1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

attacks from cities

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by ilteroi, Dec 26, 2019.

?

what should we do about attacks from cities

  1. nothing, leave everything as is

    22 vote(s)
    31.9%
  2. make them stronger

    10 vote(s)
    14.5%
  3. remove them

    18 vote(s)
    26.1%
  4. remove them and compensate by disabling healing in enemy territory

    8 vote(s)
    11.6%
  5. other

    11 vote(s)
    15.9%
  1. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,894
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    who exactly are these “all other units”?

    Archer is the only unit unlocked before city range increases to 2. No one would dare attempt a warrior rush, so increasing base range back to 2 really does punish archers exclusively. Spears, horses, etc don’t care; they have had to deal with 2 range cities the whole time.

    there is no degree of nerfing where this ceases to be a problem, short of a) archers doing <5 damage per attack or b) we go back to archers being so bad that barbarian horsemen can 1-shot them from the fog of war. If archers can hit a city with no reprisal then, short of the defender being able to tech to and then construct walls in the time it takes for 4 archers to kill the city, this will remain a problem.

    I am completely uninterested in some 1-time city malus just to make up for cities’ inability to defend themselves, when returning to a vanilla mechanic would accomplish the same thing. This is needless overcomplication; no more of these bespoke promotions plastering over combat and pulling further and further away from the vanilla game’s base mechanics, please.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
    cerk, TranceBlossom, CrazyG and 3 others like this.
  2. LifeOfBrian

    LifeOfBrian King

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2019
    Messages:
    670
    I agree that we'd give the cities 2 range from the start.
     
  3. theMisterRud

    theMisterRud Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    96
    Gender:
    Male
    How about a negative promotion to attack on city lost on upgrade ?

    EDIT: implying everything else is in a good spot.
     
  4. DeAnno

    DeAnno Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    428
    Gender:
    Male
    It's notable that if you are trying some kind of melee rush (like, idk, Jags or Picts), they both will spend a lot of time adjacent to the city, and will likely be on a promo line to reduce the city's damage to them. City Range +1 really does mainly screw only archers (and terrorist pathfinders too I guess.)
     
  5. Tekamthi

    Tekamthi Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Messages:
    494
    I'm with G, enjoy VP's progression of city range developing over time... vanilla's 2 base range always struck me as pushing the tolerable abstraction. palace city base 2 seems preferable than all cities base 2 imo, and at least replicates that vanilla effect on player's first city, for sense of familiarity as mentioned above.... or maybe base 2 for hill cities?

    anyway i must have some mod active that pushes this effect back, cuz i swear in my current game i was still exploiting the untouchable archer attacks for several eras by exploiting terrain etc. Didn't seem to just end at walls

    are there more creative solutions we haven't considered? hand-axe available to players? archer attack on city applies 1-turn expiring promo that blocks it from attacking city again? national wonder available from start that allows player to place a single +1 range building in strategic location? etc...
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  6. Heinz_Guderian

    Heinz_Guderian Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    184
    Location:
    Sweden
    Why overcomplicate things though? 2 range for all cities seems like a good solution. I dont understand the arguments put forward about that being a bad idea
     
  7. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,894
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    this is exactly what I don’t want. These little promotion “fixes” are so many little fingers in the dike.

    we’ve got spearmen with a special anti mounted promotion
    VP adds siege units getting cover
    Warriors get a special anti-barb promotion
    skirmishers have this open terrain doctrine promotion
    And now an obsoleting city malus promotion just to get archers past turn 50.

    no thank you.
     
    BiteInTheMark and Kim Dong Un like this.
  8. Tekamthi

    Tekamthi Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Messages:
    494
    'overcomplicate' is a subjective status... priority should be good gameplay imo. the 1-range city start has been status quo in vp for a while, no? seems drastic to revert to the exact same vanilla model now.. that said it'd surely be playable

    i'm mostly indifferent about having (low-level) archers vs seige as the game progesses in recent versions.. is there an opportunity to differentiate the two in a way that doesn't kneecap the ai, while also addressing this concern?
     
    Recursive likes this.
  9. theMisterRud

    theMisterRud Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    96
    Gender:
    Male
    I wouldn't know if it "bad design" (not a designer, and have not designed anything), but I figure that if the problem is, specifically, archers before turn 50, than the most specific solution is the less side effecting. that's why I pushed the EDIT in the proposal.

    Plus, I love the genuine concern I have on the Walls timing as a Tradition player, it gives some spice to an otherwise mostly braindead early game.
     
