So Machine Gun has the strength of a Panzer?

And it's completely impossible for the game designers to change that ratio?

In contrary - this is exactly what they will do.

As I tried to point out elsewhere, it is needed to change the percental damage, which two equaly strong units will do to each other from 50% to, let's say, 30%.
steave435 (and others) just try to explain this fact, as it is obviously not clear for all forum members.

This has *nothing* to do with the total HP change from 10 to 100 or the change of unit strength.

The first has to do with the possibiliy of more gradual damage.
The second is necessary to widen the space for WWI-units (and others).
 
I should have known better than trying to be sarcastic on the internet...

I've argued the same position as you Deggial from the start.
 
And it's completely impossible for the game designers to change that ratio?

It wouldn't be changing the ratio... it is impossible for game designers to change the ratio of a 50 strength to a 40 strength unit by increasing both unit strengths proportionately.

They can change the effect of the strength ratio on damage ratio though.
 
And it's completely impossible for the game designers to change that ratio?

Sounds like you don't know what a ratio is.
It's a representation of how many times larger or smaller one value is compared to the other, so for example, 2 50 strength units would have a ratio of 50:50 (abbreviated to 1:1) . A 50 strength unit VS a 25 strength unit would have 50:25 (abbreviated to 2:1), and a 50 strength unit against a 100 strength unit would have 50:100 (abbreviated to 1:2). Increasing those values by 10 does not change it though, it would just result in 500 VS 500, aka 500:500 aka the same 1:1 as in the 50 VS 50 and 500 VS 250, aka 500:250 aka the same 2:1 as in the 50 VS 25 and 500 VS 1000, aka 1:2 aka the same 1:2 as in the 50 VS 100.
 
I know what a ratio is, I know what a fraction is, and I know how the game code works.
The ratio I meant is the ratio of the relative strength to average damage caused.

WHY IS THIS CAUSING SO MUCH DISCUSSION?!?!?!

Isn't it obvious that it is possible for the game developers to make it so that two units of equal strength can cause 7 damage or 39 or 2 to each other on average??????
 
I recommend that you go back to your post and edit it to stop this absurd nitpicking.

PS: but since I'm here, I'll go ahead and nitpick too:
"The ratio I meant is the ratio of the relative strength to average damage caused."
Since damage dealt isn't proportional to relative strength, talking about a "ratio" isn't really very accurate, is it? You should rather talk about a function ;)
 
I know what a ratio is, I know what a fraction is, and I know how the game code works.
The ratio I meant is the ratio of the relative strength to average damage caused.

WHY IS THIS CAUSING SO MUCH DISCUSSION?!?!?!

Isn't it obvious that it is possible for the game developers to make it so that two units of equal strength can cause 7 damage or 39 or 2 to each other on average??????

Yes, it should be.
However, I responded to a post saying that just changing the unit strengths would be enough, explaining that it wouldn't by saying that it's the unit strength ratio that decides damage, and you responded with "it's impossible to change that ratio?", indicating that you were talking about the unit strength ratio and that you don't agree with my point about changing unit strengths doing nothing when it comes to damage caused. They obviously can't change the unit strength ratio by increasing all strengths by the same amount.
 
I am a first timer on here. I have stalked this site for some time, but very intrigued about the expansion, thus leading me to this post.

I think perhaps we are over-analyzing this a bit. Of course this is part of the fun, but let me throw a couple of ideas around and see what you guys think: I was upset that ranged units got a 2 range to begin with. I would much rather see these ranged units have a range of 1, with the possibility of range of 2 on a hill. The benefit in the first place of a range unit was to be able to cause casualties without being harmed. Moreover, typically ranged units throughout history did not completely wipe out an entire unit, just soften them up for the heavy hitters. Siege units were always used for sieges of city, and not often employed on the battlefield. Of course, once the cannon came into existence, it's versatility changed warfare as it could do both (which Napoleon mastered).
To add to this, I would like the range units to get the promotion that some mounted units get: the ability to move after attacking. This would enable a range unit (even though it only has 1 hex for range) the ability to hit and then run behind the line, where then a melee can switch with the unit and hit the enemy as well.

I also like specifically for the MG to have to set up before an attack, still with the range of 1. This would keep the unit from being offensive, which it never was.

Furthermore, am I the only one who wants to see the city range attack disappear? It is silly, and not fun when a single archer and the city defenses can defend an entire army invasion. I would substitute the city attack with a stronger city natural defense. This would also force a more strategic defense, thus making the game more fun. As much as I griped about the "stacks of doom" Those battles were much more epic and memorable than the conflicts in ciV seemed to be.

Thoughts and comments?
 
I am a first timer on here. I have stalked this site for some time, but very intrigued about the expansion, thus leading me to this post.

I think perhaps we are over-analyzing this a bit. Of course this is part of the fun, but let me throw a couple of ideas around and see what you guys think: I was upset that ranged units got a 2 range to begin with. I would much rather see these ranged units have a range of 1, with the possibility of range of 2 on a hill. The benefit in the first place of a range unit was to be able to cause casualties without being harmed. Moreover, typically ranged units throughout history did not completely wipe out an entire unit, just soften them up for the heavy hitters. Siege units were always used for sieges of city, and not often employed on the battlefield. Of course, once the cannon came into existence, it's versatility changed warfare as it could do both (which Napoleon mastered).
To add to this, I would like the range units to get the promotion that some mounted units get: the ability to move after attacking. This would enable a range unit (even though it only has 1 hex for range) the ability to hit and then run behind the line, where then a melee can switch with the unit and hit the enemy as well.

I also like specifically for the MG to have to set up before an attack, still with the range of 1. This would keep the unit from being offensive, which it never was.

