 |
| |
|
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
I don't know if this has been discussed before (I'm just a settler after all), but has anyone questioned the logic of the large differences in attack and defense values? Now I know that a longbowman probably wouldn't have much armor and as such might, in some cases, fare poorly against a charge by knights. But having such a large difference in A/D values means that two otherwise identical longbowman units will have very different chances of winning, depending if they are attacking or defending. According to the combat calculator page that someone set up, the attacker will win 92% of the time on flat terrain.
That's a huge difference and it doesn't make sense. They should have more or less equal chances of winning and I don't understand why the game designers have clung to this flawed system since Civ I. To my mind, a primarily offensive unit's defense is its offense--meaning that if a cavalry charges another cavalry, you are going to get a cavalry charge in return and equal forces should have an equal chance of winning. This is especially true for air and sea units. Why should one frigate get smoked by another frigate just because it wasn't his turn to move?
Since I have been extensively modifying the game with the editor, I have decided to do away with this system by giving primarily offensive units equal A/D values. For defensive units, I think the stock system applies because there are special weapons, tactics and other inherent properties which can make a unit considerably better in defense than offense. Spearmen and pikemen would use their long weapons and rigid formations for an attacker to impale himself upon, and the incredibly bloody American Civil War and WWI proved that charging riflemen were sitting ducks for other riflemen covered by trenches or fortifications.
One thing that I'm still mulling over is what to do with the fortificacation bonus (not fortress). My original idea was to uncheck the fortify box in the unit properties for offensive units to partially offset the large increase in defensive value caused by equalizing A/D. This makes a lot of sense to me, because if we assume that an offensive unit's defense is its offense, then fortifying such a unit is somewhat of a contradiction. Unfortunately, play testing showed some flaws with this system. For one thing, if you can't fortify, then you also can not go on sentry, an undocumented feature of the game engine (thanks Firaxis). This means that offensive units that you wish to remain stationary have no way of being frozen in place so that you don't have to deal with them every turn. There are also ways to circumvent no fortify flag by using the pop-up menu and choosing fortify all for a group of two or more units. You can do this even if all of the unit types in the group have the fortify box unchecked. And finally, the AI never has a problem fortifying units, even single units of a type with the fortify box unchecked.
I believe what I will do then is set the fortify bonus to zero and increase defensive unit's defense by 50% so that in effect, we assume that they are always fortified at the end of their turn. I know that the normal fortify bonus is 25%, but I think 50% is reasonable and realistic and it makes defensive units more attractive since I made offensive units more powerful in defense. I have also already made changes to the defensive values of cities and terrain. I have given a 25% bonus to units inside towns, but reduced the bonus for a metropolis to 75%. I have removed the defensive bunus for flat terrain types, increased jungle bunus to 50% and I will probably reduce the hill and mountain bunuses to 25% and 50%. But all of this is subject to change if it turns out for example that it is too difficult to take over enemy cities.
The mod is still in progress and contains numerous other changes to many aspects of the game accessible from the editor, some of which were inspired by the AU mod and the Balancer mod. Another basic thing I have tried to do is set the cost of units to be equal to their combat value. Powerful units like tanks are even more powerful with equal A/D, but they become very expensive if you price them according to their ability. I believe I will call this the Equalizer mod and if anyone is interested, I can make it available for others to try out. Many hours of work have went into it so far, although som aspects have not been thoroughly play tested yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MiloMilo
|
|
If you equalize A/D values for offensive units, they'll become too good on defense: if I have 4/4 knights and 1/3 pikemen, why would I ever use pikemen, for anything? The whole point of defensive units is that they should be better on defense. But, if to reflect this I make pikemen 1/5, cities will be nearly unassailable, because the defenders will be better than any attackers. Catch my drift?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MiloMilo
If you equalize A/D values for offensive units, they'll become too good on defense: if I have 4/4 knights and 1/3 pikemen, why would I ever use pikemen, for anything? The whole point of defensive units is that they should be better on defense. But, if to reflect this I make pikemen 1/5, cities will be nearly unassailable, because the defenders will be better than any attackers. Catch my drift? |
But knights are as good on defense as pikemen anyway. Pikemen are cheap defense and that is their niche. But you must not have read my whole post, which I admit was long-winded. I do intend to increase the defense value of pikemen (but I was thinking to maybe make it 2/4), but at the same time I intend to do away with the fortify bonus, so that in effect the fortify bonus is built into the defense value for defensive units. And don't forget, a lot of the reason why cities are hard to take is because of the hefty city and terrain defensive bunuses. I think that many of these bunuses could be better thought out as well, but that is more or less another topic. Defensive units would still be as good or better on defense and cheaper to build, which isn't very much different than it is now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bobbo008
how do you edit/save on Play the World? |
PTW has pretty much the same basic editor as the latest vanilla Civ III patch with a few additions. AFAIK, you can't edit saved games with the PTW editor, if that is what you are asking. You need a fan maded save game editor for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
If you change the ADM values like this, there will be an end to combined arms. Why take a 1/2 spearman with a stack of 2/2 archers? |
Ah, but I intend to make spearmen 1/3 and set the fortify bonus to zero. Archers will still be safer with spearmen in the mix.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
What seems to get people worked up is that the names given to various units don't correspond with the stats. Longbowman is perhaps the most glaring example since historically english longbowmen were good at both attack and defense.
The point of the Longbowman is to give a unit with decent attack which can be built without strategic resources in the Medieval era for anyone, AI or human, unlucky enough not to have iron or horses.
Don't get hung up on the name, it is really about play balance.
