[BtS] Dales Combat Mod!

[Roamty]

Question after defense of a city is reduce to 0% and attack unit with mobile artillery against a warrior the mobile artillery does not kill the warrior why? three trys against the one warrior and he does not die???

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Question after defense of a city is reduce to 0% and attack unit with mobile artillery against a warrior the mobile artillery does not kill the warrior why? three trys against the one warrior and he does not die???

Artillery can't kill stuff outright, only take down to a minimum health lvl..

 

[Roamty]

In the field when a artillery unit hits a enemy unit there is no message that it miss or hit the unit or if if did damage to the unit can you fix this

 

[OrionVeteran]

Artillery can't kill stuff outright, only take down to a minimum health lvl..

Reality says otherwise: Indirect fire weapons, not in direct view of the enemy, like artillery, are brought to bear on enemy positions providing lethal fire support. Many units can be killed or severely injured by the blast of an artillery shell.

IMO, artillery should be able to kill not just injure enemy troops.

V/R,

Orion Veteran

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Name any battle in any war where artillery was not only the only weapon used but the only weapon BROUGHT to the battle, and on top of that, completely and utterly destroyed the enemy as an effective fighting force.

 

[OrionVeteran]

Name any battle in any war where artillery was not only the only weapon used but the only weapon BROUGHT to the battle, and on top of that, completely and utterly destroyed the enemy as an effective fighting force.

Artillery is not meant to be the only weapon used alone in a battle. Rather, artillery provides lethal fire support. Support means it is used in combination with other troops and weapons. Make no mistake. Just because artillery is a weapon that provides support, does not mean it is not capable of inflicting lethal blows to enemy forces. In game terms artillery should be able to soften up, injure and yes, even kill enemy forces in well fortified strong holds. It can be a field day if troops are out in the open.

Bottom Line: Roamty is right. The warrior should not have survived.

V/R,

Orion Veteran

 

[Roamty]

Name any battle in any war where artillery was not only the only weapon used but the only weapon BROUGHT to the battle, and on top of that, completely and utterly destroyed the enemy as an effective fighting force.

The Battle of Fort Sumter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

Artillery was use as effective force

The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the first military action of the American Civil War. Following the surrender, Lincoln called for militia from the remaining states to retake the seized federal properties. The ensuing war lasted four years, effectively ending in April 1865, with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. However, the local and short-term aftermath was that Charleston Harbor was completely in Confederate hands.

 

[Dale]

Yes, all this history on bombarding is fascinating.

However, in game terms, (and this was the Firaxis view too), IF artillery is given the power to kill, then collateral damage becomes extremely over-powered thus making the arty SOD the ONLY strategic decision. And in the words of Sid himself, it's not strategy if there is only one right decision.

 

[Roamty]

Yes, all this history on bombarding is fascinating.

However, in game terms, (and this was the Firaxis view too), IF artillery is given the power to kill, then collateral damage becomes extremely over-powered thus making the arty SOD the ONLY strategic decision. And in the words of Sid himself, it's not strategy if there is only one right decision.

I like your point can you add message when artillery hits a unit in the field

In the field when a artillery unit hits a enemy unit there is no message that it miss or hit the unit or if if did damage to the unit can you fix this

 

[avain]

Yes, all this history on bombarding is fascinating.

However, in game terms, (and this was the Firaxis view too), IF artillery is given the power to kill, then collateral damage becomes extremely over-powered thus making the arty SOD the ONLY strategic decision. And in the words of Sid himself, it's not strategy if there is only one right decision.

I'd vote for a middle-ground: artillery should be lethal, but only if it way outclasses the enemy (ie. artillery vs. warrior), or if used in extreme measure - ie. you'd probably be way more effective with a much smaller combined force, but hell - the choice is yours.
You'd ask why all this fuss about a not so effective feature - because it's FUN to use arty to devastate from the distance.
My 2 cents.

 

[Thomas SG]

Yes, all this history on bombarding is fascinating.

However, in game terms, (and this was the Firaxis view too), IF artillery is given the power to kill, then collateral damage becomes extremely over-powered thus making the arty SOD the ONLY strategic decision. And in the words of Sid himself, it's not strategy if there is only one right decision.

It would not be too powerful if the artillery of the enemy could shoot back immediatly and if you would mod the battle as I suggested, I think ...

 

[Dom Pedro II]

The Battle of Fort Sumter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

Artillery was use as effective force

The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the first military action of the American Civil War. Following the surrender, Lincoln called for militia from the remaining states to retake the seized federal properties. The ensuing war lasted four years, effectively ending in April 1865, with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. However, the local and short-term aftermath was that Charleston Harbor was completely in Confederate hands.

There was no real battle at Fort Sumter that day. There was a bombardment, the fort surrendered and no one was killed. Against hardened troops, the bombardment certainly wouldn't have just killed everyone leaving a completely empty structure for the Confederates to move into unopposed.

 

[Thomas SG]

I'd vote for a middle-ground: artillery should be lethal, but only if it way outclasses the enemy (ie. artillery vs. warrior),

Why should it be so much easier to kill a group of warriors from a distance then a group of riffleman with artillery? Both are out of range! Both are unprotected!

No, I think artillery should be able to kill - but it should kill in a different way!

Example:
If artillery bombards a group of 1000 men in a field it will maybe kill 100 men with the first strike. So there are only 900 men left. If the artillery bombards them again it will hit less men because there are less targets to hit. Instead of 100 men now only 90 men will die and so on... The bombardment becomes more and more uneffective.

