Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by strategyonly, Sep 3, 2010.

  1. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    In reality, yes, but not in the game. Against archers, they have a strength of 12, while the opponent is a composite archer with a strength of 5. In the forest and on the hill, this gives 7.5. Even with an increase in the number of archers per unit, it will be 9.
    At the same time, the probability of retreat is 30%. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, nothing prevents them from attacking with their next move.

    That is, archers were trained to shoot only at the enemy's line in the squares, but each thrower was trained as a sniper?
    Strongly. Very much. In reality, of course, the bow requires very specific training and a very specific contingent was engaged with it. These are fairly well-off and not the smallest landowners, Military servants of the nobility, its huntsmen/foresters, etc.At the same time, it is archery that is practically applicable outside of war.
    Throwing heavy darts at ducks was not practiced. And at the same time, because of the low requirements, the bulk of the throwers are either the ultimate proletariat or ordinary infantry. There were also professionals among the throwers, but the typical contingent was not them.
    At the same time, in any case, the training should reflect the progress..
    The historical niche of throwers is the fight against heavy infantry. As for the archers, I suggest leaving the throwers the bonus of fighting him in the forest. So they were occasionally really used. The range of the throw is limited, with heavier darts more or less ignoring non-thick branches, foliage, etc.

    No, the range of differences is wider, even if you do not take very different maneuverability. 1. The infantry pike is strictly a two-handed weapon. Hence the much higher requirements for protection, or / and cover with their own arrows. Otherwise, the same throwers will torment them. 2. The spear on average is not a purely piercing weapon, cutting blows were inflicted even with cavalry Cossack "pikes". In general, in reality, the swordsmen looked even worse against the spearmen than in the video.

    As you might guess, we are talking about the spearman/ax-bearer and pikeman/flail pairs. Later units replace the spearman better. The swordsman is inferior to him by 33% (and as we remember, this is not for long), the arquebusier is inferior to the pikeman by the same 33%. As a result, the pikeman is relevant until the opening of the rifled weapon.
    The context is as follows: when storming a city with a cavalry unit in the garrison, the spearman outperforms the swordsman by 21%, the pikeman tsekpa – by 20%. That is, spearmen in Vanilla play the role of stormtroopers as well.
    At the same time, the first pikeman in C2C is the notorious 5%, and the heavy pikeman becomes obsolete BEFORE it appears. Rocket launcher unlocked by alchemy – 12 + anti-cavalry bonus 50%.= 18. Against 15 for a heavy pikeman. I have already mentioned the axe and the swordsman (13), which appear simultaneously with the late pikeman, but they pale against the background of the rocket twist of the balance.

    I didn't understand anything at all. No amount of placement on the technology tree negates the weakness of the vanilla sword.

    So what? It appears later and is weaker at the same time. The reference to the fact that someone CAN go the other way and open the flail earlier is not very constructive. Maybe not. What is the deep meaning of creating another decorative unit?

    That's exactly what we're talking about. Specifically, that you have a bunch of units in almost the same niche. Instead of the normal specialization on a wide range of issues.
    Reasoning on the topic "then there will be promotions and they will not be on the same person", sorry, is absurd. Why not make the differentiation obvious right away? Unless, of course, the goal is to raise the entry threshold to an outrage.
    At the same time, the main problem is not the axe, but the mace-bearers. For example, the chain almost duplicates the swordsmen when interacting with infantry and during the assault. But it is inexplicably 30% worse against the cavalry.

    It also has a very serious 1. serious training in peacetime is unrealistic, 2. by the beginning of the war, when the resistance is maximum, you can have an optimal army here now or count on a bright future. Despite the fact that in the course of training, you will lose units. The second option is bad even just economically.

    That is, mystical bonuses are supplemented by mystical promotions.

    Again, no. Flamethrowers have a strength of 24 against hand-to-hand combat, compared to 19.5 for axes. At the same time, they open up to heavy axes and the circulation of flamethrowers is not too limited – 20, as far as I understand. At the same time, this is another Wunderwaffe against archers, both in the forest and in the garrison.


    See above.

    And what prevents it from being done by the same throwers?

    That is, archers are only suitable for defending a limited set of cities. Another decorative unit.

    And the same thing happens in Vanilla. At the same time, the cities capture. With difficulty – exactly because 1. long archer is a versatile and powerful defensive unit and at the same time quite cheap. The strength in the city is 9 against 10 for the flail and knight. At the same time, the cost of two flails is almost equal to the cost of three archers. 2. The "short" archer is noticeably worse, but the gap from the attacker is still 20%, less than the strengthening bonus. And yes, it is still somewhat cheaper relative to the opponents. By the way, this is historical, garrison troops have always been cheaper than field troops.

    A quarter of the garrison will not replace the whole.

    The complex of weapons determines the interaction regardless of the culture. Because this is a banal physics, which does not depend on the number of feathers on the helmet or the pattern on the shield at all. At the same time, "cultural" features can only exaggerate the imbalance. Agricultural culture does not provide specific skills in the use of weapons, so within its framework, weapons that are difficult to master are relatively weakened. Can you guess which one?


    I am inclined to state the actual state of things. The only problem is that your ideas about pre-industrial war are the opposite of reality in 8 cases out of 10. You were not interested in the topic, obviously.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2021
  2. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Where are you getting this? Let's look at this without considering any promotions at all...

