SlightlyMad
Prince
Yeah, there's certainly things that could be tried, but I'd put them way lower in priority than just about anything else.
Armies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
So that if you lack iron, then you don't loose the game. And also because previously spears were not cost-effective. 100% bonus against horses can be reduced to 75% though.
I am sorry but that is totally wrong & unhistorical. I am not talking about Hussars & Light Cavalry. Knights used to lead straight forward charges instead of flanking like other cavalry. That is why I want them to be stronger, more expensive & the unit whose proper use can completely change the situation.
Txurce
Deity
Regardless of whether any changes ought to be made, it's hard to argue with knights' elite status.
No no, I meant how Knights should be effectively used like cavalry in history. Not how Knights were actually slaughtered in history.
Again Knights were not easily slaughtered. Their straight-forward charge was devastating enough to rout all except the elite infantry.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
No need to get into a discussion over historical accuracy, the game's always been a significant abstraction after all. 
Knights are relatively decent right now. They have the same tech cost to access as longswords (instead of double cost like in vanilla), move faster than swords, and can retreat after attacking. I also reduced their city penalty, and that penalty is easily swamped into insignificance by promotions. It doesn't even matter much if a unit is poor at attacking cities if siege units have already got the city down to 1 hp.
Knights are relatively decent right now. They have the same tech cost to access as longswords (instead of double cost like in vanilla), move faster than swords, and can retreat after attacking. I also reduced their city penalty, and that penalty is easily swamped into insignificance by promotions. It doesn't even matter much if a unit is poor at attacking cities if siege units have already got the city down to 1 hp.
Txurce
Deity
No need to get into a discussion over historical accuracy, the game's always been a significant abstraction after all.
Knights are relatively decent right now. They have the same tech cost to access as longswords (instead of double cost like in vanilla), move faster than swords, and can retreat after attacking. I also reduced their city penalty, and that penalty is easily swamped into insignificance by promotions. It doesn't even matter much if a unit is poor at attacking cities if siege units have already got the city down to 1 hp.
I recently used a knight to take a redlined French city with an amphibious attack, so I think they're effective enough!
Aye, they are also fast enough to get through the heavily wooded areas in my current game. I love to use them to block pesky setters of other Civs invading my territory. If they won't give up, I'm going to war and capture them.
The small city penalty is hardly noticeable if they have already gained some promotions. Better than no additonal attacker.
It's true that there are so many bonuses later that you can't read them all.
The small city penalty is hardly noticeable if they have already gained some promotions. Better than no additonal attacker.
It's true that there are so many bonuses later that you can't read them all.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Good point about rough terrain... in forests or hills they move twice as fast as footsoldiers.
Thal, is it maybe possible to shift the combat result window a bit higher so you can see two additional bonus/penalty lines?
This window is already overlapping with the unit screen below. One bonus/penalty line is cut in half what looks rubbish.
Just a cosmetic suggestion.
This window is already overlapping with the unit screen below. One bonus/penalty line is cut in half what looks rubbish.
Just a cosmetic suggestion.
Hi Thalassicus! As I can see you are experienced in combat mechanics. May be you can help me - I'm looking for an exactly formula of combat result. I mean, how both of combat strength parameters (attacker and defender) affect on decreasing of Hit Points quantity.
I've searched it on the forum, but unsuccessfully.
Is this formula common for Melee, Ranged and City Attacks? Or they have different calculating system.
All that I have researched:
1. This formula must have -1 Hit Point parameter, because Warrior or Archer can damage Giant Death Robot (as an example of very power full unit) with 1 Hit Point. So 10 Archers can kill GDR in 1 turn, regardless that he has 200+ combat strength (with bonuses) and Archer has 6-10 (with bonuses).
2. Is there random calculation? Sometimes final result of combat is far away from estimations, shown on left bottom corner.
3. Does it count who attacks first, and who attacks second after defending? And as a result defender has less Hit Points when he shoots back.
And also I would ask about the Wounded status - how much it affects combat strength? Is it sth like green=100%, yellow=75% and red=50%? Does it affect ranged combat too?
Thanks a lot, if you have this info and can share it!
I've searched it on the forum, but unsuccessfully.
Is this formula common for Melee, Ranged and City Attacks? Or they have different calculating system.
All that I have researched:
1. This formula must have -1 Hit Point parameter, because Warrior or Archer can damage Giant Death Robot (as an example of very power full unit) with 1 Hit Point. So 10 Archers can kill GDR in 1 turn, regardless that he has 200+ combat strength (with bonuses) and Archer has 6-10 (with bonuses).
2. Is there random calculation? Sometimes final result of combat is far away from estimations, shown on left bottom corner.
3. Does it count who attacks first, and who attacks second after defending? And as a result defender has less Hit Points when he shoots back.
And also I would ask about the Wounded status - how much it affects combat strength? Is it sth like green=100%, yellow=75% and red=50%? Does it affect ranged combat too?
Thanks a lot, if you have this info and can share it!
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Combat appears to be rather complicated, and someone has probably done research on the specifics but I haven't seen information about it. I don't really know how it works.
Thanks for an answer! I'll continue to search. I need it very much for design in development process.
Txurce
Deity
Now that I'm paying attention to the flag promotions, I've noticed that the AI civ and CS units have a staggering number of promotions early in the game. Even if every unit came from a city with a barracks and armory, there aren't enough barbs around to explain the rest of them. Is there an explanation for this?
I know that all of us have seen the AI do some dunderheaded things with range 2 units like Archers and Cannons in the past, and as I saw a Trebuchet slowly march around my Forts for reasons beyond the ken of mortal men, I was thinking about how the problem might be fixed. I don't make it to lategame often, but I've heard the AI does much better with range 3 units tactically.
Would it be a sensible change to rebalance some of the range 2 units to range 3 instead? Would it be beyond the scope of a balancing mod to introduce range 3 cannons, trebuchets, and maybe even archers, or would that be a useful "balancing" change to put the AI on a better tactical footing in the early game?
Would it be a sensible change to rebalance some of the range 2 units to range 3 instead? Would it be beyond the scope of a balancing mod to introduce range 3 cannons, trebuchets, and maybe even archers, or would that be a useful "balancing" change to put the AI on a better tactical footing in the early game?
Txurce
Deity
This would put a premium on horses, turn melee troops into specialty units, and be disastrous for the AI in terms of defending its own cities. A human player would go heavy on the siege weapons protected by archers and horses, methodically redline a city, then take it with a single horse. Rinse and repeat.
Txurce
Deity
I have mixed feelings about it, because of course it makes the game more competitive. But when a knight can't kill a scout in open terrain with one shot, I have to question the scale. Again, not so much because it's too hard (although in some circumstances it could be) but because it makes such little sense that the game quits being as immersive. I can neither plan ahead for how to kill that scout - it's funny just saying it - nor do I have much of a clue what it takes to kill some of these super-units. It's almost like learning a new game. I'm willing to do that, but wish that there was more sense of verisimilitude than in my knight/scout example.
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,773
There was some discussion a while back about giving the AI free XP at higher levels (instead of a flat combat bonus). I don't remember Thal mentioning it in patch notes, but I think it's been implemented. (I did a quick search but didn't find the post detailing it.)
Txurce
Deity
Yes, that's what happened. It was actually in the Fewer Poor Policies thread.
