Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by ZeekLTK, Sep 19, 2013.
The axes still, it says so in Spartacus.
The rock/paper/scissors idea with "counters" demands these things although most of them do not make any sense historically.
In earlier games like Civ II they had different values for attack and defense and later another factor that made gunpowder units better than most pre-gunpowder. As Civ is not mainly a wargame, I think it is o.k. to have such somewhat arbitrary rules (but I not completely sure that the "counter" idea and the promotions are that much better or more interesting than the older ones).
I think swords are mostly/only good against an opponent without axes. E.g. they are very nice for taking out the barb cities with only archers.
Civ, like most games, uses a graphic to represent a concept. When players take the graphic too literally the concept it represents gets lost.
In board games that use chits, an armoured division isn't just tanks, it's all the personnel and vehicles needed to support the tanks (recon, supply, artillery, engineers, etc.). I think the same could be said for Civ. A graphic showing an Axeman could be taken to represent a core of axemen supported by all sorts of other troops.
But, better still, the axeman graphic should be taken to represent a certain amount of military capability (not just a guy with an axe); which is why an "axeman" vs. a "rifleman" makes sense (in reality it could be two groups of guys with guns but with disparate levels of training and equipment).
A tank in Civ4 is still very good on open fields against almost everything but easy pickings for enemy air attacks. The ingame unit still has to look and act like the core of what it is supposed to represent, and for most units that works pretty well, but Axes are the prime offenders against this.
In many cases separate attack/defense factors would make more sense. E.g. archery units would get big defense boni behind walls and some attack bonus in the field but they would be easily slaughtered in the field as soon as the maces or knights close up to them, so they would have very poor defense and need to be protected by pikes or maces. Pikes would get a big defense bonus against mounted but no (or a much smaller) attack bonus etc.
It was slightly similar in Civ II and in some other games I played (do not remember details). But in the end you end up with some mixed armies, so the "counter" principle works quite similar, even if some things (like the axes) are not plausible.
I think Civ3 it was most balanced and worked the best with regards to military and combat rules, from a strategic/tactical point that game was the peak of the series.
Some finetuning (health bar instead of 2-5 points, make artillery less dominating, add promotions,...) would have been the best way to go from that version.
The always war SGs were played for years with this version even after Civ4 was already out.
Instead while they solved the corruption problem from 3 when they moved to 4 and added lots of interesting stuff but military-wise they introduced the problematic 1-strenght value for units and freaking suizide artillery
Remember in vanilla IV it wasn't suicide because siege could kill units.
When they changed that they forgot to change the coding for how the AI used them. One of the major faults in BTS.
The English longbowmen at Agincourt handled knights quite handily.
Tried modding plains to be a base 12 instead for 11
Should have done that years ago! Anyways it's great to have more balance between grass and plains rather than one simply being superior to the other.
The indirect nerf to slavery is also nice side effect.
because they were guarded by Pikes and Man-at-arms (knights fighting on foot)
You can rebase your air units to enemy cities (who you are not at war with).
Be careful when doing this. Sometimes you might need land units present in that city to defend your air units. If an enemy Ai unit enters said city your air units will be destroyed.
Yep, found that one out the hard way.
In order to help the dumb AIs is the reason I modded the siege weapons back to being allowed to kill units. However I lowered all of there strengths by 1 except the Catapult and Trebuchet which I left the same.
The change in siege warfare was actually a pretty substantive change in warfare and basically nixed the Korean UU which could be devastating in Warlords. When I played warlords I was often quite puzzled at some military tactics posts in the forum because those people already played BtS and siege worked so differently.
This isn't a revelation, but a question. In the Espionage screen, sometimes there is an asterisk (*) by a Civ (after the percentage, if I recall correctly). What does this mean?
What Catapults can't kill units in BtS? That is it! I'm Never Down-grading to BtS
What I could never understand was why the Greek UU the Phalanx got a bonus Vs Mounted not Melee.
Phalanx were for fighting other melee formations. a 18'+ spear with lead counter weights on the butt end meant that they were great for the frontal push but that the sides and back of the formation were very vulnerable to flanking.
Siege not being ludicrously overpowered in BtS makes you not wanna buy it? u wot m8?
1. One can whip Warriors (i. e. pre-Maths) do generate before Currency.
2. One can chop into the same Warrior, to make even more before Currency.
3. OF from one build to another is capped by either the base-OF that would be needed to build that building (i. e. 300 when building something which costs 600 while having a Forge, a Factory and a Powerplant) OR, by the base-production-value of the city, so if a city makes 200 and produces 1 Spy, it gets 160 OF the first time and the full 200 + if chaining another Spy.
When you conquer a city, using a Great Artist to perform their Great Work nullifies the rebellion period, allowing you to bypass the often lengthy time before a city is truly yours to direct.
Found this out when striking directly at a well established capital and trying to fend off surrounding culture.
Works in Vanilla, unsure if this was changed in BTS.
Separate names with a comma.