Morholt
Prince
But the knights are supposed to be dominant until ~15th century. I think a better solution would be making heavy cavalry more expensive, and maybe even add an extra upkeep cost to them.
Beta 12
- Thread starter AbsintheRed
- Start date
Nintz
King of the Britons
Not sure if this is the right place to post this but...
It says in the civilopedia that crusades can target non-christian player's capitols.
I think this should be more common, as I haven't seen it happen yet.
Maybe if Jerusalem is already taken when the time for a crusade occurs?
And about the knights- Morholt has a good idea. Knights were dominant, but expensive.
It says in the civilopedia that crusades can target non-christian player's capitols.
I think this should be more common, as I haven't seen it happen yet.
Maybe if Jerusalem is already taken when the time for a crusade occurs?
And about the knights- Morholt has a good idea. Knights were dominant, but expensive.
3Miro
Deity
This is part of the 4th Crusade dynamics. If you play as a Catholic player and you get a lot of gold, then you can "buy" a Crusade, becoming the leader and sending it towards the Capital of any player. The AI will only do this as Venice -> Constantinople and Spain -> Cordoba.
Spain planted five triple-strength Knights on the Luebeck Salt when I was playing Vikings, they never moved and didn't pillage it either.
Once I had a stack of mace and guisarmier (no horse for norse) moved into range they sprang into action, wiped out my stack (never should have chopped that forest
) and pillaged everything in sight .. very odd.
I think they are stuck there because they wan't to attack the city but can't. Because Luebeck is not on spains warmap.
Could id be that stability is a bit out of control?
Just started a game as Netherlands and watched the replay. Many AI civs collapsed because of overexpansion. They conquer many often independent cities in a few turns and collapse.
It is sad that so many major players collapse without any intervention from other civs. There is probably no way to tell the AI to expand more slowly. But maybe we could lower the treshold for complete collapse and grant independence to few cities more often.
England conquered and lost the scotish provinces three times
Just started a game as Netherlands and watched the replay. Many AI civs collapsed because of overexpansion. They conquer many often independent cities in a few turns and collapse.
- Venice managed to conquer Constantinopel via Crusade. Byzantium collapsed. Venice conquered some more cities and collapsed too.
- Burgundy captured Jerusalem, Dumyat, independent Groningen ?!, Ragusa ?! and collapsed.
- Ottomans captured independent Byzantine cities and collapsed.
- Muscow captured independent Kiev cities and collapsed.
- Austria conquered one hunagrian city, Hungary immediatly collapsed, Austria captured some more cities within a few turns and collapsed.
It is sad that so many major players collapse without any intervention from other civs. There is probably no way to tell the AI to expand more slowly. But maybe we could lower the treshold for complete collapse and grant independence to few cities more often.
England conquered and lost the scotish provinces three times
3Miro
Deity
This sounds like a bug in the Stability module. Did you get any errors in the PythonErr files?
England conquered and lost the scotish provinces three times
This is intended and it is what you guys wanted, right?
No, there are no errors in the log files. I have also the ingame python-error-popups turned on. But i don't know if they appear when autoplay is on.
Yeah, therfore the smiley
3Miro
Deity
Hm ... when stability drops, then the player should first start losing cities from secession and this should slow down the expansion. There are also safeguards against snowball secession (secession results in a small boost of Stability). Maybe there is a problem with changing civics and the temporary loss of stability form Anarchy (although this has been nerfed for the AI). I will look into it.
The Immortal
Forever Young
What about Byzantium respawn later as Greece?
To add some trouble for Turks
To add some trouble for Turks
merijn_v1
Black Belt
Instead of a 100% bonus vs. Heavy Cavalry instead of a 75% bonus, a 25% defense bonus vs. Knights will maybe be better.
Who said that Guisarmiers should be stronger than or equal to Knights?
It's more about giving them a decent chance at defending against cavalry.
Currently a Guisarmier is relatively weaker than a Spearman concidering their usual opponents(Lancers/Heavy Lancers/Knights).
Prior to increased use of gunpowder pretty much the only thing that a cavalry/knight unit shouldn't attack is a unit of spearmen/polearms headon. Outflanking was the way to go on this.. not a simple charge which was the main and pretty much only attack of Knights. If it weren't for this advantage of polearms/spearmen they probably wouldn't have been used that much since pretty much any other type of unit defeats spearmen
(excluding maybe peasants armed with field tools^^)Usually from what I gathered Spearmen didn't participate in a fight that much, they were mainly used to secure an area from a cavalry assault, since a headon assault against a wall of spears was pretty much suicidal for cavalry.
