Armies

[Txurce]

Well, but if I burst into your territory with a Battleship and sink a ship or two, you'll soon be able to fight back and either sink my Battleship or force it to run away and heal. With a Sub, you're simply out of luck if you have more units than you have coastal cities. Good luck starting your navy from scratch.

Really, you don't think it's a problem that City-States just destroy your Settlers? Even if you're Friends or Allies with them?

I pretty much never lose a ship to the AI, so I can't imagine losing a Battleship to Frigates, for example. And I do think you should have an edge with that sort of research lead, just as you do with Fighters.

As for the CS question... no, I think it's fair. We don't automatically give back workers to our allies, either.

 

[wobuffet]

I pretty much never lose a ship to the AI, so I can't imagine losing a Battleship to Frigates, for example. And I do think you should have an edge with that sort of research lead, just as you do with Fighters.

Yeah, but the naval combat AI is even more atrocious than the land combat AI.

I guess I should've been more explicit with what I meant re: timing of military techs. Pikemen are available well before Knights on the tech tree because defensive counters should be available before significant new offensive units. Otherwise, whichever Civ researches an offensive tech first could just destroy everyone in its path.

This issue is magnified later in the tech tree, because science advantages have accumulated over many more turns by that point in the game. Hence, the way I see it, Anti-Air Units should come well before Fighters in the tech tree, and Destroyers well before Subs.

As for the CS question... no, I think it's fair. We don't automatically give back workers to our allies, either.

The Major Civ-CS relationship is by design inherently asymmetrical, I would argue; CS's are supposed to have obligations to Civs they're friendly with, but not necessarily vice versa. But fair enough, we'll chalk that up to difference of opinion then.

 

[Jaybe]

Oh, and a quick question: does hitting Space (Do nothing) fortify the unit in question? It seems like it should if the unit hasn't done anything that turn, but then again Ambush and other fortified-specific combat bonuses suggest maybe staying still but not fortifying should be an option.

If I want to benefit from fortifying, but be ready to move next turn while in sight of an enemy, I'll put the unit on (A)lert, particularly when besieging a city. I do NOT believe 'do nothing' fortifies it.

At least it doesn't matter with naval/mounted/armor/siege units.

 

[Ahriman]

My understanding was that if a land unit ended its turn with any movement points less, it automatically fortified in terms of receiving the defensive bonus.

 

[Txurce]

...defensive counters should be available before significant new offensive units. Otherwise, whichever Civ researches an offensive tech first could just destroy everyone in its path.

This issue is magnified later in the tech tree, because science advantages have accumulated over many more turns by that point in the game. Hence, the way I see it, Anti-Air Units should come well before Fighters in the tech tree, and Destroyers well before Subs.

The Major Civ-CS relationship is by design inherently asymmetrical, I would argue; CS's are supposed to have obligations to Civs they're friendly with, but not necessarily vice versa. But fair enough, we'll chalk that up to difference of opinion then.

I see your point about subs. The Civ/CS relationship is asymmetrical, but to expect them to take a barb camp, identify the captured prisoners, and return them to their ally (you) seems a bit much... especially since you screwed up in the first place by getting the Settler captured!

 

[Jaybe]

My understanding was that if a land unit ended its turn with any movement points less, it automatically fortified in terms of receiving the defensive bonus.

I believe if you will reread your references, you will find that you must not have spent ANY movement points.

 

[Ahriman]

I believe if you will reread your references, you will find that you must not have spent ANY movement points.

Are you sure about that?
My understanding was that to *heal* you need to not use any movement points, but that fortification requires only a single movement point. That has always been what I have observed.

 

[lord_graywolfe]

This issue is magnified later in the tech tree, because science advantages have accumulated over many more turns by that point in the game. Hence, the way I see it, Anti-Air Units should come well before Fighters in the tech tree, and Destroyers well before Subs.

But how can you build a defense against something does not exist yet? I mean how do you make a anti aircraft gun when you don't know what a plane is?

 

[Ahriman]

I mean how do you make a anti aircraft gun when you don't know what a plane is?

