Armies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
Dunkah
Emperor
I don't think Cities should get an attack at all. I liked the Civ IV version where units could just walk into cities once their unit protection was gone.
All through History cities have been taken without so much as a gunshot. Cities and their defense and attack abilities should be based on the uinits stationed in and around them and on Walls and defensive structures built within.
All through History cities have been taken without so much as a gunshot. Cities and their defense and attack abilities should be based on the uinits stationed in and around them and on Walls and defensive structures built within.
Dunkah
Emperor
Fine but currently it's almost impossible to wipe out a city until Cats are out.
Built in defenses are too powerful... adding another range or further strength or defense is beyond realistic.
Defenses, Garrisons, Attacks etc should all be attributed to buildings.
I am all for a walled city taking catapults to siege and take down but if someone just builds a city and has put nothing at all into protecting that city it should fall easily.
Built in defenses are too powerful... adding another range or further strength or defense is beyond realistic.
Defenses, Garrisons, Attacks etc should all be attributed to buildings.
I am all for a walled city taking catapults to siege and take down but if someone just builds a city and has put nothing at all into protecting that city it should fall easily.
rhammer640
Russian Monk
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 386
maybe if inherent city defenses were lowered then it would make sense to have to up them which i think is fun rather then having them just be able to attack at x-damage from day one, etc. Id much rather see weak cities and have to choose which cities i made strong by building buildings in them 
SlightlyMad
Prince
Actually, it might be interesting to try making city bombards require walls. That would also really make barbarians much more of a challenge.
Just as a thought, what if walls gave cities 1-range bombardment, castles gave them 2, and military base gave them 3? Would that make conquest in the early game too easy, and late-game too hard?
Just as a thought, what if walls gave cities 1-range bombardment, castles gave them 2, and military base gave them 3? Would that make conquest in the early game too easy, and late-game too hard?
Ahriman
Tyrant
Right. Again, this is I think one of the best design decisions in Civ5.
Assaulting a fortified city without siege weapons *should* require overwhelming odds. You still can take them with a few swordsmen though.
It does. Size 1 city in the early game is strength 8, same as a spearman.
I don't really understand this.
But I don't think its a good idea to lower city defenses, and thus make it really easy for the human to rush the AI.
What I'd like to see is a way to make the AI better at taking cities, without making it easier for the human to do so.
Would make conquest too easy for the human.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
There's very few options in this regard in the files... to my knowledge the only thing we can do with a building is increase city strength. My long-standing preference would be for defenses to increase city hitpoints in addition to strength. It makes the city last longer without actually changing the balance of combat odds against units.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I've opposed this in past, but I'm increasingly moving towards this view.
Given the non-linearities in the combat model (do we have the exact formula anywhere yet?) it might be much easier to balance the strength of the city based on size and tech era, and then have health and healing rate affected by buildings.
What I worry though is that this would mean that if you're even a little behind technologically, that the bombardment strength of the city is just not enough to do more than scratch standard frontline units.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Yeah, bombardment strength of cities is a whole separate issue. In an ideal world we'd have the capability to mod strength, damage bonuses (city promotions anyone?!), and hitpoints independently.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Well, I agree with the second part - which means the first part is not true. Bombardment strength is (unfortunately) not a separate issue.
Though; probably there is a parameter somewhere that sets the ratio of city strength: bombardment strength? I think its ~0.4 or so?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
What I mean is defense is a separate issue from offense. It's entirely possible to have one of the two well-balanced while the other is not.
To redirect some part of a discussion:
There has been talked about making desert tiles harder to move on. Arabia (UA) and the UU of Egypt and Babylon would get a movement bonus in desert to compensate/negate this.
Further;
Why not test barbarians with the same promotion minuteman and scouts have: all tiles cost 1
, or would this be to much due to forests and hills? It would sure make them less trivial
There has been talked about making desert tiles harder to move on. Arabia (UA) and the UU of Egypt and Babylon would get a movement bonus in desert to compensate/negate this.
Further;
Why not test barbarians with the same promotion minuteman and scouts have: all tiles cost 1
, or would this be to much due to forests and hills? It would sure make them less trivial
Ahriman
Tyrant
I don't see why they should be able to move through forests and hills without movement penalty.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I could give them a promotion based on the terrain of their camp...
- Realism: Nomads native to desert would be more adapt at moving through it, same thing with living in snow, or forests, and so on.
- Gameplay: Could add some variety to the monotony and predictability of barbarian encounters.
SlightlyMad
Prince
Yeah, it makes sense and anything that buffs barbarians can only make the game more interesting. While we're at it, can we take off the innate combat bonus against barbarians, even if only at the higher difficulty levels?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I think the basic combat bonus is only there so the AI can deal with barbarians... but if we give the AI a basic XP advantage as was discussed elsewhere, it'd solve that issue. It'd make a lot of sense to remove the combat bonus in that case.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I'm not sure that unpredictability is necessarily a good thing. In tactical combat, the human *should* know the movement capabilities of the enemy units, and it would be annoying to have to check for a specific promotion to know what the enemy movement capability would be.
I would prefer to give every barbarian full movement in snow and desert (so every barb is predictable) than to have it depend on the tile that the barbarian village was on.
I would be tempted to leave an AI bonus vs barbarians on the high difficulty end, we really don't want the AIs getting slowed down/messed up by barbs and so posing less of a threat to the player.
One of the big problems with many Civ4 mods that made barbs tough (like Fall Further modmod for FFH) was that they made the barbs so strong that the AI civs couldn't handle them, and so the other civs were crippled in their development.
Didn't dare to mention this, but this
Some native movement bonus would be awesome. Less trivial barbs
It is possible to create a promotion vs barbarians, right?
Now you need something to add this to all AI units. Unless they will take it themselves with the xp granted on higher levels.
This way, the AI will not be vulnerable to barbs. And the human player still loses out on the bonus.
