Dwarves design

why not both?
Might make it too strong.

But how about, at cannons tech, an 8/4 unit, does colleral damage, no direct bombardment ability or city wall bombardment, that can summon a 4 strength fireball unit that does collateral damage (and also can't bombard).
 
or perhaps make the flamecanon have a chance of spawning a fireball after combat? not really flavourful and irrelivent to the miscasts which was the whole reason behind firball like units. i think its would be easyer just to leave it as regularly intended with only fire strength and act like a vanilla canon with combat abilities but no bombard. perhaps ignore terrain defence. (forests will be more of a hinderance than a help in defendign against these. maybe also cause them to explode on death like pyre zombies)
 
i think its would be easyer just to leave it as regularly intended with only fire strength and act like a vanilla canon with combat abilities but no bombard.

This is my preferred outcome. But maybe a combat bonus vs melee units. (Its a pretty short-range weapon I imagine?). There are flamethrower animations out there too, which could eventually get used for its combat.

perhaps ignore terrain defence. (forests will be more of a hinderance than a help in defendign against these. maybe also cause them to explode on death like pyre zombies)

Well... forests are still going to be pretty useful. Its a pain to try to get siege equipment through a thick forest, and it still provides great opportunity for ambushes (particularly of a siege train unit, attacking it while not set up).
And hills are still valuable as a defense, as are marshes (imagine trying to wheel a cannon through marshes with deep ponds everywhere).
And I'd vote against pyre zombie explosion - thats more like an orc war machine than a dwarven one. And Bloodletters of Khorne, of course.
 
Yeah I said randomness is undwarven, it is.
However this is a new technology and still being developed.
They don't like the flamecannon, it's too dangerous and newfangled, but it is good at defence so they use it.

You are right about the scale thing though, it bothers me too sometimes.
I'd rather have a system where there are only armies alllowed on the map and in which the constituent troops work together instead of letting that catapult assault a city on it's own.

I don't like the fireball suggestion as is: flamecannon are short range.
-defend only.
-only fire damage.
collateral? maybe for this I'd accept a ranged spell, but only to a range of 1. No. I reconsidder, defence only. forget collateral.
-requires iron (while cannon requires bronze/copper)?

-make organgun, flamecannon and other mechanical contrivances require a Engineers Guild building(advanced smithing). I know it is taboo nowadays to require buildings, but special rare units should have a reason to be rare.
If a village with a granary can build a tank, we'd all be driving howercraft by now. ;)
 
A flamethrower as.... a defensive weapon???!??
That goes completely against all logic and history. Flamethrowers have only ever been purely offensive weapons. Flamethrowers are primarily used against emplacements; buildings, bunkers, trenches, tunnels, etc.

Particularly if we're making the Organ Gun a defensive only unit a la vanilla machine, we definitely shouldn't do so for the flametank as well.

The Flame tank will be rare by giving it a low national unit cap. We don't need to create new buildings.
 
it is a cannon not a flamethrower! (a warpfire thrower is one)
And not a tank either.

also warhammer has nothing to do with history. or logic.

Please review your 'logic': it has a cloud of steam travelling several miles!
and then scorch whole stacks of units with fire instead of a cold shower.

If this unit is going to be a missile launcher then I vote against including it at all,
give it to the chaos dwarves instead.

I only want to include it because it is in the armybook, not because of gameplay issues.

Ahriman: please read some background information on warhammer before arguing ad nauseum about minor alterations.
 
it is a cannon not a flamethrower!

Cannons are primarily offensive weapons too; for centuries (partiucularly in this kind of time period) they're mostly for reducing city walls, rather than effective field combat. It isn't until the Franco-Prussian war (~1869) that artillery starts become as or more important to other weaponry.

Please review your 'logic': it has a cloud of steam travelling several miles!

Wha...? I have non idea what you're talking about here. If you're talking about the "Fireball"; I personally prefer not to have any such thing, I was simply trying to include something where your desire for a misfire property could be implemented.

Thats what I do here. I make a proposal; someone else comes up with an aspect from the tabletop game or fluff that they want included, I try to come up with a feasible way of implementing that proposal in the civ engine, or advise against it if it isn't worth the extra complexity.

I'd much rather just make it fight in regular combat as a standard combat unit.

Ahriman: please read some background information on warhammer before arguing ad nauseum about minor alterations.

Then please figure out some basic principles of design. Why make the organ gun and flame cannon do the same thing - be defensive weapons that can't attack? Thats boring.
 
though cannons are not that mobile and a non-mobile weapon with a ten foot range is not much use in offense,
unless fighting in tunnels and confined spaces, which dwarves have done historically for the last few centuries.

I agree with your flamethrower vs buildings reasoning completely, just not for this contraption.

I was mistaken about the working of the FC: i figured it was a steam weapon, it uses pressurised tar and oil + fire instead. so the 'steam' remark is invalid.
range is 12" though, while normal cannon can reach 48" and great cannon 60".
for reference a sling can reach 18".

