Weird.
Version 0.9.7 discussion
- Thread starter phungus420
- Start date
Weird.
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
If you still have a save of you at war with Vietnam and them having open borders with you, it would be nice to debug it and see what's going on. This would be a RevDCM core issue, so you can either upload it it here, or in the RevDCM bug reports thread in the RevDCM forum, whichever is easier. If you do post the save here, I'll just forward the report to jdog in the RevDCM forums anyway, as I can't really debug what could be going on there.
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
@bigfatjonny
I have reviewed your comments and gameplay experiences with MGs and Squad Infantry, and the behavior is as intended. You may disagree with it, but for playability in the early modern era MGs are meant to be powerful. Once a player gets MGs it is intended that they become virtually uncrackable until their enemies get significant air power, and can bomb them out, or can field large amounts of armor.
I have taken your other advice and moved back Motorized infantry. They now require Industrialism, Radio, and Turret Design.
I have reviewed your comments and gameplay experiences with MGs and Squad Infantry, and the behavior is as intended. You may disagree with it, but for playability in the early modern era MGs are meant to be powerful. Once a player gets MGs it is intended that they become virtually uncrackable until their enemies get significant air power, and can bomb them out, or can field large amounts of armor.
I have taken your other advice and moved back Motorized infantry. They now require Industrialism, Radio, and Turret Design.
bigfatjonny
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 105
OK I get that & I like it - in the WW1 era. My point was that MG's continue being the city defense unit of choice much longer. Their counter unit is Armour (attack 22? + 50% vs MG's = 33) or bombing with bombers (Air superiority) but that is more WW2 era.
However the upgrade of Armour, Tanks, only have attack of 26 and no bonus to MG so are worse than their previous unit.
Also advanced gunpowder units, Paratroopers, marines & special forces, also have a hard job against MG's (16 + 100% vs Guns = 32 without any city defense bonus) even though they are modern era units. It doesn't make sense that Modern warfare units would have difficultly with trench type MG's.
One thing that has been annoying me is my enemy with Combat4 Cavalry killing several of my tanks. I liked that you put +Melee and +Mounted on MG's, it is just in my game that my slightly backward enemies havent upgraded their units yet, and I didnt war with them in my MG era to kill off all the cavalry.
Didn't you say that you are going to change infantry to upgrade to motorized and not to Marines?
Ambassador
Peacemonger
Actually, MG was quite powerful in WW2 times and it remained to be the top city defending unit then. The problem with city capture in Civ is, that it can be done solely with tanks or other motorized units while in real life it had to be done mostly by infantry. So in my view it's only fair for tanks to have a hard time with MGs. Their main advantage after all is that they don't take collateral damage from artillery.
I got the perfect one actually. This is me about to declare war on Vietnam, I have an army next to a city. If you DOW the army isn't booted out of his territory, and you can't cancel the open borders (in war or peace).
I found that thing about Tank being worse than armour against MG also sort of issue.
rkade8583
Realism Invictus Player
When I was recently defeated, the game WOULD NOT END. It kept auto-playing turns and I'd randomly be in and out but I could never actually play. I had to quit through the task manager.
Any ideas on how to fix this?
Any ideas on how to fix this?
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
It'd be more realistic to say combined arms influenced WW2 than say the MG42 did. And definitely nothing but the lightest tanks was stopped by a sub-.50 mg. It was the development of anti-tank infantry weapons and AT field artillery that helped, among other things.
Ambassador
Peacemonger
@Goodgame
Yes, maybe closer to truth.
Yes, maybe closer to truth.
bigfatjonny
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 105
Civ units are an abstraction of a military group.
In my mind an axeman unit isn’t a few hundred men all carrying axes, it is a undisciplined group of lightly armored but armed men. Maybe split into several groups for tactical purposes.
The MG unit isn’t just a few MG42's but a well dug in WW1 trench type unit consisting of hundreds of men including a command unit and some light arms, the machine guns just happen to be the heaviest guns they are using.
Does a tank unit represent 1 or 50 tanks? Or does it represent an armored division, including infantry, command and mechanical engineers?
In game terms really you don’t want obsolete units defeating brand new units from later eras. I doubt a WW1 era MG42, however well dug in, could touch a modern tank.
It comes back to the old spearman vs tank argument. Unfortunately military units & combat isnt the best done part of Civ.
One that note - a Galleass has 50/50 chance against the frigate - a much later unit. It even says in the notes section that the Galleass was the top navel unit UNTIL the frigate. I think the +50% frigate needs removing.
