Defender Withdrawal

Incredible work, as usual. Always looking forward to your next ideas. ;)
 
hey killmeplease, I'm having some troubles with your killmeRevDCM test mod. I'm playing around with it, taking a break from ACW and whenever I load up and launch I get an unspecified C++ error and when I click on the resource view button it crashes. Clicking other buttons give me python exceptions. I think it is an upload problem though, cause you mention it was 8.1mb and the file I'm downloading says its only 7.7mb so something maybe went wrong with the zip file.

edit: nevermind.. sorry. It was very weird, because I had already started a game as the mongols and successfully played like 50 turns. Then I realized how much I hate playing as the mongols so I started a new game as japan. I then started getting a crap ton of python and unknown c++ errors. I didn't realize at first what happened, but for some crappy reason it created one of those ini.bak files and that messed everything up cause I think it turned custom assets back on and stuff like that (I have bluemarble installed in custom assets and only that). I deleted it and now its working again. Maybe something that needs addressed though cause the average user wouldn't have figured that out.

for what its worth I've did these same exact actions in ACW, which is using the same dll of course you know, and I've had no issues like this. Very strange, it may have been my OS acting up (I have Vista).
 
A question:
Let's say you are attacking a tile with 2 chariots with a spearman of your own. Suppose your spearmen damages the chariot all the way to 10HP at which point it is lucky enough to retreat and during that battle your spearman was injured down to 30HP. The spearman now engages in combat with the second chariot while significantly injured? I think this would be an issue. If you had 2 spears, for example, in the unmodded game you'd never expect to lose a spear out of 2 while attacking 2 chariots, but with this modcomp it would be a very real possibility to lose one.

My fear here is that because in most combats in Civ the victorious unit takes a fair amount of damage (it's not unusual for the victor's expected hitpoints to be below 50) when a withdrawn-from attacker begins attacking the second defender it's almost always going to die.

I see no problem here as it was a common horsemen tactic - decoy an enemy to an abmush. also if foot soldiers tried to flee a battle in disorder they got slaughtered, until tactics and organization of armies evolved and what's called organized retreat became customary. in my military mod to come i plan to represent this by making drill promotions give additional withrawal chanse, and also by commander's promotions providing this for all units of a stack.

I have to agree with PoM. There is a problem.

One of the principle rules about Civ4 combat is that, even in Stacks of Doom, even with collateral damage, it is still a one-to-one fight. It makes sense for a withdrawing unit to hide behind the lines of their allied infantry, but to have another defender take its place is too much. After all, doesn't the attacker have the choice not to pursue? By replacing the defender like that, you're essentially allowing a defender to fight 3:1 against the attacker (even though you limited it to 3 in version 2.0, three to one is still an unfair ratio), while the attacker never has this option. It disbalances the one-to-one nature of Civilization combat.

I wanted to use this mod for... what's the term?... "Vanilla with sprinkles" playing. I don't want drastic changes to the rules, but this feature seemed fair and clever. Except that replacement part.

What's wrong with letting the attacker choose the next unit to send in? Maybe, in the case of a withdrawal, the "One combat per turn" rule doesn't trigger, so the attacker will have the option to pursue anyway?
 
I have to agree with PoM. There is a problem.

One of the principle rules about Civ4 combat is that, even in Stacks of Doom, even with collateral damage, it is still a one-to-one fight. It makes sense for a withdrawing unit to hide behind the lines of their allied infantry, but to have another defender take its place is too much. After all, doesn't the attacker have the choice not to pursue? By replacing the defender like that, you're essentially allowing a defender to fight 3:1 against the attacker (even though you limited it to 3 in version 2.0, three to one is still an unfair ratio), while the attacker never has this option. It disbalances the one-to-one nature of Civilization combat.

I wanted to use this mod for... what's the term?... "Vanilla with sprinkles" playing. I don't want drastic changes to the rules, but this feature seemed fair and clever. Except that replacement part.

What's wrong with letting the attacker choose the next unit to send in? Maybe, in the case of a withdrawal, the "One combat per turn" rule doesn't trigger, so the attacker will have the option to pursue anyway?

I dont know exactly (too much time passed) but maybe i wanted to make things better for attacker. Attacker should kill someone if it's strong enough. If it makes a unit retreat it feels just natural that it attacks the next one rather than returns to his stack. Otherwise there could be a situation when a tank would never be able to destroy a stack of horse archers and those would pose an impregnable barrier to it.

Maybe attack should stop if an attacker loses >50% of initial hp?
I also think it would be better if this rule worked for non-withdrawing defenders as well. It feels wrong when a tank should spend 100 turns to kill a stack of 100 warriors. They are standing compactly, the tank has just to run over them.
 
Top Bottom