From here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=325997)

I already tested it with missile units and the deal is the same: paratrooper units can only enter completely empty cities after the paradrop. IMHO that doesn't make sense at all.

I believe this is a feature and not a bug. Paratroopers also can't attack after their drop, they need to wait for their next turn, so it makes sense they also cannot capture cities until recharging (the next turn).

They can take cities after drop.... they just can't take cities where they can see a unit ( they can take freely a city filled with undetected submarines ), and this means they can't take a city with a worker,a work boat , a missionary or a GP that isn't a great spy inside, that technically is not combat ( as with the ships, the planes and the missiles ... I know, the code calls the combat anyway, but the fact is that in terms of game rules, the paratrooper can only really combat land units in offense ). That is what I think it is a inconsistency, because it relies solely on the fact that there is a unit ( regardless of being one that could actually fight against the paratrooper or not ) that can be seen by the paratrooper ( undetected subs, spies and Great Spies do not stop the paratrooper ).

That is why I never refered to it as bug, but definitely is not intuitive and hardly justifiable, not to mention that this quirk is never mentioned in the manual or in civilopedia ( as usual.... ). Not mentioning that this will port to any unit in a mod that uses the unchanged "drop" function.....

OK, that makes sense.

How do you think it should be standardized? These are the most obvious options in my mind, not sure which makes the most sense.

Disallow Paratroopers from city capture on the turn of the drop.

Disallow Paratroopers from city capture if there is any unit in the city, invisible or not, allow if unoccupied.

Disallow Paratroopers from city catpure only if combat is required, otherwise allow the capture/destruction of all non combat units with city capture.

Like r_rolo1, I also value consistency in a game. This means consistency with capturing cities (undefended should be equal to defended by non-combat units), but also consistency with killing units. So if you can kill non-combat units inside a city, then you should also be able to kill them outside of a city. Based on this I see two rule-options for paratroopers directly after a paradrop:

1) Paratroopers can't kill units even if these units can't defend themselves and can't capture cities after a paradrop even if they're undefended or defended by non-combat units.
2) Paratroopers can kill units that can't defend themselves after a paradrop and can capture undefended cities or cities defended by units that can't defend themselves.

By the way. I also think it's pretty weird that guided missiles can kill battleships but can't kill workers/missionaries/great people etc.

1) Paratroopers can't kill units even if these units can't defend themselves and can't capture cities after a paradrop even if they're undefended or defended by non-combat units.
2) Paratroopers can kill units that can't defend themselves after a paradrop and can capture undefended cities or cities defended by units that can't defend themselves.

Well, I suppose it's up to jdog what he wants to implement (if anything). I agree though, either of those options seems logical.

I would prefer 2), but obviously 1) is easier to implement ;)

Or maybe:

3) Paratroopers after drop can take/destroy non land-combat units, regardless of where they are, if they don't have adequate cover

3) Paratroopers after drop can take/destroy non land-combat units, regardless of where they are, if they don't have adequate cover

What do you mean with adequate cover?

Sorry, wasn't clear... I mean, cover from combat-able land units. It might be a big change though , and the prospect of dropping hordes of paratroopers to grab workers might be too much for the game .....

Sorry, wasn't clear... I mean, cover from combat-able land units. It might be a big change though , and the prospect of dropping hordes of paratroopers to grab workers might be too much for the game .....

Do you mean that you could paradrop on top of non-combat-able land units? If not, I don't quite see the difference with the option 2 I suggested.

The problem might be in the AI. It might not understand that its workers (or even great persons!) aren't safe anymore when inside paratrooper range. The AI should defend these workers but it might not do that.

Yes, I meant that you could drop in top of non-combat units.... ( again not clear enough :hammer2: ). I really can't see the reason why you can't drop on top of a settler, a worker or of a non-GSpy GP, in terms of gameplay..... " No sir, we can't drop there because they say that Archimedes is passing by..." :faint:

Paratroopers are very efficiently stopped by airplanes so I don't really see a problem with paratroopers that can attack non-combat units (after dropping or directly from the air). If the AI can't protect its airspace, then it's in trouble anyhow. Losing a few workers here and there (while the attacker likely loses the paratroopers in the counter attack) is the least of its troubles.

The AI however should learn to protect its vulnerable troops once they don't have air cover and the enemy has paratroopers. So an AI without for instance oil should guard these units. At present that is not the case so a rule change for the paratroopers would hurt it too much. And a civ game without decent competition from the AI is not that much fun however realistic the rules might be.