You can know what a plane is without being able to build one yourself. You can make a spear and develop anti-cavalry doctrine even if you don't have horse-riding or stirrups. You can build an anti-tank gun even without being able to build a tank. You can develop depth charges without being able to build a submarine.

 

[mitsho]

It's also for gameplay. If you are the most advanced, there's no need in building the anti-aircraft guns. But if you are about to catch up, you need a defense against something from the technologically superior nation, so that they cannot bomb you back into the stone age. This is of course only half true as air superiority is pretty powerful in the modern age, but as a basic idea, it has value (see Black Hawk Down f.e.).

But yes, it's more about gameplay.

 

[lord_graywolfe]

well i can kinda see it but it would make more sense to give either cannons or riflemen a small bonus against aircraft. it just seems so wrong picturing robert e lee with a A.A. gun at gettysburg lol.

 

[Atlas627]

Pikemen are available well before Knights on the tech tree because defensive counters should be available before significant new offensive units. Otherwise, whichever Civ researches an offensive tech first could just destroy everyone in its path.

This issue is magnified later in the tech tree, because science advantages have accumulated over many more turns by that point in the game. Hence, the way I see it, Anti-Air Units should come well before Fighters in the tech tree, and Destroyers well before Subs.

I disagree with the second part of your post. There is no point in getting a scientific advantage if you cannot ever take advantage of it. The game has strategies of rush vs turtle as well, and turtling until your tech advantage is enough to overwhelm that defensive counter bonus should be a strategy.

 

[wobuffet]

I disagree with the second part of your post. There is no point in getting a scientific advantage if you cannot ever take advantage of it. The game has strategies of rush vs turtle as well, and turtling until your tech advantage is enough to overwhelm that defensive counter bonus should be a strategy.

I agree, there should be military advantages to teching up to new offensive weapons way before anyone else. But such advantages shouldn't be huge unless the defending civ has neglected researching defensive techs.

Science runaway Civs – Civs that are larger and thus have been accumulating more beakers per turn – are quite possibly the largest balance problem in Civ V, with VEM or without, and the timing of military techs should not exacerbate that. Giving such Civs big military advantages for hitting a couple key techs before neighboring Civs just allows them to eat more cities and enjoy an even larger beaker-per-turn advantage.

It's occurred to me recently that of the combat AI's major problems perhaps the most crucial is the fact that it never moves then shoots with ranged units, and I think it's this more than anything that gives the human such an advantage. This is most evident with naval battles, but it also explains why the AI doesn't usually leverage ranged UUs well (Keshik, anyone?). Solving this would be a major improvement.

This is an old post, but it gave me an idea: wouldn't it be pretty easy to simply make "set up for ranged combat" take all of your movement for a turn (say, 10)? This would not affect AI combat at all but would limit the human player's combat advantage.

Non-siege ranged units like Camel Archers and Keshiks that can move after attacking would still be really powerful though... the combat AI doesn't shoot-and-move either, does it?

 

[Stalker0]

One thing to keep in mind is that stronger units technologically aren't what they were in civ IV.

Counters are not nearly as hard as they once were. A horseman can take on a spearman with proper promotions, or just his buddies helping him flank.

 

[Dunkah]

Hard counters is what I miss most about Civ IV. It just doesn't feel right in the early game not rushing for iron or copper to build a counter for those pesky barbarian Axemen.

 

[Dunkah]

Thinking about this some more.

Basic Idea: What would be wrong with forcing a player to finish all of the techs in one era before being able to move on to the next era, keeping players in certain eras longer. Wouldn't that keep run away science from causing too many Battleship versus Galley actions?

Expanding on it: Either that or not allowing players to enter the next era until at least someone has completed all of the techs in an era? So if there was a run away leader you could try and work towards the counter before going back for what you missed. So if you knew you were falling behind you could concentrate on getting to the point where once the era flipped you could start on say rifling at the same time as the leader even though you had far fewer techs in other parts of the tree than the leader.