    Opening at x29
    Composite Bowmen
    UNIT_COMPOSITE_BOWMAN
    iCombat 7
    iFirstStrikes 2
    iCityDefense 50
    iHillsDefense 25
    VS Animal 25

    On a hill, you have a minimum of 25% bonus from the hill itself, then you get another 25% for the unit's defense ability, so 7 + 50% min = 10.5 (+2 first strikes, possible forest bonus, possible city (and all that bonus plus the city defense, though the attacker gets a LITTLE for attacking a city, not anywhere near the same benefit), possible fortification bonus)

    VS either

    Opening at x24 (closest compare)
    Javelineers
    UNIT_JAVELINEER
    iCombat 7
    iChanceFirstStrikes 2
    iCityAttack 15
    iCityDefense 10
    iHillDefense 25
    iHillsAttack 10
    VS Archer 25, VS Animal 25
    Getting 10% for hill attack and 25% for archer bonus, that's 7 + 35% = 9.45 (+ 0-2 first strikes and yes, decent withdrawal chances if they get hurt enough to want to end the battle early, which would mean they are injured to that point that they'll need to heal somewhat at least and will probably be hurt more than the archer)

    OR
    Opening at x37 (much much later but a bit before the next Archer unit, Longbowmen at x44)
    Skirmishers
    UNIT_SKIRMISHER
    iCombat 8
    iChanceFirstStrikes 2
    iCityAttack 20
    iCityDefense 5
    iHillDefense 25
    iHillsAttack 15
    VS Archer 25, VS Animal 25
    15% for hill attack and 25% for archer bonus = 8 + 40% = 11.2 - a slight edge but likely lost since the archer GETS 2 first strikes and the skirmisher MIGHT get up to 2 first strikes to counter them, plus the other likely forest/fortification bonuses.

    Perhaps you're talking about the current situation? Meh. Obviously the current balances are off.

    They've probably been used already in the stack - and they aren't as strong at it. You'd be better off with other weapons when you start wanting to punch through and kill the units you're attacking. They'll finish the fight rather than bail early.

    The goal is no unit alone should be used to defend a city alone - that's far too simplistic and lacks strategic value. However, when boosted by a strong cross defense stack, they work very well. And yes, I mean them to be crap in the field unless used to soften forces from a distance mostly. Because since they have this ability, it should be assumed that's how you'd want to use them in most cases. However, on hills, particularly forested ones, they're tough to uproot, specially when there's a strong cross defense in place.
    Yes, but not the way you've been arguing for roman units having this effect or that on the battlefield rather than thinking in terms of more simple general army structures. Your insistence, for example, that spears are not just short pikes holding a line against charging and a bit better at reaching the riders normally a little harder to reach is not the envisioning of spearmen in Civ IV unless you're talking about a cultural unit that uses them in a unique way.

    Most of the rest of what you said just didn't make sense enough to me to be able to answer to unfortunately.
     
  3. dummy1929

    dummy1929 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    50
    Feedback on playing v41:

    After several years, I decided to check out the latest version of C2C. After some wiggling with the options, I am enjoying my latest game, deity difficulty, marathon speed, gigantic world. As before, wonderful game, rich experience, immersive. Lots of intermediate goals that make me want to play "just one more turn". Turnspeed, btw, is not horrible and seems to have improved a lot.

    As before, some gameplay bottlenecks. AI competitiveness seems to have become worse. I now reach the stage where I am far ahead of everyone else in terms of cities and military even before reaching Classical Lifestyle (used to be renaissance). One AI player is ahead of me in terms of technology, and I don't even have access to copper or horses, but my obsidian swordsmen and arsonists are now so plentiful that I can take any city, even if it is defended by walls and 30 composite bowmen. (I didn't even have obsidian in the beginning and did everything with stone axemen and atlatists against an AI that had impis and composite bowmen.)

    The AI:
    - does not expand aggressively enough building new cities or conquer barbarian cities
    - does not use its technical superiority
    - does not seem to know how to build specialized cities, i.e. build all production buildings for a while and then build all military buildings etc
    - seems less efficient in using captured animals for strategic use, i.e. get horses, cows, or elephants. This for me is basically the one way I get these. In my current game, there are practically no horses on the starting continent (1 single horse in the arctic surrounded by half a dozen barbarian cities).
    - has tons and tons of money but seems to be reluctant to expand its armies. In my current game, I can build stone axemen in 2 turns. The AI should be even better at it.
    - still does not know how to use generals, and moves them around unprotected. Generals are absolutely essential to warfare in CIV, and the inability of the AI to use them properly makes it easy to defeat them.
    - still doesn't use doomstacks but moves single units around unprotected in range of enemy units, including heroes.
    - still doesn't know how to surround cities or enemy units.

    I know that AI programming has its limits. I guess Civ uses a weighted system of preferences for AI decision making; I don't know how easy it would be to improve it or introduce some key strategies or moves. It would be great if someone could explain how it works.
     
  4. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    All of this is being improved both in short term projects and some long term ones that will address them. These truly are the worst and most difficult problems we face and are really a final barrier to really opening up the worlds of development planned for beyond trying to sharpen the game first.
     
  5. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    Certainly.

    So you have strengthened archers, and now you are fighting with the result, giving out strange bonuses to swordsmen and throwers? And what's the point?

    1. Why do you need to FINISH OFF the already DAMAGED units with swordsmen at all? Additional throwers will perfectly cope with this. They will deviate from the damaged ones in only isolated cases, the entire optimization will be a few percent. At the same time, 1. average swordsmen are a quarter more expensive than skimishers. 2. Using light swordsmen will simply weaken the stack. With almost the same expenses. They are even slightly weaker in relation to the bows, there are no first strikes.
    2. Are you going to carefully select a "proportional" stack for each encounter? This is technically impossible, the results of the battle are unknown to you.

