Armies

By "defensive" I mean a defensive player - sticking them in our cities to bombard enemies. High melee strength would make War Elephants better for attacking players, since they would be more durable in enemy territory.

Basically the rule of thumb is:

  • High :c5strength: = good for attackers
  • Low :c5strength: = good for defenders
This is why vanguard units are best for warmongering players. They're durable in the field and provide cannon fodder.
 
I don't necessarily see a problem with that - having an early UU should make one consider rushing - it's an interesting decision.

With only one range, moving offensively with them could be more difficult than with two range (it's pretty easy to rush with vanilla war elephants). Or I'd think so, anyway, I haven't tried it! Though if you're hesitant to do so because of overlapping with G&K I understand.:)
 
But is a ranged unit that cannot attack and has low ranged strength really good on offense? It's more of a blocker of which you wouldn't need many anyways. Also it's an early unit so chances are high that you are not able to build a balanced army. To effectively take cities you would need a siege unit and a melee attacker as well. You can even give it a negative city attack modifier if you want to ;)

I'd more see it like a "barbarian blocker" in that it would be very hard to get killed by barbarians (or other units in general). One of those would probably defend against many barbarians while your city takes them out. But by itself, its attack would be too low probably...
 
I also wouldn't hamstring the UU's offensive capabilities too much - even playing tall, I often expand into the choice settlements of my neighbors. I've played India a lot, and the old UU worked as an occasional offensive tool, but mainly as a slow, powerful chariot even playing defensively, because it then became a more secure archer. I'm fine with buffing and moving to HBR as an alternative - just not to the point where is made too one-dimensional. Thal's suggested nerf seems like a good next step, now that we've embarked on the HBR route. Keep in mind that this tech is much more of a detour than the Wheel - it has to pay off.
 
I just noticed in my current 137 game that peaceful civilizations like india or Babylon lack in or have no army. After using reveal map mod i was able to confirm that Gandhi have in his command army formed of ONE archer. And thats all. He wasnt in any wars whatsoever.
Babylon army is formed of 1 archer 1 bowman and 1 spearman. Other civilizations like Germany or Rome on same continent have tons of units and rolling over all neighbors.

There may be a need to correct military production favors for peaceful AI.
 
@MortalD: What turn number was this?

Maybe the new AI Gold Spending component could be tweaked to ensure a minimal standing army for each civ?
 
Same result, right?

Results are there, but the method is wrong.
Keep in mind that human player can go and roll over them just as the military AI do.

wobuffet: U may be right, however its not about priority on with unit to produce, but to produce one at all.

And my game is not beta (137.1+).
 
This is not related to AI unit priorities. I've been working on AI gold purchase priorities and war detection. When a peaceful AI goes into a war with the human, it starts purchasing lots of units and military training facilities. I'm still working on the overall system. :)
 
This is not related to AI unit priorities. I've been working on AI gold purchase priorities and war detection. When a peaceful AI goes into a war with the human, it starts purchasing lots of units and military training facilities. I'm still working on the overall system. :)

B4 he get to buy anything, there wont be anything left + it will get rolled by other AI in turns. Cant say i like it.
 
I had in mind army peaceful AI have at its disposal at all time thro the game to deffend himself. As noted few post back, mentioned India had only 1 ( yes one ) unit in turn 200 +. <-- I dint count 1 or 2 scouts here and there on the map.

But ofc that will most definitely help the AI not to get wiped so early on while such AI vs AI rush still have good odd of success.
Now at least not on a grand scale :p
 
Turn number is not something we can balance the game with for all speeds. It's the era that matters, and the Ancient Era is not enough enough time to build a defensive force like you describe. I could add some extra units on slow game speeds, if you think that would help?

Thinking it over now... I believe I can improve on the current system by using a formula that depends on difficulty, game speed, and militarism. The current method handles each one individually, which causes rounding difficulties...
 
Top Bottom