The Home Run: Either that or not allowing a certain era to unlock until a certain date. Slowing tech down in general. Additional "skip-able" "nice to have" techs could be added on the fringes of the trees for those who were in the lead and needed stuff to research while waiting for the date to arrive. Kind of like "Science Social Policies for the elite thinkers" that give bonuses in other areas. If you linked those fringe techs to science victories then it would cause the person who is going for the science win to have to spend more time in earlier eras researching other science spaceship building techs that could be skipped over by other civs allowing them to keep pace on the basic and miliatary techs.

Things like Flight would be basic but say a flight computer or bomb site would be on the fringes of the trees only needed for Science victory or perhaps miliatary, so could be skipped by other players but all players may arrive at say Jets during the next era at nearly the same time. That computer or sight in the jet has made it to the public market and is now readily available in many forms on the open market. Since technologies can't be sold this may keep players on the same "Mian" tech tree pace but still alow players with "tech-centric" Civs to compete for Science Victory and gain some money or science or even culture bonuses.

 

[mitsho]

Hard Rules generally are bad and shortcuts. A rule that says you need to complete one era as a whole before moving onto the next "patronizes" the player, there's the danger of it being unfun. It'd be better to "crunch the numbers" so that the players naturally reach the eras "at the right time". Aside from that, it's better to load the tree up with earlier different content than to include a punishment for research. The science race is kinda part of the civilization gameplaystyle, so I wouldn't discard it, tank vs. spearman and so on.

the fringe techs do seem to be a nice idea, but they would be a big depart from vanilla. And there's the problem that you shouldn't be able to research these all at the end... So, there's a design problem more...

 

[Zaldron]

Hard counters is what I miss most about Civ IV. It just doesn't feel right in the early game not rushing for iron or copper to build a counter for those pesky barbarian Axemen.

I actually don't miss hard counters at all, because then if you're unable to build that counter you're just toast. The fact that you had to play every game the same way for this reason just seems like poor design. It doesn't seem strange at all that a properly trained and supported horse troop could go against spearmen.

 

[Dunkah]

I think that racing through the bottom section of the tech tree so that you have Rifles whilst everyone else is running around with sword is pretty crazy as well. There are no examples of tech gone so crazy in real life that people would have to pit Galleys vs. Battleships. Even the poorest nations can aford to buy/ steal enough AK47's to equip thier forces no matter how poorly trained they might be.

Generally Real Life Tech races are your tank is better than my tank so I am going to build a better tank, or your jet is better than mine, not my Tanks are going to wipe out your Pikeman. That is almost rediculous.

Lets face it tech diffusion is real. This is just a way to make it happen in game.

I personally don't get a big thrill out of sending my tanks into a Civ that is still running around with Pikemen and Archers. Where is the challenge in that? Although it's usually my reluctance to beeline the NC at the start of the game that causes Sullemien to come after my Rifles with Modern Armor.

Beelining to another tech in another era just so you can get some sort of advantage on the other civs is gamey. Progress should move along at a relatively fixed pace and the Science driven nations should be able to bank more techs off the beaten path, but the majority of nations should be on the same basic level.

Without being able to purchase advanced weapons from others, trade or steal Techs it simply becomes a who can get more buildings and population first race!

 

[Ahriman]

There are no examples of tech gone so crazy in real life that people would have to pit Galleys vs. Battleships.

There have been massive technological mismatches in real world history. A small number of European powers colonized most of the world, in large part to their superior military technology. In many cases this was muskets, rifles and cannon vs spears or clubs. Think of the conquest of the New World, the colonization of Africa and South Asia, the Russian expansion through Siberia, the repeated wars with China, the Perry mission to Japan, the contact with the Pacific islands, the settlement of Australia.

Even among "close" powers there have been some massive technological mismatches, like the naval battle of manilla bay.

Sure, there are no literal cases of galleys fighting battleships, because those who had the galleys IRL would just surrender immediately. And similarly with land battles, normally the inferior parties would surrender and be conquered or colonized.

High levels of tech diffusion is a very recent phenomenon. Europe's technological lead was sustained for centuries. Africa is still a very long way behind.

I think you have an unusual view of history, and of what would make good gameplay.