infanrty tech. level, so less expensive would porbably be 70 (sice 80shields is rely not "less expensive").
Now, since our modded infantry has attack of 8, what should we do with Guerrila.
Option1, give it attack of 8, like Infantry.
Option2, give it attack of 7, but lower a cost to 60shileds. Could give more guierrila feel.
Fourth,
If Guerrila does NOT need resources, what if we give Riflemen a preq. of Saltpeter?
I could remove "no Saltpeter, I have Riflemen, but no Cavalry" problem.
Fifth,
I would not discuss now, about upgrade paths, since that could be lot of confising with new UUs (for example, it would be bad for gameplay if that Galic Swordsmen uprades to slow Med. Inanfty, and upgrade to some mounted unit would look more resonable).
As I said, all this is one big "what if" discussion. But I would be interested in other optinions.
.
P.S.
Anyway, I would probably play base PtW for some time (often in MP, and a little bit in SP), before I make PtW version of my MOD anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
I found out final stats for PtW Medivial Infantry.
It's 4/2/1/40, needs iron unit
When I asked Firaxians why is it obviously better then Longbowmen, they said that Longbowmen dosn't need Iron.
Still, I'm more happy with cost 30 Longbowmen in this MOD.
When I make PtW version of this MOD, it will probably have same 4/2/1/40 Medivial Infantry.
Also, Guerrila will be 6/6/1, cost 90
Since we made Infantry with attack of 8, this MOD's version Guerilla would probably be 8/6/1/90 (less likely) or 7/6/1/80 (more likely) or 6/6/1/70 (also possibile).
P.S.
By the way, something unrelated to PtW,
What do you think about addiing +100% bonus for Workers in Communism (like it's done in Democracy).
It's worker ideology anyway.
And I don't think it will unbalance anything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
Now, I'll need some FEEDBACK for next version of this MOD.
First, about adding +100% for woker actions in Communism (like in Democracy).
Two resons:
Communism was worker ideology anyway (flavor).
It would make Communism more usefull and more distinctive from Monarchy.
(and more "modern")
Second,
I'm thinking about giving Cossaks defense of 5.
That way they would be more worthy UU, without making them too much powerfull.
(if we assume that Samurai are not owerpowered)
Third,
I've seen that many people prefer Warrior to Swordsmen upgrde tactic.
Since I made Jaguar to Riflemen upgrade, it would not be possbile with Aztecs.
So they got a disadvantage.
But on the other hand, if they have no Horses, when they get Iron, they would be unable to make mobile units. So original solution is bad too.
So, what about upgrdaing them to Horsemen?
If you like playing with Jaguars, you could avoid Horseback Riding (and still build Swordsmen AND Jaguars). At the end, when you get Horseback Riding, you get one nice Jaguar to Horsmen upgrade.
Also, I would consider removing Chariot for build list for Aztecs, since Jaguar has same (or even better) stats. And will also upgrade to Horsemen.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-08-2002 01:18
I could really use some help.
|