    1. No. They either work and then the cross stack is not needed, or they do not, and then they are useless. Archers are a non-specialized unit.
    2. I repeat, with a strict specialization, it is enough to knock out a quarter of the garrison, so that the defense collapses completely. With a subtle difference, no one will suffer with cross-stacks.
    And yes, I have a number of questions. 1. What about holy vanilla? 2. What will happen to the balance, I have already said 3. In which reality the garrisons were mostly hand-to-hand?

    So you think that the Greeks / Romans used standard (relatively thin and long) spears against horsemen because of "cultural differences"? And with the help of mana, the harsh German spirit or qi energy, they can stop and quickly kill an animal weighing 250 kg?

    Are you confused by the frenzied criticism or specific English from an auto-translator?
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2021
  6. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Ease of achieving balance throughout all steps of upgrades, being able to think of things, not in a singular unit at a time breakdown, but as an overall unit line and how that line interacts with the others. It's easier for the player (and MUCH easier for designer) when the strengths are more comparable and you're thinking more about the modifiers that then show directly what those lines are meant to counter. Some lines do have a bit more innate strength than others, but mostly it's been just a matter of poor design methodology (absolute reliance on spot fixes and evolutions rather than overarching reviews) that has things as out of whack as they are now.

    I'm not fighting with the results at all. It comes together much easier this way. And the bonuses you find strange are IMO quite rational.

    The faster you can start breaking through with killing blows rather than relying on withdrawals to hopefully save your units from death, the faster you ensure you stop taking losses. Up to this point many losses would be taken by failed attempts to hit and run - you can't really avoid that. You could alternatively, depending on what you're facing, possibly get swords or other units to hit hard enough that some losses among them are worthwhile instead of attempting another softening attack. The name of the game, as it has always been in an invasion, is to keep losses to the minimum you can manage it - this workup makes that quite interesting to try to figure out how to achieve in the best manner possible.

    There's no perfect way to attack but you can imagine that you'll probably have used city attack promos on these units rather than withdrawal ones which you'd be more inclined to use on the throwing units to help them have that chance to survive. And yes, I do assume that an intelligent player is going to have some 3-5 minimum promotions to assign to every single unit they train if they are doing it intelligently. If they don't they're opening themselves up to having to use a TON of production across many cities to equate to a much smaller, more highly skilled force from a few specialized focused cities.

    Couldn't disagree with you more on that point. The archer is key in the cross stack but shouldn't work on their own if there isn't one. Vanilla trains players to be lazy and just stock a few archers in a city and call it good.

    Put that another way so I can try to understand what you mean please. Are you saying players are too lazy to work cross-defense stacks in cities? Good - I want AI's to be able to take advantage of those people and then cross defend their own cities so that the player who doesn't want to think much about strategy gets frustrated and has to drop their difficulty level until they figure out what it is they're doing wrong - the AI will show them by what it's doing right.

    Rereading this, you're saying if you put all the emphasis on one type of attack you'll be able to break through any cross defense. Maybe, but you'll lose so many more units before you do if you aren't thinking more in terms of how to soften, weaken, then punch through instead. And if you can take advantage of a weakness in the cross stacking in the defenses you're facing, all the better. So you should be prepared to be able to call in the right kinds of attackers when a weakness emerges.

    I want players to have to learn more - not relearn everything. The basics of what unit lines are for should remain fairly consistent and this way they will - it gives a seed by which to understand the rest of the design. Again, it's then an evolution of vanilla rather than a complete redesign of it - and when you want to get into a deeper picture that starts considering more complicated weapon arrangements on units and the quality of the weapons selected, such as to start looking at things like the puncture vs armor, the equipment mod, among other combat mods, will be there to keep adding layers of depth, none of which completely ignore the previous but CAN turn some assumptions on their heads - and possibly yet make this era of combat look more historically accurate in the process.

    Thus the reason that Archers shouldn't be all that holds a wall.

    I think when you want to explain how Greeks and Romans fought, you're looking more at the cultural units or specific equipment mod matters. They were just a few cultures among many. And you're talking about how spears blended with shields - the base spearmen don't even wield shields by default. No, they aren't trying to throw their spears either. They have 2 handed spears that aren't ridiculously pike length and they operate in similar formations to pikemen but aren't quite as rigid as a usual pike square arrangement. In Civ IV this means they are the anti-mounted unit primarily and that's it. Start representing how effective a given spear fighter can be against many other kinds of melee and you throw off a simple circular counteraction arrangement as I'm trying to establish as a base to be able to rely on by assumption. The highly regimented and culturally opinionated greeks and romans did nothing usual to the common less civilized folk and found extremely superior (and complex) weapon arrangements as a result. Their abnormal examples are NOT what I feel the game should be formed around.

    More the latter I assume. Your statements are often not specifying enough what you're referring to. You did manage to make a valid point that the whole workup doesn't really need the anti-mounted on throwing.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2021
  7. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    That is, player 1. is too stupid to match the base strength, but at the same time loves to count percentages? And not the simplest (50%, 25 from 8 or 10 from 6), but something very intricate? 2. Absolutely does not pay attention to the realism in the non-fantasy setting? However, even in fantasy, a sword is a sword. It is decidedly difficult to explain without using mana and qi why it is better against archers than an axe. It is against archers, not light fighters in general.

    In reality, just the standard "policy" is very well thought out.

    Not just me, I'm afraid. An argument along the lines of "the sword has a scabbard, and the one-handed axe was always carried in the hand" is not rational, because 1. This is not the case and quite a lot of people are aware of the existence of ax cases in the MODERN sale of 2... have repeatedly written before.

    One more time. Archers and throwers are almost equal, the damage in any case will be serious. Throwers of the second wave will retreat in isolated cases.