So early artillery should take for example 10% of the points (or a minimun of 0.1) of a unit with one bombard. A unit with 14 then will die this way if you use only artillery and the unit has no time to heal:

14 - 12,6 - 11,3 - 10,2 - 9,2 - 8,3 - 7,5 - 6,8 - 6,1 - 5,5 - 5 - 4,5 - 4,1 - 3,7 - 3,3 - 3 - 2,7 - 2,4 - 2,2 - 2 - 1,8 - 1,6 - 1,5 - 1,4 - 1,3 - 1,2 ...

So it will need nearly 40 hits to kill him if you use only artillery. I think that's what we need... Good damage with the first strikes and the possibility to kill if you are powerful enough.

 

[OrionVeteran]

Yes, all this history on bombarding is fascinating.

However, in game terms, (and this was the Firaxis view too), IF artillery is given the power to kill, then collateral damage becomes extremely over-powered thus making the arty SOD the ONLY strategic decision. And in the words of Sid himself, it's not strategy if there is only one right decision.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Artillery can provide a defense zone of control that can be very dangerous (even lethal) to those brave (or stupid) enough to enter the zone.

For the game: I'm not advocating that a single shot from an artillery unit should result in one or more units getting killed. I do think that continuous bombardment should take its toll. After a very few turns, persistent and continuous bombardment from several artillery units should ultimately result in lethal kills to severely wounded units. A severely wounded warrior should have little chance to survive.

Very Respectfully,

Orion Veteran

 

[Dale]

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Artillery can provide a defense zone of control that can be very dangerous (even lethal) to those brave (or stupid) enough to enter the zone.

For the game: I'm not advocating that a single shot from an artillery unit should result in one or more units getting killed. I do think that continuous bombardment should take its toll. After a very few turns, persistent and continuous bombardment from several artillery units should ultimately result in lethal kills to severely wounded units. A severely wounded warrior should have little chance to survive.

Very Respectfully,

Orion Veteran

So basically what you and Thomas SG are saying is that a unit just stands there and accepts consequent bombardments after the first one. Anyone under a barrage after the first salvo will seek shelter and cover. Or run from the area of affect. Thus, avoiding elimination.

But reality aside, I still see it as a bad decision to give siege weapons lethal bombardment for the game.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Dale:- btw, you pick this up? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6417726&postcount=219

Not major or anything just probably not intended....

Edit: On the above lethal bomb has been decided by the masses to be a BAD THING, it just encourages stacks of artillery (cats, trebs, cannons etc.), its pretty stupid and very unbalancing in game terms, even in real terms

 

[Dale]

Note to self:

Points out of page 12 to fix:
1. Feedback for unit field bombardment (Roamty)
2. Allow workers to chop bitter winter forests (Drew)

 

[avain]

Why should it be so much easier to kill a group of warriors from a distance then a group of riffleman with artillery? Both are out of range! Both are unprotected!

No, I think artillery should be able to kill - but it should kill in a different way!

Example:
If artillery bombards a group of 1000 men in a field it will maybe kill 100 men with the first strike. So there are only 900 men left. If the artillery bombards them again it will hit less men because there are less targets to hit. Instead of 100 men now only 90 men will die and so on... The bombardment becomes more and more uneffective.

So early artillery should take for example 10% of the points (or a minimun of 0.1) of a unit with one bombard. A unit with 14 then will die this way if you use only artillery and the unit has no time to heal:

14 - 12,6 - 11,3 - 10,2 - 9,2 - 8,3 - 7,5 - 6,8 - 6,1 - 5,5 - 5 - 4,5 - 4,1 - 3,7 - 3,3 - 3 - 2,7 - 2,4 - 2,2 - 2 - 1,8 - 1,6 - 1,5 - 1,4 - 1,3 - 1,2 ...

So it will need nearly 40 hits to kill him if you use only artillery. I think that's what we need... Good damage with the first strikes and the possibility to kill if you are powerful enough.

What you're saying does not contradict with what I'm saying.
The warrior vs. rifleman under bombardment issue - it's only about game balance. I too agree that encouraging stacking artillery would be a stupid design strategy. (also, you are missing the fact that the rifleman is superior to the warrior not only because it has rifles. It's his training, understanding of modern warfare, etc.)

I'd probably do the following (for game balance): if the base strength of the artillery exceeds the base strength of the defending unit, I'd give it a chance to deliver a deadly strike, but use the above described 'seeking cover' effect (though not to that extent you described). Otherwise apply the max hit cap.

 

[Dale]

Note to self:

Points out of page 12 to fix:
1. Feedback for unit field bombardment (Roamty)
2. Allow workers to chop bitter winter forests (Drew)

These are now fixed.

 

[Dale]

Hi Dale, i installed your mod but im receiving an annoying message "Got here!". I took a look into the code and it seems you didn't comment some lines (i think those are for debuging?)

bool CvUnitAI::AI_Abombard()
.
.
.
.
for (int iPlayer = 0; iPlayer < MAX_CIV_PLAYERS; ++iPlayer)
{
	gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->addMessage((PlayerTypes)iPlayer, true, GC.getDefineINT("EVENT_MESSAGE_TIME"), "Got here!", "AS2D_BOMB_FAILS", MESSAGE_TYPE_INFO, GC.getUnitInfo(getUnitType()).getButton(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_RED"), plot()->getX_INLINE(), plot()->getY_INLINE());
}

Could you remove the message on your next build? im really enyoing my game with your mod but this message is driving me crazzy.

Thanks a lot and GREAT MOD.

Fixed in the next version.