Should units always do a minimum of 1 damage?
- Thread starter crossmr
- Start date
crossmr
Warlord
You've spent the entire thread trying to make "special cases". You can't have it both ways. At this point you're nothing more than trolling. If you've got nothing else to offer, I suggest you move on.
Before you were talking about keeping around, and specifically promoting units, simply for barbarian hunting duty. This is unnecessary, and unlikely in a normal game. Most people aren't going to be fielding crossbows with modern armor, there is no good reason for this at all. This is very focused special behaviour.
I'm talking about the general damage potential, in any circumstance of an old unit. Even 1 damage is too much, but 2 damage is even worse for an old obsolete unit.
My suggestion basically targets human/barbarian interaction and would likely have absolutely zero effect on player to player interaction.
I was politely trying to point out that YOU were doing that. I have no actual problems with Crossbowmen retaining legitimacy through the Industrial and Modern Eras. That's why I keep them around.
You can't complain that Logistics Artillery and Bombers are "a special case," and then go around saying that the problem is that Logistics Archers are ubiquitous.
You can't complain that Logistics Artillery and Bombers are "a special case," and then go around saying that the problem is that Logistics Archers are ubiquitous.
crossmr
Warlord
You might, but most people aren't. Modern artillery is better, has the same costs, and survives longer.
I was complaining that your plan to deal with a specific situation required heavily upgraded units. There was no general solution to deal with that. If you didn't have those heavily upgraded units you had a much more difficult time dealing with this specific situation. You required either far more heavy investment than you should (in number of units) or you needed a perfect city from which to build the units first in order to get a number of free upgrades, which relied on having a wonder.
That is a special situation.
Simply pointing out that the damage potential for a certain upgrade is far too high in the modern era, in every situation, every battle, is not a special situation.
Simply having the upgrade is not a special case. Requiring the upgrade to appropriately deal with this kind of a situation is a special case.
The fact of the matter is that an obsolete range unit doing 20% damage to any modern unit is far too high, and even 10%, as many have stated in this thread, not just me, is also too high. So with all the people that feel 1 damage is too much, 2 is an even larger problem.
crossmr
Warlord
It's also about strength. 6 strength units vs 80 str units as much as it is about appearance. Damage just shouldn't be happening in that scenario. 10x or more strength difference should be 0 damage.
It doesn't eliminate the damage against destroyers from archers, but it's a start (perhaps an inherent defensive bonus against tiny projectiles..)
Knut_Are_M
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 323
9 archers cost 360..
1 mech costs 375 hammers.
with 1 min damage a tall empire can never compete with a wide empire.
this game has changed from a few super units to massive number of units killing eachother.
building wonders is very hard in any real game because of the exstreme number of units that can be fielded in any era with a wide empire.
Also modern units are not a whole lot more efficient then obsolete units.
Artillery is a game breaker, but that is because of range and uber cheap 3 move scout spotters and workers.
1 mech costs 375 hammers.
with 1 min damage a tall empire can never compete with a wide empire.
this game has changed from a few super units to massive number of units killing eachother.
building wonders is very hard in any real game because of the exstreme number of units that can be fielded in any era with a wide empire.
Also modern units are not a whole lot more efficient then obsolete units.
Artillery is a game breaker, but that is because of range and uber cheap 3 move scout spotters and workers.
Or add an era modifier
Damage adjustment
Units within the same or 1 era apart have no effect
2 eras apart -1
3 eras apart -2
This should solve the issue of ancient/medieval era units having any impact on modern units.
But you could still conceivably have inter-era armies.
I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I don't think we'll be able to satisfy everyone.
The alternative is to add 'defense' or armor values to units, and I'm not sure we'll ever see an overhaul that drastic.
Damage adjustment
Units within the same or 1 era apart have no effect
2 eras apart -1
3 eras apart -2
This should solve the issue of ancient/medieval era units having any impact on modern units.
But you could still conceivably have inter-era armies.
I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I don't think we'll be able to satisfy everyone.
The alternative is to add 'defense' or armor values to units, and I'm not sure we'll ever see an overhaul that drastic.
crossmr
Warlord
I don't think they're actually doing 1 damage, I think it's being rounded up to 1 since 1 is the minimum. So this wouldn't really change anything. The problem is that it seems to be a forced 1 minimum.
TommyVern
Chieftain
to OP, No. Units should not always do at least 1 damage. An archer could never damage a tank, for example.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Tell that to Rambo
crossmr
Warlord
You can't win without science anyway, I can't see this changing how people would produce science at all. Once again: A player who is field archers while his opponent is field GDRs has far bigger problems.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Take down a city? Very difficult. Fully upgraded, probably because you'll have the ability to move after attacking so you can cycle in new ones. However, if you've gotten to that point, you probably deserve the city. They should have built a navy.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
No, because with Triremes you can only have them on the coast, so you can Maybe cycle 5-6 of them... and Archers can work at eliminating them.
Caravels are a slightly different matter. (can probably easily have a dozen cycling)
The fact is, the 1 minimum damage is useful when techs are somewhat close, and it only becomes "bad" in unusual cases
1. Mass low tech ships v. no navy civ.
2. Barb continents.
While I wouldn't be opposed to say "5x strength= 0 damage suffered and 0 experience received" it would be a fairly pointless extra rule.
crossmr
Warlord
If the techs are close you're probably doing more than 1 damage or 1 damage naturally, you don't need the minimum rule to bring it up
That is incorrect. A combination of Great General bonuses, terrain bonuses, promotions, flanking, policy bonuses, and Wonder bonuses could easily boost an attacker's or defender's value up to 5x or more what the opponent's value is. I have had no problems whatsoever reducing tech attack value of a tech-equivalent force to less than what is necessary to do only 1 HP of damage to a fortified defender. That's how I farm XP from CS's or defeated Civs.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think the percentage rule might make sense. If you do less than one damage, take the fraction of damage that would be inflicted and make it a percentage chance of doing one damage. So if your attack would only do .1 damage, you have a 10% chance of inflicting damage. Perhaps, as a compromise, you can cap this fraction damage so you always have at least a 10% chance of causing damage (or maybe 25%). 10 units won't kill an enemy automatically, but it'll at least damage it.
Once your ship get the double attack promo, it can move attack twice and move again.
If the city only has one way for your Triremes, then having 4 with double attack will allow you to attack 7 times the first round.
As long as the city won't kill the boat in one shot you can take it easy.
If you have 7 Triremes, Great Lighthouse and the comerce policy that speed up your ships you can make 13 attacks the first round.
It is not a viable strategy, caravels though are.
Similar threads
- Locked