    This tactic would make sense with a completely different damage range. That is, when the target is still strong enough to inflict losses on the throwers after the damage. But it is already radically inferior to the swordsmen. Nothing like this is visible in your version.

    1. That is, the player must deal with the balance?Then why do you need TWO different units in the same niche? Increases will still dilute the characteristics of even the same type of units or bring different ones closer together. You see, promotions is... forbid units that are similar in characteristics, see vanilla.
    2. Skimishers also have promotions. Which they will perfectly get if you use them to finish off.
    3. So where should he get them in PEACETIME?

    You haven't forgotten that in war, units are... lost?

    What does this have to do with the pointlessness of the swordsman/thrower combinations?

    This is already mysticism.
    1.The archer's parameters in the fight against a specific opponent do NOT depend on the presence or absence of a cross stack.
    2. At the same time, the only "specialization" of the archer is vulnerability to throwers and swordsmen.
    3) In the other niches, the archer directly competes with the melee stack - because the archer has no narrow "positive" specialization. That is, the opponent, which he particularly "likes".
    So, in theory now we need a) an anti-swordsman - now it's an axe or a flail, and they do not complement, but compete with each other.
    b) . Specialists in the fight against throwers in the original are not, you just need a unit with a large base strength. That is, the same axe / flail.

    This is a theory, now we look at reality.
    So, you have strengthened the composite archer to 7 while maintaining the city bonus of 50%. At the same time, the total bonus, along with 25% of the standard city defense, is actually 75%. Plus the first shots. That is, in the city on the plain, it is better... 1. spearmen against cavalry. 7+ 75% plus first shots vs. 6 +75% 2. Pikemen against cavalry at the expense of the first shots 3. Axemen against their own kind, spearmen and ... throwers.
    The only thing he is inferior to the axe is fighting with swordsmen. In the city on the hill, this gap is compensated for.
    As far as I understand, in your version, the mystical bonus for fighting throwers goes to the swordsman. I won't ask how this is possible from a besieged city. I'll just move on to the next point.

    No, what I'm saying is that your scheme assumes that only a quarter of the garrison is normally able to resist attackers of the same type.
    Accordingly, it is enough to kill her to remove the others without any problems.
    Universal archers outside of the cross stack in your scheme can't defend normally, remember?
    Another thing is that you can't practically implement it yet.

    That is, the protection of cities with a cross stack, and not with arrows, is not a new one?

    But they don't stay – see for example, "spearmen" and yes, everything else is not even relevant in theory, right? At the same time, there are no five independent lines in Vanilla. There is a) spearmen b). swordsman c) the ruler of the axe-crossbowman, at the end merging into the arithmetic mean of the flail.

    It's a great plan, but I'd like more details.

    And for the rest, a stick as thick as the handle of a shovel was enhanced by qi and the German spirit?
    Thicker and shorter spears with wide tips were common for quite a short time in the high Middle Ages and died out for uselessness. As an anti-cavalry tool. But the swordsman is not a horse... so the cutting of infantry by protazans flourished until the 18th century. Anything that can kill a horse will kill an infantryman even more effectively, alas..

    As always, exactly the opposite. You can'T fight without a shield against cavalry with spears. A warrior with a short spear, but without a shield, will simply be pierced.

    Watch the video. With a crushing score, the two-handed spearmen without a shield defeat the swordsmen. The shields of the spearmen are not for dealing with swordsmen/one-handed axemen.


    Standard barbarian equipment is a fairly short and THIN spear that can be thrown. Framea, Angon, etc.
    That is, no specialized anti-cavalry Because normal cavalry was simply not brought to the German and other forests.
    Once again, the spear is primarily an anti-personnel weapon. As an anti-cavalry it is decidedly so-so.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2021
  8. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    1) I'm not saying players are too stupid to match base strengths - I'm saying that it's more difficult to keep your unit chains balanced against one another by use of the consideration of highly varying base strengths when % variations are more easy to compare if the units, by age, are more reliably roughly the same strengths.
    2) It's not that it's a highly complex web of modifiers, particularly when they usually stay constant, depending on the line, or are in a consistent pattern of gain or loss to show the line's gradual change of purpose of use over time. For example, early on, throwing is more about protecting cities than invading them and grows more towards the role of supporting the invasion as time goes on, eventually their role of supporting archers in defense being more relegated to the crossbow that replaces the gaps they held up.
    3)Yes, a sword is a sword, but it's also the only unit assumed to be carrying shields more often than not, and their ability to stash their weapon more effectively than other weapon systems, gives them more agility and adaptability. We've spoken about how using this agility and speed on foot, as well as having assumed moderate armor and shields and if not using their shields to block and deflect, the blade itself having some ability to bat away incoming projectiles, is why they gain a bonus against throwing and archery. That's not a mysterious benefit, it's explained in this manner. Axes, maybe some have shields but they are heavier weapons and that keeps them from being as mobile. Spears are harder to run with as well - sure you can hike with them better perhaps. But spears also require a tighter regimen to be useful, more easily struck by the manner in which archers fire.

    But... you can keep arguing. The point is, this is to establish a game interaction of assumable benefits of one type against another and one could argue quite a few differing arrangements and why, so long as there is some logical thought behind the arrangement and it plays well is all that really matters.

    Yeah I don't see it that way at all - it's a result of chaos.

    Behind the walls of a city, with this projected layout, while a thrower might be able to land some real damage on an archer, put a swordsman as a city defender and see it take 4 or 5 throwers to damage that sword before they even start to be able to get at the archer, which is able to come up to defend against MOST other unit types that would foolishly try to attack.

    What's not making sense to you?

