 |
|
Gherald
|
|
Say I have a Phalanx fortified in my city, and a settler outside working.
An enemy chariot approaches.
On my next turn I cancel the settler's work and move him into the city (doh).
The chariot then attacks my city and kills the settler, leaving the phalanx unharmed.
WTF?!?!
That is completely ludicrous.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Thue
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 1970 time: 06:29
|
|
The settler has 20 hit point, compared to the the phalanx's 10, so it is quite possible that it had a better chance of winning, which would be the reason that the code choose it. But it would probably have been smarter anyway if it had chosen the phalanx.
The stealth bomber thing sounds like a bug; but how many hit points the the mech inf's have left? If they had very few then the choice of defender would at least have made some sense.
Last edited by Thue on 09-07-2003 at 00:09
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gherald
|
|
Well, coming from a background of Civ 1-3 and all the variants, it would definately have been smarter to choose the Phalanx!
Sheesh, I moved my settler into the city so he would be PROTECTED.
IMO the code should be changed... settlers are definately weaker and more valuable than phalanxes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Thue
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 1970 time: 06:29
|
|
Why do you say a settler is a weaker defender than a phalanx? It doesn't seem obvious to me.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Per
|
|
The Stealth Bomber is actually a very good defender, though a little costly.
The usual way of calculating defense worth is (defense power) * (hit points) * (firepower). The sum total for mech inf is 180, for stealth bomber it is 200. Surprised? The stealth bomber has less defense power and hitpoints, but the extra firepower more than makes up for it!
I remember that once I allowed the AI to build aircraft as city defenders (without regard to build cost), it choose to build stealth bombers. I was like "what the ***", but once I did the numbers, I realized it was not a bug. Later added an adjustment for build cost which made it stop doing that.
As to the settler vs phalanx: They are weighted the same according to the above calculation, but if the phalanx was fortified, it should have been stronger, and it should have been the defender.
(Note that the above calculation is not the one actually used to determine defender, but it is a close approximation.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Per
|
|
You don't get any defense bonus just for being in a city, IIRC. But if you are fortified inside a city, you receive normal fortification bonus. (Note that the 'fortifying' status does not count as 'fortified'. It takes one turn to become fully fortified.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Thue
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 1970 time: 06:29
|
|
Actually begin in a city is the same as begin fortified which is the same as begin fortified in a city. combat.c:493 :
code: if ((pcity || fortified) && is_ground_unittype(def_type)) {
defensepower = (defensepower * 3) / 2;
}
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gherald
|
|
I can't believe some of you are arguing that the settler "is as good a defender as the phalanx, so who cares if it defends first".
Perhaps it is as good as a defender. But its more expensive, costs one population point, and I built it to construct roads and irrigation, not to defend my city!!!
That is why the Phalanx (a military unit) was fortified in my city, and the Settler (a group of civilians) was merely seeking cover.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JJJ
|
|
Seems like the best solution would be, if there's a tie in calculated defense worth, the unit that costs the least defends. Maybe adding something in for Settlers, considering they also cost a population point. if you want to.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|