I would be in favour of option 3 (your option) with some tweaking of the AI (which might be more difficult than we think) or otherwise just option 1: no attacking at all after drop.

1) Paratroopers can't kill units even if these units can't defend themselves and can't capture cities after a paradrop even if they're undefended or defended by non-combat units.

2) Paratroopers can kill units that can't defend themselves after a paradrop and can capture undefended cities or cities defended by units that can't defend themselves.

Well, this is an interesting inconsistency. Basically what happens is that each unit has a boolean flag for whether or not it has attacked already that turn. When paratroopers perform their landing, it eats up their attack for that turn so they can't then attack even non-combat units.

The game, however, does not consider capturing a city with no units in it to be an attack move and so a paratrooper is free to do that. This, I feel, is the inconsistent part. Capturing an undefended city to me is the same kind of action as attacking a non-combat unit.

Here are a couple other uncommon scenarios where this will pop up:

a) A knight attacks an enemy warrior on grassland. The knight wins and moves into the tile, revealing an undefended enemy worker adjacent to the knight's new position. The knight cannot capture the worker.

b) A knight moves to capture an enemy worker on grassland. After capturing, another enemy worker is revealed adjacent to the knight's new position. The knight cannot capture the second worker.

c) A knight attacks an enemy warrior on grassland. The knight wins and moves into the tiles, revealing an undefended enemy city adjacent to the knight's new position. As it stands, the knight can capture the enemy city.

My proposal would be to make it so that a combat unit entering an undefended enemy city is considered an attack move. This would be Roland's first proposal and also make it so that the knight in example (c) cannot take the city. I think this is the most consistent and logical approach.

Implementing Roland's second proposal and allowing paratroopers to attack non-combat units after landing would be more difficult. It would require some special case handling for paratroopers, and would also require the AI be taught to defend non-combat units in the interior of its territory.

Thoughts?

My proposal would be to make it so that a combat unit entering an undefended enemy city is considered an attack move. This would be Roland's first proposal and also make it so that the knight in example (c) cannot take the city. I think this is the most consistent and logical approach.

I'm fine with that.

Implementing Roland's second proposal and allowing paratroopers to attack non-combat units after landing would be more difficult. It would require some special case handling for paratroopers,

If I understood you correctly, then I would have wished for a broader change in this case: attacking a unit that has no combat value is not a combat manoeuvre. I wouldn't have wished for a paratrooper that can attack non-combat units while a knight can't capture a worker if it has already attacked once that turn.

and would also require the AI be taught to defend non-combat units in the interior of its territory.

Thoughts?

Teaching the AI is probably the tricky part. I must say that I would think it would be more interesting to have paratroopers that can attack non-combat units after landing (and knights that can capture 2 workers per turn). But maybe other players would ask:
why can paratroopers attack non-combat units after landing while they can't attack combat units?

In the end, the restrictions to paratroopers have an artificial reason: game balance.

I agree that taking an empty city should be an attack action. Otherwise all similar things should be made non-attacks (including taking a city with sea units, etc), rather than any paratrooper-only change- this inconsistency makes it possible to "find" invisible units if taking an "empty" city actually kills them, and that is something I would like to see disappear, which requires either city taking to always or never be an attack action.

But I think the easiest and most straightforward way to handle it would be making taking an empty city into an attack action. It occurred to me briefly to wonder if the game would then refuse to move an attacker onto the city after killing the last defender (requiring another "attack action" to take that step), but I realized that shouldn't be the case, as you already do sink anchored boats under those circumstances.

Making city taking a attack action would not make that a non blitz unit unable to take a city after killing the last defender? :confused:

That occurred to me and I will defer to someone that can say for sure, but given that right now it "costs an attack action" to take a city that has a navy in it (ie, right now the paratrooper can't do it after a drop), but killing the last defender in a city lets you take the city even if it has a navy. So my assumption is that it won't cause that problem, but I don't know for sure.

That occurred to me and I will defer to someone that can say for sure, but given that right now it "costs an attack action" to take a city that has a navy in it (ie, right now the paratrooper can't do it after a drop), but killing the last defender in a city lets you take the city even if it has a navy. So my assumption is that it won't cause that problem, but I don't know for sure.