    A defense or an attack? If the archer is attacking, it definitely depends on the specific opponent it might be facing. In a defense, it would come up against most types but against the types that best counter it, other types would come to the fore to defend first. Thus, swords and throwing units being the main units to counter archers, would tend to struggle more against axes/maces/swords when they attack. If those units superior in defending against them fall far enough that the archers do come up to the front, then the archers, in a city, are still exceedingly lethal. One COULD start a city defense with archers alone but it's not a defense that would hold out as long against as many units - and this is no different in vanilla. Put a couple of axes and a couple of spears in every city with a couple of archers and see how well any invading force will fare - it's very tough to get through and at that point only sacrificing collateral and hit and run tactics are useful for a while. If you continue with some of your arguments, you would think that mounted are all one should bring to attack cities in vanilla and they should all be as promoted for withdrawal as they can be because who then ever needs any swords to invade the city with when you have that?

    Cities have city defense - and in C2C there's a minimum that can be brought down to depending on what buildings are in the city. You can only destroy walls so far, enough to gain entry usually, and even if you turn them to rubble, there's an ability to use that to the defenders advantage, as well as the actual buildings within the city. Most of these units have comparable strength so at full power would be quite capable of resistance, just how STRONG or effective that resistance would be would vary greatly. You could try to defend with one type of unit but it wouldn't hold nearly as well or as long.

    Of course it's not new. If you hadn't figured out that a few spears and axes in vanilla could improve your defenses 7-fold over having just archers, well, go back and play again and see what I mean.

    The flail is just the extension of the sword line. There's spears, axes, swords, archers, siege and mounted in vanilla - that's it.
    Vanilla:
    Spears beat mounted, mounted beats most everything else, axes beat all other melee, archers beat nothing unless on a hill or in a city and are able to defend cities on their own, swords are beat by axes and mounted but are better at invading cities, mounted do fine invading cities but mostly are hit and run attackers for that to soften forces with, hopefully without dying in the process (tending to be a poor strategy the AI uses more than any wise player would). Siege is necessary to wipe out city defense modifiers and to sacrifice to soften forces with through the use of collateral.

    Every other observation you've made beyond that is some artifact of imbalance introduced by the variation of the way they time unit upgrading, which is intended for the sake of variation, not really for any kind of attempt at realism. To achieve this set of rock-paper-scissors, they include power variation more into the picture. They do this in a more extreme way because being a simpler outlook than what we're trying to do with more core unit lines, they can get away with it. For example, they make spears weaker by a point off the average but then give them +100% against mounted so that while they are the weakest, they still are best against mounted units. I didn't want to depower them at base so severely.

    We add in throwing and a few more on the side, most of which the modders just wanted to include somehow and haven't been well balanced into the whole picture yet.

    You'll have to wait for equipment to be designed to see those kinds of details but puncture and armor and accuracy and dodge will all play major roles.

    It's comments like these that really don't mean anything clearly and just derail the conversation. I have no idea what you're trying to say. I think to clarify what you're asking me to clarify, if a Roman soldier fought with 2 spears and a sword, they are nothing like a core unit that is assumed to fight in a much simpler and pure single weapon consideration and as they have a very complicated approach, they are NOT a core unit.

    As if they don't have any armor...

    Referring to never posted videos doesn't help - though if it was about a specific cultural way some unit fought I didn't bother because this isn't about cultural special units.

    That would just be bad game design.
     
  9. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem is that these coefficients can be selected normally, but they can be very specific. Normally, this is when 1. The final strength is quite easily calculated in the main cases. 2. This is really caused by the necessity of the game, and is not solved in a more "friendly" way 3. And most importantly, it does not cause rejection by the lack of elementary logic. In fact, there is only one such modifier in vanilla – the swordsman suddenly becomes stronger when attacking a city than when facing the same units in an open field. At the same time, it was not immediately introduced into the game.

    The problem is that 99.99 ... of humanity is not aware of your ideas about the role of swordsmen in history. But they know that in reality, one-handed axemen, spearmen and mace-bearers carried shields no less often. If only simply because a real swordsman is a very ordinary spearman, left without a spear or a thrower without darts. Not counting the two-handed options and the exotic Renaissance rondashier. With a heavy metal shield.


    I can repeat that 1. One-handed axes were carried in a belt, on a belt or on a belt over the shoulder, and not in the hands. This is a commonplace wherever there were enough forests. 2. The axe is usually shorter. 3. Cases/scabbards that give a mystical bonus - for an axe, a banality both on excavations, and in not very old life, and in specialized stores. 4 The spear is thrown behind the back with an ordinary belt and gives a fat bonus on the hills and in the mountains, just like any stick with a pointed tip. The classic alpenstock is just two meters long.

    Where does the speed come from?

    How do they differ from not-swordsmen? A discarded spear? This does not give 1500 points to the armor.

    In the case of a real battle bow, this possibility is vanishingly small and.... the arrow is similarly repelled with a glove or spear.

    One-handed battle axe - 1.5-2 kg. The sword is usually a little less than a kilogram. I am not sure that between 700 g and 1.2 kg have a decisive impact on mobility.

    One more time. Infantry rifle of the Napoleonic Wars with a 2 m bayonet. Infantry rifles of the First World War up to 174 cm. Moreover, they are more inconvenient than a spear because of the greater weight of the bayonet and they ran with them at the ready, and not behind their backs.

    I can just continue to copy-paste. You are repeating arguments that have already been refuted.
    At the same time, I remind you that you carefully strengthen the type of fighters that almost never existed in reality. Due to innate defectiveness, the non-existent. And the spearmen, of which the vast majority have been for most of history, are almost useless to you. With the corresponding consequences for the composition of the armies.