I had already posted the stats about the units but I added some more info, like the promotions
Spearman(4) +100% = 8str vs Lancers(7) and Heavy Lancers (10)
14,3% stronger than a Lancer while a Heavy Lancer is 25% stronger than a Spearman
Guisarmier(6) +75% = 10,5str vs Heavy Lancers(10) and Knights(13)
5% stronger than a Heavy Lancer while a Knight is 30% stronger than a Guisarmier
suggested:
Guisarmier(6) +100% = 12str vs Heavy Lancers(10) and Knights(13)
20% stronger than a Heavy Lancer while a Knight is 8,3% stronger than a Guisarmier
including promotions:attack 1 for infantry(10%), attack 2 for cavalry(20%)
Spearman(4) +110% = 8,4str vs Lancers(8,4) and Heavy Lancers (12)
equal to a Lancer while a Heavy Lancer is 43% stronger than a Spearman
Guisarmier(6) +85% = 11,1str vs Heavy Lancers(12) and Knights(15,6)
5% stronger than a Heavy Lancer while a Knight is 40% stronger than a Guisarmier
suggested:
Guisarmier(6) +110% = 12,6str vs Heavy Lancers(12) and Knights(15,6)
10% stronger than a Heavy Lancer while a Knight is 24% stronger than a Guisarmier
As I had suggested an increase in the defense bonus vs. heavy cavaly to 100% would still leave Guisarmiers weaker than (comparable)cavalry. And the cavalry units still have the additional benefit of more promotions due to barracks/stables.
(which also makes cavalry/knights the better unit even with a 'buff' for Guisarmiers.
including defense bonus: 25%
Spearman(4) +135%= 9,4str vs Lancers(8,4) and Heavy Lancers (12)
12% stronger than a Lancer while a Heavy Lancer is 28% stronger than a Spearman
Guisarmier(6) +110%= 12,6str vs Heavy Lancers(12) and Knights(15,6)
5% stronger than a Heavy Lancer while a Knight is 24% stronger than a Guisarmier
suggested:
Guisarmier(6) +135%= 14,1str vs Heavy Lancers(12) and Knights(15,6)
17,5% stronger than a Heavy Lancer while a Knight is 10,6% stronger than a Guisarmier
so..
a Guisarmier 'dug in' on plains or so for 5 turn(25%) are atm still weaker than attacking Knights.
And a Guisarmier attacking Knights still is a bad idea even with 100% vs heavy cavalry
merijn_v1
Black Belt
You're makings some big mistakes. A guisarmier (if it had a 100% bonus vs. Heavy Cavalry) with Combat I promotion doesn't recieve a (6+10%)*100% vs. Heavy Cavalry, but a 6+110%. So no 13.2 strength, but a 12.2 strength. Als the modifiers are cummulative.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
The castles can be bombarded away, so I think you shouldn't count those. But then you still have 25% for Fortify and maybe for hills and rivers. Outside the city you can indeed count 25% upto 75% for terrain bonus'.
Morholt
Prince
Just discovered Amber can be randomly discovered in mines which doesn't make much sense.
As far as I know amber wasn't mined during the middle and early modern ages, it was picked by hand from the beach. Perhaps the Camp is a more suitable improvement?
As far as I know amber wasn't mined during the middle and early modern ages, it was picked by hand from the beach. Perhaps the Camp is a more suitable improvement?
The Greek Phalanx in RFC has a 100% defence bonus against Chariots, as in they die horribly if attacking. That is exactly what the Guisarmier needs in my opinion, you'd need knights to attack but can use the more easily accessible polearms to block their advance and stop the pillaging of the innocent villages.
Early days amber was collected by hand, but as with everything else of value to the gentler sex man eventually found it easier to mine it directly from the veins the "loose" bits originally come from (Google/Wiki is your friend)..
Just the random resource spawn mechanic at work, part of Civ4 I believe (or is it RFC?).
Early days amber was collected by hand, but as with everything else of value to the gentler sex man eventually found it easier to mine it directly from the veins the "loose" bits originally come from (Google/Wiki is your friend
)..3Miro
Deity
Not a Camp, a Quarry perhaps, but definitely not a Camp (with tents in the woods).
The random discovery of resources is a feature in BtS and it is still present in the mod. However, the chance is pretty small.
AbsintheRed
Deity
I agree with Caliom, would be better for gameplay this way
The total collapse of civs should be rare (down by 5-10 stability points), so losing cities from secession would be much more common.
AbsintheRed
Deity
I don't really have problems with "mining" Amber, or even discovering a new site every now and then
But if you guys want to, we can change it to a Quarry
