member66170
King
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 807
.
Last edited:
.
- Thread starter member66170
- Start date
This is an interesting thread. I agree with your two lines of reasoning regarding how the AI handles the current system and how 'realistic' it is. The changes you suggested are similar, in essence, to the promotion options in Civ 4. Your idea of changing Shock to increase attack strength makes sense to me, though I'd have the option for City Attack come after Shock 1. Drill makes sense as a defensive promotion as well.
That being said, I have mixed feelings about changing the current promotion line. It seems like the generic classification of terrain types (ie. Open -OR- Rough but no in between) caters to the current system. In previous Civ iterations, "open" terrain would simply offer no bonuses or penalties at all, while "rough" terrain bonuses varied somewhat depending on the presence of forests/jungles on hills (ie. 25% hill bonus, 50% with forest/jungle). I think that if the promotions are changed then the terrain bonuses should change as well so that there is more variety in the battlefield with which you can use the new promotions, and a wisely positioned Shock 3 unit has a chance to defend against another Shock 3 unit. I'm looking forward to reading the other posts on this topic. It's something that shouldn't be taken lightly.
That being said, I have mixed feelings about changing the current promotion line. It seems like the generic classification of terrain types (ie. Open -OR- Rough but no in between) caters to the current system. In previous Civ iterations, "open" terrain would simply offer no bonuses or penalties at all, while "rough" terrain bonuses varied somewhat depending on the presence of forests/jungles on hills (ie. 25% hill bonus, 50% with forest/jungle). I think that if the promotions are changed then the terrain bonuses should change as well so that there is more variety in the battlefield with which you can use the new promotions, and a wisely positioned Shock 3 unit has a chance to defend against another Shock 3 unit. I'm looking forward to reading the other posts on this topic. It's something that shouldn't be taken lightly.
Becephalus
King
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 725
I would just ditch all the promotions and add a flat 10% bonus at each level up. The AI would perform a lot better as the human couldn't abuse the promotion system.
At the very least the range promotions and double attack promotions need to go.
People always liked more and more subsystems, but the more subsystems there are to the game the worse the AI will perform. No amount of coding will be able to fix that for decades.
The combat is interesting enough with unit types an terrain types without needing the promotion system. Maybe you could keep the amphibious promotion.
At the very least the range promotions and double attack promotions need to go.
People always liked more and more subsystems, but the more subsystems there are to the game the worse the AI will perform. No amount of coding will be able to fix that for decades.
The combat is interesting enough with unit types an terrain types without needing the promotion system. Maybe you could keep the amphibious promotion.
Voted for Other
I think the promotions system could use some changes. Perhaps adding more promotions giving more variety. Civilization IV system worked really well. More the experience the unit gained more exiting promotions were unlocked. They should took all those and bring them back to CiV.
I think the promotions system could use some changes. Perhaps adding more promotions giving more variety. Civilization IV system worked really well. More the experience the unit gained more exiting promotions were unlocked. They should took all those and bring them back to CiV.
I think, promotions are fine as they are. I love, how they interact with the terrain right now, making placement *meaningfull*.
I wouldn't be against *additional* promotions (the ones you proposed), though. I always loved different attacking and defending abilities in Civ2 and missed them in Civ4 (don't know about Civ3, as I didn't play it). With your proposal, they would come back through the "back door"...
I wouldn't be against *additional* promotions (the ones you proposed), though. I always loved different attacking and defending abilities in Civ2 and missed them in Civ4 (don't know about Civ3, as I didn't play it). With your proposal, they would come back through the "back door"...
turtlefang
Warlord
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 155
I like the suggested changes to shock and drill into making them offense and defense promotions. It would also allow range units to carry over thier promotions when archers move from range to rifle units.
In addition, you could add in a few movement promotions such as scouting to ignore terran cost at some level (after either shock II or drill II?), airlift for certain types of infantry for city to city movement, and a few others.
While the current system works, its seems somewhat strangely based - most units even from ancient times were more attack/defense oriented by training. How good they were in different terrain depended more on unit type (spearman less effective in hilly terrian for example). That's actually true today with mech units not as effective in mountains as leg infantry.
In addition, you could add in a few movement promotions such as scouting to ignore terran cost at some level (after either shock II or drill II?), airlift for certain types of infantry for city to city movement, and a few others.
While the current system works, its seems somewhat strangely based - most units even from ancient times were more attack/defense oriented by training. How good they were in different terrain depended more on unit type (spearman less effective in hilly terrian for example). That's actually true today with mech units not as effective in mountains as leg infantry.
tomplum68
Warlord
I like how they are now as opposed to the changes. A straight off or def bonus is much more bland than the terrain bonuses. Terrain bonuses focus more on unit placement and army placement, how all your units are arrayed in regards to each other and the enemy. A big point of the 1UP is unit placement so it makes more sense that the upgrades to units follow suit.
I'm looking at Drill and thinking that would make for some really unpleasant stalemates between factions where neither can successfully attack the other because they both have massive defensive bonuses. Defenders already have the advantage in that they can determine where a fight takes place and secure good defensive positions in choke points and city's, they don't need even more boosts.