    There is no logical reason to give out a bonus against archers to swordsmen.
    And no game sense, too. In unreformed C2C, compared to Vanilla, ALL melee weapons are weakened relative to the shooters. If this is causing problems, you could just raise the base power to everyone. Instead, you... 1. strengthen the shooters 2. invent mystical bonuses for swordsmen.

    This is called a friendly interface. And realistic.

    It was about your theory of "swordsmen finish off archers damaged by throwers". Now you have decided to switch to swordsmen defending against throwers.

    Your theory of profitable finishing off the victims of throwers with swordsmen.

    Of course, they can't. 1. Because after opening the mechanisms, crossbowmen appear. With a strength of 9 against melee fighters, but only 6 against archers. That is, they are equal to a short bow fortified in the city for 25.
    Practically, in vanilla, archers have a bonus against shooters, which I suggested.
    2. And here is an example closer to your stack theory. So, a spearman/axe pair is worth almost as much as three "short" archers (70/75). At the same time, the attack of the stack of axes makes spearmen useless (7.5/4). Еffectively fighting ONE axeman. Or THREE archers with a strength of 5.25 against 5 even without strengthening.

    Now what will happen in reality. So, the storming stack consists of the same type of fighters.
    1. Stack specialists for this particular type fight very well, but they end quickly.
    2. The rest of the players either still fight more successfully than the archers – and then the archers are useless. Or worse – and then the cross stack loses its meaning.
    For the scheme to work, each type of specialist must kill more than four times as many "their" opponents as the alternative. That is archers, purchased with the amount that the cross stack will cost.
    And the consequences will be as follows. With a strong specialization and the weakness of universal archers, the defense will be much weaker than in vanilla. And your original goal was to make the cross stack "mandatory".
    You can make the garrisons more diverse, but not by your method.

    In vanilla too.

    1. In C2C and units are on average one and a half times stronger, with all the consequences for the role of protection. 2. At the same time, protection almost does not affect the "internal" balance between archers and the stack.

    In vanilla, it is a continuation of the axe line, + 50% against melee players. In C2C, yes, contrary to the sacred vanilla, he was cut down on anti-personnel and given an assault bonus. That is, in Vanilla there are spearmen, axes, one of which pretends to be a crossbowman, and a lone swordsman.

    The artifact is the existence of a swordsman in general, it was added later as a specialized stormtrooper. At the same time, initially in Vanilla, historicity was observed. There were spearmen, archers, and TWO-handed fighters, and there were no specialized short one-handed fighters.

    The weakest ones are very short time. Again, a swordsman is equal to a pikeman in the field.

    1. In practice, you gave them +20% of the vanilla pair of swordsman/spearman (not pikeman), almost did not change the balance with axes and at the same time cut the anti-cavalry capabilities by 50.%. As a result, the advantage of spearmen has to be considered under the microscope.
    2. In parallel, you have reduced the capabilities of the cavalry, which is stronger than the SWORDSMEN, mainly only on the plain due to a specific bonus.


    They will not be balanced. I repeat, the main motives for the existence of a bunch of unit types are 1. armor, 2.Anti-cavalry bonuses, which the supposedly holy vanilla does not allow you to add to anyone other than spearmen. And new throwers.
    As a result, you are trying to push seven types of infantry units to where there were two in vanilla and VERY locally another one.

    That is, we are talking about an indefinite beautiful future, despite the fact that distributing units to ready-made shield and armor classes is not a problem right now.

    What I'm trying to say is that there is only one way to fight cavalry with a classic spear, and no national peculiarities have anything to do with it. The strength of the stick does not depend on the qi and spirit.

    1. The reference legionnaire is basically a super-heavy thrower. 2. The Romans at the same time had quite standard spearmen. 3. In vanilla, the Praetorian is a very powerful swordsman. The spearmen of the Romans, as in real history, are standard.

    This, by the way, is another hole in the mechanics of the Сiv4. Need a mod that allows you to vary the parameters of the blows depending on the number of already inflicted. In legionnaires, they are very powerful at the beginning (pilum), and there are many such variations.

    I remind you that you were talking about basic spearmen. Armor that can withstand a direct spear strike is tens times more expensive than the most advanced shield.

    I have already given it above.
    https://warspot.ru/14922-kopie-kak-sverhoruzhie
    That is why spearmen were the dominant type of infantry even and especially where there was no powerful cavalry

    That is, in your reality, the superiority of the spear over the sword in LENGTH depends on the national patterns on the forehead of the spearman?

    That is why the barbarians were reduced to a civilized model in Vanilla. At the same time, there is no difference in the the main anti-cavalry tactics of thin spears.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2021
  10. dummy1929

    dummy1929 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    50
    Got it. Thanks in the meantime for an amazing game, whatever the problems!
     