In my mind an axeman unit isn’t a few hundred men all carrying axes, it is a undisciplined group of lightly armored but armed men. Maybe split into several groups for tactical purposes.
The MG unit isn’t just a few MG42's but a well dug in WW1 trench type unit consisting of hundreds of men including a command unit and some light arms, the machine guns just happen to be the heaviest guns they are using.
Does a tank unit represent 1 or 50 tanks? Or does it represent an armored division, including infantry, command and mechanical engineers?
In game terms really you don’t want obsolete units defeating brand new units from later eras. I doubt a WW1 era MG42, however well dug in, could touch a modern tank.
It comes back to the old spearman vs tank argument. Unfortunately military units & combat isnt the best done part of Civ.
One that note - a Galleass has 50/50 chance against the frigate - a much later unit. It even says in the notes section that the Galleass was the top navel unit UNTIL the frigate. I think the +50% frigate needs removing.
morchuflex
Emperor
I agree on both points, especially the galleass thing.
GONdorman
ROCK´N ROLL PEOPLE!!!!
The Machine Gun thing is complicated, it seems. Here´s what I think, after reading what other people have posted about them:
- The upgrade for Armors (Tanks) should still get bonus against machine guns
- Because of their way of fighting (skirmishing, paratrooping, etc), Paratroopers should get a bonus agaisnt Machine Guns
On another topic, lumbermills should appear earlier. By the time you discover Replaceable Parts, most forests have been cut down, so you cannot use lumbermills a lot
- The upgrade for Armors (Tanks) should still get bonus against machine guns
- Because of their way of fighting (skirmishing, paratrooping, etc), Paratroopers should get a bonus agaisnt Machine Guns
On another topic, lumbermills should appear earlier. By the time you discover Replaceable Parts, most forests have been cut down, so you cannot use lumbermills a lot
JanusTalaiini
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2005
- Messages
- 340
I'm curious as to why the Varangian Guard is the unique unit for the Vikings, rather than the Byzantines. True, they were Swedes, but they served the Byzantine Emperor - and much more loyally than the national armies did.
Anyway, just a minor point, but seeing it made me go "Whaaa...?"
Anyway, just a minor point, but seeing it made me go "Whaaa...?"
morchuflex
Emperor
I disagree on paratroopers. They should be a marginal unit, only useful for skirmishing. They didn't and shouldn't have the means to dislodge entrenched units like MGs.
Remember their role during WW2, how costly was the conquest of Crete, and the Arhneim fiasco.
However, I second the proposal for Lumbermills. I generally edit my xml files to make them available much earlier, giving my workers more options when it still matters (that is, when all forests haven't been cut yet!). It also helps those civs who were unfortunate enough to start amidst toundra.
Remember their role during WW2, how costly was the conquest of Crete, and the Arhneim fiasco.
However, I second the proposal for Lumbermills. I generally edit my xml files to make them available much earlier, giving my workers more options when it still matters (that is, when all forests haven't been cut yet!). It also helps those civs who were unfortunate enough to start amidst toundra.
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
I'm actually very happy with the balance that is obtained with the current modern era unit strengths. In the current SVN the only change that has been made is Squad Inf have been put back to +25% vs Gunpowder Units, Marines now require Medicine as well as Industrialism, and Motorized Inf require Radio instead of Mass Media. Anyway, as I said before MGs are meant to be strong, you need armor or airpower to dislodge them, that's intended, and their defensive capabilities are nothing like the spearman vs tank thing someone said. Keep in mind Armors are available for construction along with tanks, and can upgrade to tanks and heavy tanks. Armor is strength 20 +50% vs MGs, Tanks 26 strength and starts with blits, and Heavy Tanks 30 strength +25% vs Armor. These numbers are more for balance then any other reason, in LoR it is intended that you will need to pick between different tools for certain jobs, rather then just spamming tanks.
Ambassador
Peacemonger
@morchuflex, GONdorman: Actually I always keep some forests until lumbermills are available. The thing is, combined with railroads they are better than workshops (without Caste system). Also, they provide health bonuses'. Thirdly, why chop down forests in tundra? Bare tundra is nothing good for, so I wait for lumbermills.
BTW, I also like your anti-tank-rush approach, phungus. A mixed stack is much more challenging and fun.
BTW, I also like your anti-tank-rush approach, phungus. A mixed stack is much more challenging and fun.
morchuflex
Emperor
Obviously I don't. But when you start near one of the poles, you wish you could improve tundra forests before the industrial era. 1F 1H is pathetic. 1F 2H is already a huge improvement.