I'm also pretty sure that won't be a problem, will find out shortly.

Just to be clear, does this mean that paratroopers can't take a city on their drop turn?

Example; Used Helicopters to destroy every unit in city. Paradrop next to the city. Can't capture the city with that paratrooper? Or is it now conditional on what is left in the city?

If it takes away that paratrooper ability wouldn't that make paratroopers less useful?

Edit:

Rolo got me in the main forum thread on this, but I think it's game philosophy doo doo. Seriously, what useful things CAN paratroopers do now?

Exactly the second option. if there is a non-land military visible unit ( like a worker , a GP ( except a GSpy ), a missionary , a corp exec, a visible sub, planes, missiles and ships other than submarines ) the city is not takeable. Otherwise, the city is takeable ( even if it has 400000 undetected submarines ). The real fun in this is the submarines: if you pass a airship in recon , you can't take the city ( airship makes the submarines visible ), if you don't use the airship you can take the city. Completely unintuitive.

Exactly the second option. if there is a non-land military visible unit ( like a worker , a GP ( except a GSpy ), a missionary , a corp exec, a visible sub, planes, missiles and ships other than submarines ) the city is not takeable. Otherwise, the city is takeable ( even if it has 400000 undetected submarines ). The real fun in this is the submarines: if you pass a airship in recon , you can't take the city ( airship makes the submarines visible ), if you don't use the airship you can take the city. Completely unintuitive.

Completely nuts. The change is penalizing you for employing a basic tactic; Recon.

This is not the change. This is as 3.17 and 3.19 behave without any modifications... AFAIK this is how paratroopers always behaved in BtS :(

This is not the change. This is as 3.17 and 3.19 behave without any modifications

So to get down to it, the change in the Better AI mod did exactly what to the paratroopers?

I feel like I'm going in circles here. Although I don't know if I ever encountered an AI city that had non combat units in it after clearing it out. It could really be a great Role Playing scheme; passive missionary holds back paratroopers.

The change that jdog did was to make the paratroopers always unable to take cities in the turn they drop , for the reasons that himself stated some posts ago. As you can also read, I disagree with his aproach somewhat.....

I pretty much discovered this when trying to take a coastal city that was the city with the enemy AI navy in with gunships and paratroopers ..... but even workboats will stop the paratroopers :p

The change that jdog did was to make the paratroopers always unable to take cities in the turn they drop , for the reasons that himself stated some posts ago. As you can also read, I disagree with his aproach somewhat.....

I pretty much discovered this when trying to take a coastal city that was the city with the enemy AI navy in with gunships and paratroopers ..... but even workboats will stop the paratroopers :p

Gotchya. I was having a 4 PM brain fart here at work. I was having a hard time distinguishing between what was changed: Non combat units blocking paratrooper city capture on paradrop turn vs. the changed rules where paratrooper city capture is blocked completely on the paradrop turn due to attack action mechanics.

Under the change though, how will people use Paratroopers?

By far the quickest way to understand why the changes were made this way is by reading the first 15 or so posts in this thread. It's not that much work. Probably less work than the various posts that you've already made in various threads about the subject.

edit: I guess you've read it now; too late with this post

Under the change though, how will people use Paratroopers?

Mostly in situation where the opponent is inferior. Inferior due to heavy bombing of everything in range of the paratrooper landing spot, inferior due to numbers or inferior due to technological disparity.

You can weaken the enemy up to that point and then use paratroopers to:

-pillage resources on the turn they land
-destroy units on the next turn after landing

In these situations they can be quicker than other units but I think their use is fairly limited. However, their use was also fairly limited in real life.

The real world use where paratroopers would be used to hold key positions for short periods of time until heavy reinforcements would arrive doesn't work and I wouldn't know how to implement it in the game. The 'hold key positions until heavy reinforcements arrive' suggest at least a single turn of holding ground as a single turn is the shortest span of time in civ. And that is an unlikely feat when the enemy hasn't been weakened significantly (by bombing) before that moment and the enemy has access to indestructible (by bombing) railroads. I guess that is one of the limitations of a turn based game that isn't meant as a detailed combat simulation and where turns represent significant amounts of time.