  11. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I'm not sure I follow you. I believe you're trying to say one should throw out the idea of upgrade chains having common modifiers (% combat adjustments vs various combat classes) and just focus on how each unit at that stage interacts with other units at that exact stage instead. That's an approach you're welcome to try. It's not what I'm trying to do here.
    It's friendlier when you're not a historian trying to think of how realistic each individual unit weapon set would react to all other individual unit weapon sets as they are right then in that moment. If you're a game player, it's much nicer to know that your spears are there to kill horse units. Your swords are good to specialize in attacking cities and they can also have a role in defending cities and stacks against throwing units - no matter which age you happen to be in and things to adjust when we leave the more melee eras for gunpowder arrangements. To me, that is quite 'friendly' and what wouldn't be 'friendly' is trying to think of how a dude with a sword and shield is likely to fare against guys with axe and shield vs guys with two handed axes, vs guys with short spears and shields that may throw one or two of them to start with vs guys with two handed longer spears, vs guys that fight with a spear in each hand, vs... ad infinitum. Maybe later when you look at the specifically varied equipment sets on the units you're actually facing in the field. But for a simpler approach, a good game design amalgamates a lot into simpler systems of modifiers that are easily remembered and don't change too much from one upgrade to the next.
    There was nothing illogical about that to begin with - swords have an agility of use that makes them excel when you're pushing through the variety of situations you find when invading a city - getting through holes in defensive walls and fortifications, fighting on stairs, in doorways, down alleyways and so on. They do very well in close combat where you never know if you need a lot of room or will be somewhat cramped when fighting. That its more applicable to attack than defense is a bit gamey perhaps, but I always felt that was because they're better at blocking arrows with their shields. Axes and spears are more commonly envisioned as two handed and not as supported by shield. Unless you're getting into the weeds with cultural unit definitions.
    'Elementary' logic can circularly argue for many different effects. Yeah, it's great to say that a swordsman is probably faster and can kill the axeman's less wieldy weapon pick, but given similar armor assumptions, when the axeman hits, it's bringing in greater armor piercing and damage. So the logic of the axeman being overall anti-melee to the point that if you're defending a city against a sword-only attack, the axemen are even better than having archers (a vanilla situation) is possibly 'elementary' logic being violated. And swords NEVER lose to spears in vanilla, which violates all sorts of elementary logic. You've argued that cavalry should be beat by nothing - not only terrible game design but that makes better 'elementary logic'. Elementary logic is NOT what one should rely on when designing a set of game interactions... not as an ultimate guide anyhow. One CAN use it to determine a system of rock paper scissors in unit types but yes, it does demand that the player let go of trying to think of things as a perfect simulator of historical battle. And for a game, that's far preferable.

    When initially brought up, there were others who saw it before I had to explain it - I don't feel you're qualified to speak for 99.99% of humanity. Maybe those few overly focused on the grittier details of the history of hand to hand warfare perhaps.
    There aren't many axemen units representing one handed use hatchets, most are depicting 2 handed use heavy axes - which you've argued to switch to the anti-cavalry role, though were usually really intended for trying to destroy spears and puncture armor. You can put a 2 handed axe away but it's still heavier and harder to arm than through the use of a sheath. You could change its role, but that would greatly upset the fact that in Civ it's always been for anti-melee, then when pikes come along you'd have to then switch the entire role of the spear. Of course, you're advocating for thinking of each unit individually rather than lines. Go for it. Elsewhere please. I prefer some reliability of continued unit specialization intention between upgrades and don't want to be upgrading two handed axemen to pikemen so as to keep a primarily ant-mounted focus running. You're talking about throwing spears - in my outlook, now you're talking about javelineers and skirmishers. Spearmen don't throw their weapons. They may carry a backup. Maybe. Your classic alpenstock is a throwing unit's weapon, not the weapon of a spear line fighter. Not usually - perhaps in the equipment you'd see that kind of variant.
    The ability to, when on approach, not HAVE to be flapping around with their weapon in their hand. Blades are light and quickly drawn, easily put away weapons.
    I don't assume shields on axemen and spearmen. Nor on archers. Sometimes not even to those on horse depending on how 'heavy' the horse unit is. The assumption of the shield is the primary reasoning for countering archers though one CAN argue that later, two handed swords are more in use and just to keep the line simple that doesn't change the modifiers. If it did, then we'd be switching over to it being primarily about chopping off polearm heads and so on.
    Um, yeah, so what? Rifles suck to run with. As do spears.
    If you haven't changed my mind, you haven't sold me on your view. I'm not selling you on mine either but I'm the one doing the designing here so... again, you're welcome to do a modmod.
    Swords are stronger in general city attack, particularly against archer heavy defenses which would be a normally rational defense given that they do very well against most other units - even throwers aren't AS good in general because they don't get AS much city attack bonus and they aren't as base strong as the sword. When you promote those throwers in city attack, they CAN be good, but then they're still more likely to bail on the attack than take it to conclusion because they withdraw early, aka, when damaged a bit. Swords don't try to withdraw ever so they carry through the attack with full conviction.
    You can keep exposing your ignorance of the fact that the BEST defender against WHATEVER is attacking is what will come up to face whatever attacks.

    Vanilla (and extended into this part of the plan): If you have axes in the city defense stack, they will come up against the swords that would do more damage to the swords than the bows would. If you have spears in the city defense stack, they come up against the mounted attackers. The bows then come up against whatever else you send or start coming up once one of the others has grown damaged to the point they don't defend as well in the final calculation. The archery units alone don't stand as strong against as many attacks.
    Out of time for more for now
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2021
  12. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    7,509
    Location:
    Norway
    Swordsmen are more hammer cost expensive than most of its contemporary units, isn't it?
    We should make it more expensive in upkeep as well, but currently practically all military units cost 1 gold per turn in upkeep as no one has done the required xml work for it yet.
     
  13. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I dunno you'd have to look at the plan to see but it's all sorta factored together in what all is considered. And yes, all military units will cost more than 1 gold per turn once the plan is implemented.

    What my wife's game is showing at the moment is that the gold cost of improvements might be a major hinder for AI growth. Maybe. Not sure yet. She's also spending a lot of time with her capital city idly building more research. Also barbs are getting HUMONGOID stacks they're doing little with which could slow the game a bit. I'm not sure the latest in cost adjustments are quite where they need to be yet.
     
    Toffer90 likes this.
  14. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    They do this as well. Shields are good against any kind of missile weaponry.
     