I can live with a sieging ability, but not bombard or ranged attacks.
which the AI doesn't know anyhow. ;)
 
So, do you have any problem with a flame cannon design as an offensive weapon with collateral damage and a bonus vs melee units, and no bombardment or other special abilities?
 
sure, but no bonus vs melee, a cannon is dead in close combat
just ignores all defensive bonusses and good vs flamables. (as it is fire based attack)
 
The bonus vs melee units isn't because its any good vs units 3 feet away. Its because its much more effective against units who have to charge the cannon and get inside its range to hurt it.
A short-range flame cannon will be much less effective against archers, who can shoot the cannon crew from outside its range, or cavalry, who can rapidly close the distance to get into melee range and kill the crew.

And I'm not sure about ignores defensive bonuses; I would think that standing on city walls or in a castle would be a VERY effective defense against a flametank. Just duck down below the rampart, its not like they can burn through the stone.
 
well. he cannon is not a continuous stream, you must realise, it builds up pressue and shoots a stream of flaming gunk at the target in an arc.
so the bonus vs melee might be a bit overpowered.
not completely unreasonable though, but I don't think normal cannon get that bonus.

the cannon can be aimed by tilting up or down the barrel (heh) a rain of sticky tar and burning oil descends in a gout onto the cowering troops behind the rampart. OW!
Maybe not all defensive bonusses should be ignored, let's discuss them on a one on one basis.

*fortify bonus definately, sitting in one place in a hole in the ground or behind wooden stakes is a good way to get hit by a cannon.

*building defensive bonusses - maybe not 100%

gotta go again, familiy gathering. :)
 
not completely unreasonable though, but I don't think normal cannon get that bonus.

Well, a normal cannon has a longer range than everything, so its equally good vs everything. Whereas the flame cannon has a very short range, so is incrementally better vs melee units relative to other units. So it could have a lower base attack strength (maybe 7), but a large bonus vs melee units (say 50%?), say a 90% damage cap; like in vanilla civ, it can't kill units entirely.

The main effect of a melee bonus is to make melee units NOT be the stack defender when attacked by a flame tank.
But I'm not particularly attached to it.

Maybe not all defensive bonusses should be ignored, let's discuss them on a one on one basis.
Is it possible to differentiate between these in the code? If so, I'd definitely support it ignoring fortification bonuses but not city defenses.
 
A flamethrower as.... a defensive weapon???!??
That goes completely against all logic and history. Flamethrowers have only ever been purely offensive weapons. Flamethrowers are primarily used against emplacements; buildings, bunkers, trenches, tunnels, etc.

Particularly if we're making the Organ Gun a defensive only unit a la vanilla machine, we definitely shouldn't do so for the flametank as well.

The Flame tank will be rare by giving it a low national unit cap. We don't need to create new buildings.

http://www.gamesempire.com.au/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=1673

The flamethrower is really short range, and yes historically the organ gun was useful as a defensive weapon as well but the template for the flame cannon is pretty short ranged in WFB. Flamethrowers throughout history have been used as short ranged weapons only. This does not include flame projectors such as greek fire throwers which were really catapults that lobbed pots of flammable material.

IMHO the flame weapons should have a moderate str (i donno maybe 3 or 4), and a large bonus versus non ranged units like cavalry and infantry (maybe even 100%). Against city walls/fortifications, i donno maybe do not let them bombard (does not really make sense due to short range) but a large city attack?

Guess what assaulting the flamethrower with non-long ranged troops should be a bad idea, while defending with archers while it trundles into range should be pay off.

Thats just my opinion.
 
not against fast moving targets.

The targeting really depends alot on where the weapon is facing and the timing is crucial to it not exploding or going >sput<, so trying to hit a fast moving target would entail rotating a hissing, explosive barrel while extrapolating the two variables of firing time and target location.

so melee ok, cavalry not ok.

archers might even get abonus, theiir range is longer than the cannon.
also I think it should be suseptible to fire attacks. (I wish weapons like this could explode when attacked with fire)
 
(I wish weapons like this could explode when attacked with fire)

i still think if the fire canon exploded when it died, damaging all units next to it, it would be the same thing really.
 
i still think if the fire canon exploded when it died, damaging all units next to it, it would be the same thing really.

Well, note quite. The Pyre zombie effect is a valuable bonus; it damages everything in *surrounding* stacks, which will be mostly enemy units, which doesn't make much sense here.

I think you're looking for something that will damage units in your own stack.

The problem is, this really defeats the purpose of the intended use of the weapon. With something like a the flame cannons, high attack, withdraw chance, collateral damage, you want to attack with it first (quite possibly suiciding it) in order to soften up an enemy stack through collateral damage. But if by doing so you just end up weakening your own stack through the explosion, then it was kindof a waste.

So, how about:
Requires cannons tech. Strength 3/1+3 fire (ie total 6/4). Cannot bombard units or city walls. Ignores fortification (ie the 25% bonus units get from not moving). Does not ignore terrain or city walls defenses. +50% strength vs melee units, +25% city attack. 75% withdraw chance. -50% fire resistance.
 
it damages everything in *surrounding* stacks, which will be mostly enemy units, which doesn't make much sense here.

I think you're looking for something that will damage units in your own stack.

why cant we make it damage both?
 
Top Bottom