 |
|
Ewald
|
|
Rejected! The additional point in defense doesn't justify a 60% increase in cost compared to the iroqois mounted warrior. What's wrong in giving a militaristic civ a strong and affordable UU? I see no point in weakening UU of militaristic civs because of higher promotion and retreat probabilities. It is consensus among players that the military trait is fairly weak. Why punishing militaristic civs even further?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
Militaristic trait is not weak.
(cheap barracks are key victory)
Anyway, the weak point of Mounted Warrior is that while powerful at attack, it is vulnerable at defense.
Good group of enemy horsemen can keep them in check.
Now, same thing can't be done against Galic Swordsmen.
I've played same games with Celts and read about some other test games, and thing that I can say is that if enemy has no Iron, you'll certainly win, even with 50 cost Galic.
Now if they have Iron, things will be a little bit tougher, but since you'll activate your GA and start pumping Galic Swordsmen quickly, you'll still get good benefits.
So, we have a unit that is regarded as balanced by many people and also regarded as underpowered by other group of people.
Since, with such division of opinions, real conclusion can't be made, I'll probably keep them with 50 shields, since this is conservative mod (feel free to change personal versions of you MOD if you don't agree).
.
Now, some other things.
Someone pointed out at AU thread, that 50 cost Keshik can becomes too much powerful, since he'll be +40% more cost effective at attack, and barely, 6.7% less effective at defense then Knight. Now these benefits alone would make a good UU, without need of further boosts, like better movement at Mountains and Hills.
But since such change (removing mountain movement) would remove some Keshik flavor, maybe something else need to be done.
What about giving them defense of 3, with price of 60?
Or about giving them blitz attack with original cost of 60 instead?
(blitz is in flavor with quick rushes with mounted archers)
Also, one thing with the Elephants.
How would they work, if I remove movement bonus in Jungles and reduce cost to 60 shields?
(like in Beta Tester MOD)
Is it out of flavor (Elephants are supposed to be expensive), or out of balance?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ewald
|
|
For me "Blitz" just doesn't seem historically correct for middle age units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ewald
|
|
Yes, but only if attacking the same opponent multiple times.
Don't you think Keshiks become too expensive this way? IMHO Mongols should have cheap units (mass attack).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
Version 1.22 is OUT!
Comments to changes in v1.22
Foot Unit flag added to Scout, Explorer, Leader and King units, in order to make them transferable by helicopters. Since these units already got Airlift ability before, there is no good reason to prevent their transport by helicopters (it even makes some interesting strategies for king units).
Galic Swordsmen cost is changed back to 50 shields. Some testing showed that last cost reduction was not really needed.
I realized that cost of 50 shields for Keshik from last version of MOD was too much. So I tried a different approach in boosting Keshik. It will get original price of 60, but also a blitz ability (can attack multiple times in single turn). It goes well with flavor of "mounted archers" (attack, withdraw, attack). Also, Keshik is probably a unit that benefits the least from blitz (it's difficult to blitz Pikemen, and due to low Keshik defense they are easy to be counterattacked).
Note: Since BIX format is same for both 1.14f and 1.21f PtW patch, you could use this MOD with 1.14f patch too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ewald
|
|
Question: Do you plan to do something about airfields, player 1?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ewald
|
|
Citation from Crackers PTW-Review on Civ-fanatics:
No technical review of this feature could begin with any other description other than a totally illogical, unbalancing, and disruptive feature of game play that favors the human player over all the computer rivals in the game. A captured slave worker with virtually no cost can build an improvement that used to cost 160 shields (80 if militaristic). Plus the airports in towns had a maintenance cost of 2 units of gold per turn and produced 1 unit or pollution per turn whereas the airfields have no maintenance costs and produce no pollution.
The default implementation allows airfields to be built in mountains where it was impossible to build cities and airports in the past. There is no minimum spacing requirements for airfields and you can build them solid across a patch of desert build railroads up to this “transporter pad” that will let you move massive groups of military units around the map instantly with virtually no cost.
It is hard to be kind in the assessment of this added feature. The airfield does not seem to have a balance of cost, benefit, and function that fall into line with the expected strategic choices and planning that a strategy game player might be expected to make. With this feature in the games, any game play events beyond the discovery of Flight become little more than pure farce when human players have access to exploit the bugs and flaws in this implementation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
Of course, he forgot to mention, that in place were you built airfiled, you can't build Mine, or Irrigration.
And, that normally, for best utility of territory, human players should have 3 tiles city spacing, which leaves not too much room for many airfileds.
So, I won't say that it's completly unbalanced, as he claimes.
(and you can't do to much by moding exept some drastic changes like removing them from the game)
P.S.
And city Airports still make Veteran, planes, crucial when attacking enemy cities defended with interceptors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ewald
|
|
Actually Mines and Irrigation can be used in connection with airfields.
Cracker continues to state:
"Airfields cause the base terrain improvements or irrigation and mines to be replaced. The terrain improvement replacement behavior is hard coded internally within the software and cannot be configured in the editor. You can then reinstall the irrigation and mines underneath the Airfield and the Airfield will continue to function, plus you will get the benefits of the extra terrain improvement."
It is possible to do something about airfields by modding. For example in the current GOTM - Carthage (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/games/g...start_PTW.shtml) the worker turns needed to construct one are changed to 288 turns. This effectively sets the time required for an individual worker to build an airfield at three times the number of turns required for the same worker to clear the jungle from a terrain square in the early game. Airfields are also restricted to only being built on Desert, Plains, Grassland, and Tundra. You may stack workers in crews to build airfields in less elapsed time but the first worker will still die in a construction accident when the Airfield is completed. (BTW: Radar Towers have also been changed. The base worker task turns required to build Radar Towers have been increased from 1 up to 48. This effectively sets the time required for an individual worker to build a Radar Tower at eight turns in the modern age. You may stack workers in crews to build Radar Towers in less elapsed time but the first worker will still die in a construction accident when the Radar Tower is completed.)
I like your mod very much player 1 and I would love to see these changes implemented to make SP games in PTW more balanced and challenging.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2003 22:36
|