Furthermore, am I the only one who wants to see the city range attack disappear? It is silly, and not fun when a single archer and the city defenses can defend an entire army invasion. I would substitute the city attack with a stronger city natural defense. This would also force a more strategic defense, thus making the game more fun. As much as I griped about the "stacks of doom" Those battles were much more epic and memorable than the conflicts in ciV seemed to be.

Thoughts and comments?

I can easily agree with you with no ranged attacks for cities.

But all units 1 range? It totally takes away the idea to defend your ranged units. You will only be able to attack and retreat when the enemy is attacking you, which you should never want to happen to ranged units. I really don't see how this would work out on the battlefield in a good way.
 
I can easily agree with you with no ranged attacks for cities.

But all units 1 range? It totally takes away the idea to defend your ranged units. You will only be able to attack and retreat when the enemy is attacking you, which you should never want to happen to ranged units. I really don't see how this would work out on the battlefield in a good way.

Well, that's why I said when a range is on a hill it should get an additional range. I understand what you are saying, but also I would argue as it is now with the range being 2, 2 or 3 crossbow can easily defeat an infantry. Clearly there needs to be a middle-ground here.

One follow up thought: Maybe the MG special ability should be that it can attack multiple times per turn?
 
Well, that's why I said when a range is on a hill it should get an additional range. I understand what you are saying, but also I would argue as it is now with the range being 2, 2 or 3 crossbow can easily defeat an infantry. Clearly there needs to be a middle-ground here.

One follow up thought: Maybe the MG special ability should be that it can attack multiple times per turn?

Hmmm... it would make ranged units very terrain depending but I suppose it could work. Still, I don't see how it's better.
 
Well, that's why I said when a range is on a hill it should get an additional range. I understand what you are saying, but also I would argue as it is now with the range being 2, 2 or 3 crossbow can easily defeat an infantry. Clearly there needs to be a middle-ground here.

One follow up thought: Maybe the MG special ability should be that it can attack multiple times per turn?

Well part of the crossbow v. Infantry problem is the 1 minimum damage.

With Hp changing to 100 max, 1 hp minimum damage will be negligble
 
Furthermore, am I the only one who wants to see the city range attack disappear? It is silly, and not fun when a single archer and the city defenses can defend an entire army invasion. I would substitute the city attack with a stronger city natural defense. This would also force a more strategic defense, thus making the game more fun. As much as I griped about the "stacks of doom" Those battles were much more epic and memorable than the conflicts in ciV seemed to be.

You don't want an enemy army just camping outside of your army, so that's why city attack is in: the army does whatever it came to do (usually invade the city), then leaves, instead of simply waiting until whatever happens.

There are ways around it, but it's better than no "exhaustion" mechanic.
 
Well, that's why I said when a range is on a hill it should get an additional range. I understand what you are saying, but also I would argue as it is now with the range being 2, 2 or 3 crossbow can easily defeat an infantry. Clearly there needs to be a middle-ground here.

One follow up thought: Maybe the MG special ability should be that it can attack multiple times per turn?

Hills already provide a way to shoot over another hill, and you have defensive modifiers. So there is already an advantage. Increasing the range would make terrain have too much impact.

The 'special ability' of a Machine Gun is the ability to be good on offense and defense (as indicated by the equal combat and ranged strength). And that needs to have some balancing, otherwise it would be overpowering, so that is the basis of the Range 1 speculation (and ofcourse, range 1 stimulates the use as a frontline unit, instead of protecting it by a strong melee unit as other ranged units)
 
Hills already provide a way to shoot over another hill, and you have defensive modifiers. So there is already an advantage. Increasing the range would make terrain have too much impact.

The 'special ability' of a Machine Gun is the ability to be good on offense and defense (as indicated by the equal combat and ranged strength). And that needs to have some balancing, otherwise it would be overpowering, so that is the basis of the Range 1 speculation (and ofcourse, range 1 stimulates the use as a frontline unit, instead of protecting it by a strong melee unit as other ranged units)

I doubt this actually, my guess is that the machine gun wil not be able to use it's melee attack (like all ranged units). My guess is that it will be more of an area-control unit, and thus defensive. After all, is has strong defense (melee strength) and the ability to inflict high damage on all units coming into adjacent hexes. It would both be logical for historical as gameplay reasons if the machinegun works this way.

So it can only work as a frontline unit if you're on the defensive (it will excell at this). It can also follow your offensive army where it will help in blocking flanking- and counterattacks.

Still all speculation ofcourse.
 
Hills already provide a way to shoot over another hill, and you have defensive modifiers. So there is already an advantage. Increasing the range would make terrain have too much impact.

The 'special ability' of a Machine Gun is the ability to be good on offense and defense (as indicated by the equal combat and ranged strength). And that needs to have some balancing, otherwise it would be overpowering, so that is the basis of the Range 1 speculation (and ofcourse, range 1 stimulates the use as a frontline unit, instead of protecting it by a strong melee unit as other ranged units)

Actually I disagree...I want terrain to have much much much more of an impact than it does now. As of now it simply is either rough or open. That is lame. Terrain is vital to any war and needs to be empathized much more than it is now. It will make hills crucial to success...like gettysburg or Waterloo.
 
You don't want an enemy army just camping outside of your army, so that's why city attack is in: the army does whatever it came to do (usually invade the city), then leaves, instead of simply waiting until whatever happen
There are ways around it, but it's better than no "exhaustion" mechanic.

Actually...yes I do want them hanging out around my city...it would then be a real seige...unlike now. Seiges historically took months and years...so whatever fireaxis needs to do to do that I am all for
 
Actually...yes I do want them hanging out around my city...it would then be a real seige...unlike now. Seiges historically took months and years...so whatever fireaxis needs to do to do that I am all for

Soooo...Sieges should end in less then half a turn then? ;)
 
Top Bottom