Also, you can't possibly be on the wrong terrain 80% of the time. If you have two units of matching level, one with full rough terrain bonuses, one with full open terrain bonuses, you will be on the right terrain for those two units 50% of the time every time. If you're on the wrong terrain 80% of the time, you'd have to be actively working to use your units in the wrong place.
The current system works well and meshes with the tactical combat requirements of CiV, favoring a player who picks the location of their fights more carefully than looking for one good tile. The current promotion system already favors an offense/defense approach, as open terrain bonuses are most useful defensively (when you get caught flat-footed and need the combat bonuses to survive) while rough terrain bonuses are best offensively (to flush out units in defensible territory).
Also, you can't possibly be on the wrong terrain 80% of the time. If you have two units of matching level, one with full rough terrain bonuses, one with full open terrain bonuses, you will be on the right terrain for those two units 50% of the time every time. If you're on the wrong terrain 80% of the time, you'd have to be actively working to use your units in the wrong place.
The current system works well and meshes with the tactical combat requirements of CiV, favoring a player who picks the location of their fights more carefully than looking for one good tile. The current promotion system already favors an offense/defense approach, as open terrain bonuses are most useful defensively (when you get caught flat-footed and need the combat bonuses to survive) while rough terrain bonuses are best offensively (to flush out units in defensible territory).
bcaiko
Emperor
I like the promotions the way they are. It's fun having more customizable units and forces you to think a little more when using those units.
Maybe the option of having a 10% attack/defense bonus when on any terrain in addition to the others would allevate some or most of the grievences of the OP.
Maybe the option of having a 10% attack/defense bonus when on any terrain in addition to the others would allevate some or most of the grievences of the OP.
There was also discussion in other forum about removing the instant healing promotion. Liked to post this here as well as I think the IH is "game breaking" and should be removed...
Agreed. It just doesn't "fit" with unit promotions. Would like to see it removed.
Instant heal from Ruins is ok and perhaps some allied City States could do that to your unit or some late Honor Social Policy ("Battlefield Medicine") would unlock it.
2KForums: said:
Agreed. It just doesn't "fit" with unit promotions. Would like to see it removed.
Instant heal from Ruins is ok and perhaps some allied City States could do that to your unit or some late Honor Social Policy ("Battlefield Medicine") would unlock it.
Why? Because it is easier to use (and with less thinking)! So you are arguing for a less sophisticated and - at least in my oppinion - less interresting game mechanic.
But this is only wording! English is (obviously) not my mother tounge, so you may be more capable to find better fitting names. Please, do so! What I like, is the *game mechanic* behind these words.
Rinnero
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 89
Oh... How often I heard this argument when trying bring new suggestions. How stupid it is. Simplifying rules to make it easier for AI to handle is not an option. If you want AI to perform perfectly, make combat paper-rock-scissors game (literally).
Actually, there was a bit bigger thread where I brought every possible argument to convince IH is bad:
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?109406-Full-heal-promotion-is-overpowered
With poll
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
What are you even talking about? The only difference between attack/defense and rough/flat is that in one, you're thinking of what you plan for the unit to do and in the other, you're planning on where it'll be fighting. The two systems are really not that sophisticated and is something I could've came up with in the third grade.
I don't. At least the AI can use attack/defense. Rough/flat feels gimmicky.
Heartily agreed--the first, terrain-based promotions are pointless. It's a crap-shoot when you choose them whether they'll be effective in actual battle, and the AI would be much better with attack/defense-based promotions.
Frankly, I never know if you as the attacker, standing in forest or on a hill, will benefit from a rough promotion, or the reverse--you are standing on plains and attacking towards a forest. And most times in a serious rush, the battlefield is so clogged that you don't have the luxury of unit choice when you really need it.
This may actually be why you see such bizarre AI movements on the front lines, as the units prioritize seeking their terrain advantage and blindly put themselves in weak positions.
Good thread btw, definitely not another spam-poll.
Frankly, I never know if you as the attacker, standing in forest or on a hill, will benefit from a rough promotion, or the reverse--you are standing on plains and attacking towards a forest. And most times in a serious rush, the battlefield is so clogged that you don't have the luxury of unit choice when you really need it.
This may actually be why you see such bizarre AI movements on the front lines, as the units prioritize seeking their terrain advantage and blindly put themselves in weak positions.
Good thread btw, definitely not another spam-poll.
binhthuy71
Emperor
I voted "No, fine as they are." Wholesale changes to the current promotion regime would necessitate the devs taking a look at re-balancing many existing units (Particularly UU's) so as not to have an already-strong unit become a monster with a couple of promos.
If you want to simplify things then ditch promotions altogether and simply have EXP translate into unit health with each additional point of health requiring substantially more EXP than the one before it and a hard limit for max health in each era. The Barracks>Armory>Military Academy etc., would simply grant a bit more health to units and would thus maintain their current places in the game. The change would make it more worthwhile to upgrade early units - particularly Archers and Xbows.
If you want to simplify things then ditch promotions altogether and simply have EXP translate into unit health with each additional point of health requiring substantially more EXP than the one before it and a hard limit for max health in each era. The Barracks>Armory>Military Academy etc., would simply grant a bit more health to units and would thus maintain their current places in the game. The change would make it more worthwhile to upgrade early units - particularly Archers and Xbows.
Similar threads
