Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
A much underdiscussed subject throughout the development of this mod, when I returned to pick up the new v17, I noticed some neat new considerations and metrics in play here. I presume we've been talking more about this subject but I haven't scoured the ideas discussion thread enough to see where. So I figured we need a place to discuss just these issues.
And, of course, I have some feedback to what we currently have done so far.
Ok, so the main change I can see is that we aren't just measuring cultural % defense anymore. That's a very good thing. We also now have damage being dished out to adjacent troops by some defenses, starting with pit traps and with a march of steadily improving versions. Ironically, these tend to reduce percentage defense but dish out hell at adjacent stacks.
My first impression was, wow that's ultimate cool right there!
But that was in the early stages of the game. There are everbuilding problems with this concept as things go on.
On one hand, its really cool to have more worries than just the city defenses. So we need to make sure we continue to think like that as we evaluate this.
But here are the problems I'm seeing:
Lets start with the fact that the damage is based on %. This means that to make a building on this chain better than the last is to increase the % (there's few other ways to make it significantly improved at the moment.) Sure we can reduce unhealth penalties and so on but primarily the benefit should greatly increase, right? So we are compelled to increase the %.
Now this becomes extremely problematic when you get further and further into the game because the gap between a healthy troop standing next to the city and what they will be the round after they take this hit becomes so extreme that it makes it impossible, outright impossible, to even conceive of taking a city with an army that has a move speed of 1.
Around the time we're working with numbers like power 20 and above and are being reduced by more than 50%, even unpromoted defenders can easily fend off the most highly promoted attackers if those attackers are incapable of greater mobility than 1 space.
This, sadly, outdates the concept of melee city attackers altogether really. It forces us to rely now on mv 2 or more troops or to just throw massive amounts of fodder troops against cities that cannot be surrounded nor approached quickly enough to attack in the same round (aka surrounded by hills and no roads for commandos etc.)
Usually troops with this movement are not granted the strength reserved for the slower units, making cities directly counteract all benefits granted to the slower, more powerful units. Now we must have a city attack force of terrain ignoring horses, city attack hunters, urban combat balloons and helicopters (cool new units balloons btw...) etc. The troops once used to allow us to surround the city and take out stragglers in the field have now become the core troops for attacking the city.
Alternatively, one can now see the headquarters for Confusionism as being the single most important building in the game due to the extra movement it infuses your troops with. ONLY with that building can we create a truly effective army now.
I liked having to figure out what it would take to get around this new challenge. But now that I have, I'm not sure I like how it hedges us into those solutions.
Additionally, I'm thinking we can take this defensive concept and just improve on its design and function to the point that it matches strategic game theory to real-world effect better while improving on the gameplay overall.
Some of this would fall into C++ territory that I, myself, am unfamiliar with but if your listening AIAndy and Koshling (an absolute dreamteam you two have been btw), take note of the following suggestion:
Pit traps and such shouldn't do a flat amount of % damage to all troops adjacent to the city. Its just too oversimplified imo. If I marched an army up to an opponent city, I would expect SOME of the defenses to cripple SOME of my forces, but certainly not in any kind of unilateral easily predicted manner as it currently is.
I suggest, therefore, that every round that a unit is in hostile territory, within the worked city radius (not just right next to the city), that each invading troop has its own chance of running afoul of the defenses and that the effect of the defenses be randomized between a range as well.
So say, for example:
Pit Traps: Chance to injure an enemy unit within city radius: 20%
AND
Damage to enemy units injured: 1-10%
Such a defense would create drastically different outcomes on each city approach, still reward high mobility, and not overwhelm and incapacitate offensive efforts without question. As it stands now, I could nearly set up a completely uncapturable city. So its good cities are harder to take thanks to this thinking, but its a little too much and a little too irrational. This suggestion would fix that. But its going to take a little dll programming.
Who agrees/disagrees or has alternative ideas to solve the dillema?
And, of course, I have some feedback to what we currently have done so far.
Ok, so the main change I can see is that we aren't just measuring cultural % defense anymore. That's a very good thing. We also now have damage being dished out to adjacent troops by some defenses, starting with pit traps and with a march of steadily improving versions. Ironically, these tend to reduce percentage defense but dish out hell at adjacent stacks.
My first impression was, wow that's ultimate cool right there!
But that was in the early stages of the game. There are everbuilding problems with this concept as things go on.
On one hand, its really cool to have more worries than just the city defenses. So we need to make sure we continue to think like that as we evaluate this.
But here are the problems I'm seeing:
Lets start with the fact that the damage is based on %. This means that to make a building on this chain better than the last is to increase the % (there's few other ways to make it significantly improved at the moment.) Sure we can reduce unhealth penalties and so on but primarily the benefit should greatly increase, right? So we are compelled to increase the %.
Now this becomes extremely problematic when you get further and further into the game because the gap between a healthy troop standing next to the city and what they will be the round after they take this hit becomes so extreme that it makes it impossible, outright impossible, to even conceive of taking a city with an army that has a move speed of 1.
Around the time we're working with numbers like power 20 and above and are being reduced by more than 50%, even unpromoted defenders can easily fend off the most highly promoted attackers if those attackers are incapable of greater mobility than 1 space.
This, sadly, outdates the concept of melee city attackers altogether really. It forces us to rely now on mv 2 or more troops or to just throw massive amounts of fodder troops against cities that cannot be surrounded nor approached quickly enough to attack in the same round (aka surrounded by hills and no roads for commandos etc.)
Usually troops with this movement are not granted the strength reserved for the slower units, making cities directly counteract all benefits granted to the slower, more powerful units. Now we must have a city attack force of terrain ignoring horses, city attack hunters, urban combat balloons and helicopters (cool new units balloons btw...) etc. The troops once used to allow us to surround the city and take out stragglers in the field have now become the core troops for attacking the city.
Alternatively, one can now see the headquarters for Confusionism as being the single most important building in the game due to the extra movement it infuses your troops with. ONLY with that building can we create a truly effective army now.
I liked having to figure out what it would take to get around this new challenge. But now that I have, I'm not sure I like how it hedges us into those solutions.
Additionally, I'm thinking we can take this defensive concept and just improve on its design and function to the point that it matches strategic game theory to real-world effect better while improving on the gameplay overall.
Some of this would fall into C++ territory that I, myself, am unfamiliar with but if your listening AIAndy and Koshling (an absolute dreamteam you two have been btw), take note of the following suggestion:
Pit traps and such shouldn't do a flat amount of % damage to all troops adjacent to the city. Its just too oversimplified imo. If I marched an army up to an opponent city, I would expect SOME of the defenses to cripple SOME of my forces, but certainly not in any kind of unilateral easily predicted manner as it currently is.
I suggest, therefore, that every round that a unit is in hostile territory, within the worked city radius (not just right next to the city), that each invading troop has its own chance of running afoul of the defenses and that the effect of the defenses be randomized between a range as well.
So say, for example:
Pit Traps: Chance to injure an enemy unit within city radius: 20%
AND
Damage to enemy units injured: 1-10%
Such a defense would create drastically different outcomes on each city approach, still reward high mobility, and not overwhelm and incapacitate offensive efforts without question. As it stands now, I could nearly set up a completely uncapturable city. So its good cities are harder to take thanks to this thinking, but its a little too much and a little too irrational. This suggestion would fix that. But its going to take a little dll programming.
Who agrees/disagrees or has alternative ideas to solve the dillema?