  10. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,972
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    So. Your arguments are..... "it was a long time this way" .... and.... "its like in vanilla, not good, vanilla was evil".
    Iam full on the line with @pineappledan, slowly but steady more and more little mechanics are added which makes this game even more complex, and this is not always a good thing. Cities with base 2 range is an easy solution and is able to solve the problem, why denying this solution?
     
  11. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,894
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    archers have not had any special promotions for even longer.

    how is 1 ranged cities sacrosanct and not tacking expiring promotions onto single units isn’t?
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  12. DeAnno

    DeAnno Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    428
    Gender:
    Male
    To clarify my stance, I like the idea of Palace +1 range the most. It lets the Archer rush still pick off obnoxious forward settles easily while making it harder to cripple or kill a civ by taking their capital. It wouldn't be bad if this bonus even stuck around, making the land around the capital more dangerous even in later ages. With antiwarmonger bonus just reduced it would be a good way to give a bit of bite back to the AI on defense.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  13. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,894
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
  14. Tekamthi

    Tekamthi Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Messages:
    494
    i'm not gonna repeat myself every post, i have posted several times, in detail throughout this thread if you seek to understand what you're talking about. what you're doing is called gas-lighting or straw-manning, and is poor form for discussion. My last simply offered reasons comparable to the calibre of those that were offered in immediately previous posts.

    Your reason from last post, others notwithstanding, suggests that finding an "easy" solution should be the priority. Tic tac toe is easy. It is not fun for more than a minute or two, though. I agree that its a simple approach, fwiw

    my point in raising status quo of vp vs reversion to vanilla, is just that it may be simple but a significant change nonetheless due to how long its been around.. i'm not saying such is prohibited, just that it should be weighed against the value of a vanilla mechanic for familiarity's sake. Not in love with that approach.

    edit RE: early 3 range cities from palace +1 ranged, /agreed... can it expire/obsolete? somehow not stack with walls? is that too dumb?
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  15. Recursive

    Recursive Covets Lands That You Currently Own Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,379
    Gender:
    Male
    VP is already quite a complex game, I don't think a penalty VS cities for Archers is a dealbreaker. They already have one to naval units.

    I'm not saying it's the one right solution, but I think it's an option worth considering.

    Simplicity is nice but it shouldn't take priority over good gameplay.
     
    vyyt and civplayer33 like this.
  16. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,972
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Why do you call it vanilla mechanic? Cities with 2 range are no vodoo. Why so much anger vs. everything like in vanilla?
    I dont want that 2 range cause it was in vanilly and by nostalgic reasons. I want it cause its an easy, easy to understand and solid solution to a problem. Better than the next single focused promotion/mechanic/hing/UI.
    The game is already complex enough, no need to make normal things even more complicated.
     
  17. Tekamthi

    Tekamthi Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Messages:
    494
    see my last re: gas-lighting... i'll respond to your substantive ideas when you next make a civil post

    we have temp after attack promos that expire on naval.. i suggested that a few posts ago that such a temp promo on archer might fit.. its not simple, but within paradigm of existing complexity.. no takers?
     
    vyyt likes this.
  18. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    7,569
    The truth is, every option has pros and cons. We are presenting various ideas to G, with the notion that something should be done. But nothing is free...

    1) Reducing Archers: Effects other aspects of warfare and barb handling.
    2) 2 range cities: Weakens melee war rushes as well (just because melee units get hit 1 square away doesn't mean 2 squares won't still be a problem for them). Makes forward settled cities even more of a pain to deal with.
    3) +1 range capital: Requires special code (no one is asking for 3 range capitals in ancient), doesn't protect satellite cities from getting taken.
     
  19. DeAnno

    DeAnno Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    428
    Gender:
    Male
    Ehhh, is it really that bad? Civs are so easy to cripple in Ancient now, even in higher difficulty. I guess it's pretty weird but it doesn't seem such a terrible thing to me to give the capital some special power.

    EDIT: If you don't want that or complicated code a hacky thing you could do is maybe take away the palace defense bonuses but give the capital a free wall on founding.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  20. Tekamthi

    Tekamthi Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Messages:
    494
    yeah this is on my mind, too... i'll often play with my capital surrounded by at least 3-4 satellites, so capital rarely sees much combat if things go as planned, at least until late game. i wont even build walls there unless i get some bonus event on them, or castle. AI seems to have capitals on frontier more often, early 3 range capitals might be a small net boost to AI in this regard? no new code this way

    besides the standard progression, what about late founded cities? some options here will impart change to decision making for those, too, and these are out of scope of the original problem we're chasing
     

Share This Page