Incidentally, I agree that the Industrial and especially Modern era units are ludicrously underpriced and mod their shield costs upwards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
I think the combat system is too limited and too simplistic. I was surprized when I bought Civ III how little had changed. I thought I would get more, but instead I got more of the same. Sure they cleaned up a few things from Civ II, but it is basically the same game we have always played. I don't think anyone would mind if they added a few more variables to the combat system to make it more believable. Anyone remember the original Panzer General? That was a simple game with believable combat that didn't have to resort to giving units wacky stats in the name of game balance.
But anyway, what I am doing is trying to bring about a better combat situation in spite of the limited tools available with Civ III. I think the equal A/D mod is a winner if there isn't some sort of show stopping problem with it, for example wierd AI behavior or whatever. But I actually think the AI will benefit most from it because a human player will always be better at exploiting the unequal A/D situation by stopping his units out of the range of AI units and letting the AI units come into his attack range. Moreover, the AI isn't smart enough to use combined arms effectively to guard units with poor defense ratings, or at least I have yet to see it. I really believe that it will result in a greater challenge for the player with fewer chances to chump the computer.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
Sure these are great ideas. Now we just need to know why Firaxis didn't implement more of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SuperSlinky
But knights are as good on defense as pikemen anyway. Pikemen are cheap defense and that is their niche. |
That is not accurate from an historical perspective. Pikes were specifically designed to stop the charge of Heavy Cavalry (Knights), which was dominating the battlefield of the Middle Ages. Due to their special training, Pike units cannot be flanked.
The basic concept (in a turn based strategy game) is that the attacker has the battlefield initiative. Archers are not good when outflanked, especially by mounted units, so they can be overrun by Horsemen (the Horsemen can cross the field of battle before the Archers can attack). On the otherhand, Archers are good against slowly advancing ground troops (as the attackers advance, the Archer gets the first hit). Finally, Horsemen are stopped by foot soldiers (due to their ability to prepare the battlefield to repulse the attack).
Horse beat Archers
Archers beat Foot
Foot beat Horse
(The historical exception were Knights, which like other mounted units, could outrun Archers; and due to their armor could outflank and outfight Foot, often shattering any defensive line with their ferocious attack. Fast and strong, they were also excellent as pillaging units. Checked by the advent of Pike, the Reign of Knights ended with the dissemination of Gunpowder technology.)
Civ3 uses a simple, but elegant, game mechanic suitable for a turn-based game. As usual, combined-arms work best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
swagled
|
|
AI is pretty stupid to send out crowds of longbowmen without defensive protection. It's so easy to pick these guys off before they reach a city.
When longbowmen are available, I tend to just keep using horsemen or mounted warriors (assuming I can't build knights) because they are faster, even though they don't attack as well. If a city seige fails, at least mounteds can get a few squares away in retreat.
Living to fight again can be more important than attacking firepower.
Last edited by swagled on 22-12-2002 at 23:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
This means you will have to change every defensive units values to balance, but you still will have super units such as MA. |
Yes, that is the plan. But there aren't really that many defensive units. There are spearmen, pikemen, musketmen, reflemen, marines, paratroopers, infantry, and mech infantry, plus the special forces unit I made from the guerrilla unit supplied with PTW. The rest are attack units and will have equal A/D. I agree that MA is a super unit and the only really good defense against it is MI, whose defense I will boost to the 24-27 range. With city combat bonuses even MA will have to take some casualties to dislodge them. But that really isn't any different than the stock game. The big difference will be that you won't be able to sucker punch a MA unit with a cheaper unit (tank for example) just because the MA is on defense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
The basic concept (in a turn based strategy game) is that the attacker has the battlefield initiative. Archers are not good when outflanked, especially by mounted units, so they can be overrun by Horsemen (the Horsemen can cross the field of battle before the Archers can attack). On the otherhand, Archers are good against slowly advancing ground troops (as the attackers advance, the Archer gets the first hit). Finally, Horsemen are stopped by foot soldiers (due to their ability to prepare the battlefield to repulse the attack).
Civ3 uses a simple, but elegant, game mechanic suitable for a turn-based game. As usual, combined-arms work best. |
That's a good explanation for the stock system, but I just think that, overall, the equal A/D idea makes more sense. Part of the problem is the utter simplicity of the combat engine. If there was a variable for surprize or otherwise general unpreparedness, or differing combat values depending on what particular units were fighting, I for one would welcome them. But the game designers have stuck with a bare-bones system since Civ I and I can't really blame them. A lot of people would probably be turned off by a system with a steep learning curve and Civ is accessible to anyone with a little practice.
The problem with such a simple system is that experienced players begin to see some very serious shortcomings after a while. For example, why are pikemen still the best defenders of their time behind city walls? Their formations and horse stopping abilities wouldn't help much in that case. I would think that behind city walls, bowmen and a more general purpose type of unit like swordsmen would be best. And knights wouldn't be much use attacking city walls or bowmen on rooftops. I just think that equal A/D fixes more than it breaks given the simplicity of the system. As I see it, the advantages of equal A/D are mainly:
1) It reduces micromanagement by a huge amount by freeing the player from worrying about whether he will be the attacker or defender when an enemy is nearby.
2) Obviously, it eliminates the disproportionate advantage of offensive units attacking an identical enemy unit. This equality seems much more appealing to me than assuming that the defender is always somehow caught with their pants down. Actual gameplay won't be affected by a huge amount because one or the other unit is still going to win in the same amount of time. The odds just won't be heavily weighted toward one or the other.
3) It gives a big boost to the AI because it is always going to lose to a sharp human player in the micromanagement department described in #1. It may seem that combined arms suffers with equal A/D, but defending units will still be better defenders for the human player who wants to bring them along on their offensives, and this is another area where the AI can't compete with a human brain.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-12-2002 17:06
|