As nearly all my posts are rants, I dont believe I need a warning. Just keep it in mind if I sound a little too offensive.
RRnut-
It requires artillery to assuredly win battles on open ground. And that is something I absolutely want to avoid. I really want to nail this hard. I want, absolutely, to avoid having to use artillery to get a kill ratio of 1 to 2. Basically, kill ratios of 1 to 2 are essential (IMHO) on emperor, 1 to 3 on demigod, or 1 to 4 on deity. Please!!!! make deity winnable without field battles requiring major artillery support!
Not sure I understand you. You are going to have to elaborate what you mean by kill ratio. Do you want a swordsman to be able to kill 4 spearman on Deity? Do you want 1 spearman to be able to kill 4 swordsman on Deity?
I also do not understand what you mean by regular battles on open land being harder than normal game (see reply to embryodead). And as far as artillery goes, who said anything about artillery?
RRnut-
Have just lost a long drawn out deity offensive with a C3C foe getting way to far ahead. Hence the rant. Am way to tired of artillery
My original intention was to have absolutely no artillery available, except for some late age siege for Mordor. You were the one who campaigned for it in your unit lines. I have no desire to have artillery.
RRnut-
Want to avoid major use of artillery in field battles. All my unit lines have been planned around this. I don't have the ability to comment of the unrealisticity of artillery in a ME universe tonight, but I'm sure that sometime I can.
LoL, youre a strange person!
Any type of artillery was absent in mrtn and my unit lines and the concept of ME artillery (outside of late age mordor) didnt show up till you posted your lines.
I would drop siege in a New York second, and then dance all over its carcass!
I never liked the idea of artillery in game. If we do add artillery, then it will help take _CITIES_ not open field battles. As there is nothing different from the stats I posted and that of regular civ 3.
Spearman 2
Swordsman 3
10 point shield difference
Pikeman 3
Knight 4
(knight can run, but huge shield [40]difference)
Musketman 4
Knight 4
(knight can run, [10] shield difference)
Rifleman 6
Cavalry 6
(equal shields, no resource for rifleman)
The offender and defender in the last two unit comparisons are equal in shields. _However_ in the last two in our game, the offender costs 20 more _but_ has 2 more attack. Whats the big deal here? Am I missing something, or are you guys not making any sense whatsoever?
RRnut-
As far as easterlings being mongols, sounds fine, as we have a decent number of units that work for those civs. However, they were IMHO a far more infantry centric civ then those were. Was why I included persians and russians. So basically we have an infantry centric middle to north but not extremely far eastern civ? Ok, so no real world representation. sounds good
I agree.
embryodead-
I have to agree this time with RRNut - you can't really make artillery essential to win battles, simply because the AI can't use it. For some reason, PCH tries to force more and more powerful defense (from increased improvements/fortresses boni, to stats), but for the gameplay's sake, it's no good. PCH, you already raised the defense bonuses, and now you lower the attacker/defender ratio to 5/4??
_________
-edit, deleted rant
_________
Aside from that: Civ3 never had a 5/3 or a 5/2 ratio to begin with. In fact ratios were the very last thing in my mind when making the unit stats up. Explain to me how the ratio is implemented in civ3, and then I might understand.
We cant use the 5/3 ratio:
top attacker\top defender
ERA1: - 3\2
ERA2: - (4\3) or (5\3) or (6\4)
ERA3: - 9\6
ERA4: - 12\8
Nor could we use a 4/3 ratio:
top attack\top defense
ERA1: - 4\3
ERA2: - 8\6
ERA3: - 11\8
ERA4: - 13\10
5/3 makes us go out of our way for no reason whatsoever and allows little room for early adjustment between races. 4/3 has too big of differences for later game. The top offender of era 4 would be 13, while the top defense of a backwards civ would only be 8.
That is way unbalancing.
Why should we follow a ratio?
If that is what you mean, then simply post it, so we can decide without having to do any cruel math.
The Civ3
we are able to edit has no mathematical solution, and in few places has it followed any specific path such as ratios.
I didnt remove any unit stat ratio, because no civ3 unit ratio existed.
embryodead- And if I get the usual argument that you should need a lot of units to siege a city - sure, but this way the best way to win will be simply don't attack, just see the AI kill off all his forces on you, then siege whats left with the support of catapults
I have better ways to spend my time! The only thing altered in there that matters is increasing the fortify bonus by a whole 5 points
!
And if you look at the terrain stats, the only raise in any defense bonus came from you! You wanted forest DFB higher, just as you accepted DFB fortresses higher. I agreed, of course.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1380944#post1380944