By far the quickest way to understand why the changes were made this way is by reading the first 15 or so posts in this thread. It's not that much work. Probably less work than the various posts that you've already made in various threads about the subject.

edit: I guess you've read it now; too late with this post

:p you're having 1:30 AM crankiness ;)

:p you're having 1:30 AM crankiness ;)

Rereading my post, I can see that it can seem that way, but it wasn't meant that way. I really thought that reading the first part of this thread would be the quickest way to get your the information that you wanted.

Don't like this UP item either. Could we get an option with the alternate behavior (can take city if no land combat units present)?

Alright, so this afternoon I figured out how to do it the other way. The options are:

1) As it was. After capturing one worker, a knight cannot capture another worker, cannot capture a city defended by only a workboat, but can capture an empty city. A paratrooper can capture an empty city after dropping, but is blocked by any unit and cannot capture workers.

2) UP 1.00 style. After capturing a worker, a knight cannot capture additional defenseless units and cannot capture even an empty city. After dropping, a paratrooper cannot capture defenseless units or empty cities.

3) Helicopter blitz style. After capturing a worker, a knight can capture additional defenseless units and cities. After dropping, a paratrooper can capture defenseless units and cities.

Not 1: it's logically inconsistent.

I'd prefer 3 over 2 if the AI can somewhat handle it, if it doesn't hurt the AI too much.

For a human player, it's not simply a good move to land a paratrooper near two workers and capture/kill them both. You're likely to lose your paratrooper in the counter attack unless you took precautions to avoid that. But if you have that much control over the battlefield that you can stop the AI from counter attacking a paratrooper, then the AI has bigger problems than losing 2 workers.

I think option2 is the most logically consitent. Either option you pick someone will be unhappy though.

To quote the Bible: You can please all of the people some of the time, you can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

I have to agree that 2) is more logically consistent with what seems to be the intentions of the original coder. But even then I would prefer 3 ) ( with possibly the option of dropping in top of non-land military units ... c'mon, if the drop is a attack action, why can't I take workers or destroy GP in the drop? What is the logical reason for Archimedes or Zoroaster to stop my paratroopers in the air? ). Good ol'Gameplay vs realism stuff .....

What is the logical reason for Archimedes or Zoroaster to stop my paratroopers in the air?Obviously because Einstein can do it! (http://webcomics.boom-studios.net/2008/07/25/ninja-tales-page-13/)

Sorry, I had to. :blush:

Cheers, LT.

:lol:

But in your link einstein is stopping a person in the air holding it's sword... and that person looks more like a civ IV spy than with a Civ IV paratrooper :D

Sorry, but I had to :blush: :p

Ideally I'd like paras to be able to attack from the air even. 50% attack penalty (same as an amphibious assault), plus the already existing chance of interception on the way in.

They should definitely be able to drop directly on top of non-combat units.

That's moving beyond patch to mod though.

Basic version I could live with. Drop on empty tile. Be allowed to capture non-land or non-combat units and cities on the immediate move.

Yeah, I put #2 into UP 1.00 because it's the most logically consistent ... but #3 would be much more fun and make paratroopers more useful.

I don't think #3 would be too exploitable, at least with the standard paratrooper range of 5. In later era wars the AI keeps its workers away from borders, so you're not going to be able to steal much. The AI won't decide to drop its paratroopers to steal undefended units, but if it does drop them next to undefended workers then it very well might take them. It will drop them next to cities though, and may move in to capture if it's empty.

Well, the new UP has been released with option #3 included, so continuing to talk about it may be beating a dead horse, but my concern with #3 isn't paratrooper abuse, but horse archer/knight abuse. No one used paratroopers enough to really have gotten "used to" the old way they worked, I would argue, but it's really going to take people by surprise when their horse archers can capture two tiles' worth of workers in one turn. While #3 is cool for paratroopers, it feels like a bigger change to the game overall than #2 had been.

But I assume that the coding between them was complex enough that it would be decidedly non-trivial to swap from #3 to #2 in my own install of BBAI? If it's hard I'll just learn to live with it. ;)

Yes, the change so that mobile units can capture multiple tiles of non-combat units in a turn will probably surprise some, but to me it also makes sense. I remember deciding to capture a worker before attacking a unit back in the day and being shocked I couldn't do both.

It's actually a really small, localized change and the source code for both options (and the original even) are included, just one's commented out. Check out CvUnit::canMoveInto, I wrote explanations for which line of code does what.

Awesome, thanks for the pointer. Out of laziness we'll probably just get used to the new way, but in case the people I play with most often complain it's good to know how to switch versions.