  15. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I have tags in place for Power Strikes that have an adjusted higher strength for a limited number of initial attacks. It greatly messes with combat odds so I'm not sure how well I can make it really work in the end. That said, Legionnaires are cultural units. Core spearmen don't throw their spears. This is what a throwing unit does.
    You live in your own world sir.
    Again, if you didn't understand it from Vanilla, the same tactic exists there - where mounted rather than throwing is used to hit and run (withdraw) until swordsmen can more easily attack without dying and be more likely to invite less losses as a result of hitting much harder and much more committed to being lethal. When you lose them, you are losing the units that tend to gather more XP so they can earn up even stronger initial assault values but when you lose the mounted (or in this case throwing), you're more prepared for that and if they survive they usually grow even better at surviving when hitting and running. The only real difference is that in the Combat Mod - Fight or Flight, units can start trying to withdraw early rather than only when a killing blow lands - and mounted are usually willing to stay longer into the fight but are terrible at attacking cities while throwing tend to try to get out of the fight rather quickly. This means that the throwers survive much much more effectively as they can make quite a few withdraw attempts before their lives are actually on the line, but they can also do a terrible job at really damaging their foes too much because once their hurt a little they are trying to get out - again to represent running out of weapons early and being limited to what fighting catches them in melee - they CAN stand their ground with smaller handheld weapons some but are always looking for an out.
    Other melee, like swords and maces are coming in with hopes of being strong enough to finish off those that would stand in their way. Axes can work too but don't have a city attack mod so are really torn up by even half surviving archer units (I suppose anti-archer axes could be a little clever in this case, but they still get eaten up by throwing defenders). Spears are as useless at attacking cities as tits on a log but do fine when things have been hurt to the point that Medicine Women could make an effective attack. Never run with scissors.
    The slightest added advantage in the comparison of strength in C2C tends to be widened greatly very quickly as battle proceeds and odds are recalculated every round. Even a small advantage can mean a lot more units defended against before you lose that small advantage over another unit in the stack. Vanilla combat is much more assured of doing a little damage to the opponent unit so obvious sacrifices make greater dents in the units that come up to fight. If your 2 axemen have a 15% benefit in total over your 2 archers, it's going to take a long time for your archers to have to come up. The first strike issue is certainly one that gets taken into account of course.
    A well stocked cross stacked city in my outlook will be VERY difficult to take but would also be very difficult to staff that much defense in. Part of why I will be training defense stacks to react to where it appears cities are going to be attacked.

    Not really. What they have is a combat defense modifier for archers and a requirement to train enough catapults to eliminate that consideration in one round.

    Not a core unit in the interlaced outlook planned for here. Thus, a cultural peculiar unit at best since throwing units aren't envisioned as heavily armored usually.

    What makes spear units work is team work. Also not talking about 'short spears' that are generally one handed in use (and by the way that usually kinda sucks too due to leverage issues on strikes - one hand is hard pressed to get through most armor when placed on a spear at halfway up the haft so you can swing it with balance. The trade you get for the protection of a shield is so so considering how much you lose in force in your stabs and slashes and how much you sacrifice in agility - it works in tight formations and against bows pretty well but if you're trying to say it sucks against mounted, yeah, you're pretty much right because the shield gives the horses something to walk on and trample across while your spear is weakly deflected off its barding or parried by its rider enough to give his dominant weight a chance to treat you like a bowling pin.)

    You have 1 horse to 3+ spear wielders in a size matters volume comparison between most core mounted vs spearmen units. Unless you're a horse archer who isn't even trying to break the line so much as close enough to shoot at you then flee, which can really backfire when the spear line closes around you and your fellows, you aren't getting at the spearmen until they've had a chance to get your mount and or you first and if they break a third of their spears off in your horses, you're still now unmounted fighters facing off at a 2 to one ratio with a small backup weapon in the hands of the third person who is likely to rearm themselves with the weapon you dropped when your horse went ass over teakettle. Your spears are probably as long as any the mounted fighters are bringing (unlike axes would be that would give them the first attack if you were trying to hold against chargers with axes) so you're at least matching when the attack point takes place and you're the one on solid footing bracing your weapon to use all the weight of the animal against itself.

    Go ahead and tell me 'in reality' again.

    You're math is extremely flawed. I'll let you figure it out once you see this in play. The archers are a PART of the cross stack that take care of MOST things, but if left alone are exploitable. Not as much after crossbowmen of course.

    Ah- sorry I speak English.

    No, in the core game, how you say units are fighting is only happening in unique and unusual culturally determined fighting styles. Could be why they did well enough you want to assign them as a standard method? Maybe? Phalanx is seen as a standard by most historians. There's good reason for that - it was really really effective. It was also something only the Greeks really did although Roman fighters adopted a lot of those tactics and as a result much of your combat analysis actually applies to phalanx fighting methods.

    Spear length is better than sword length of course. That said, deflect spear with shield and stab and you're spearman opponent is pretty much dead. But if the spears have had a chance to fortify and really plan how they can cross protect each other and make it even more difficult for approaching swords, sure, spearmen can come out on top - easier from a hill or forest of course... then again if your spears are attacking swordsmen, the balance again shifts to the defender in most cases. There's nothing really special about one over the other except a slight sword advantage due to maybe that shield, or the two handed sword's predilection for chopping off spearheads.

    But then again, spearmen are usually 2 handed long spear wielders, not the short throwing type that tend to just lose their weapons in the swordsmen's shields before the real fighting even begins.

    Anyhow, you've galvanized my feelings about things here and yeah, you've made a valid point that throwers don't need an anti-mounted benefit.
     
  16. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    I mean, you shouldn't abuse modifiers at all.

    To do this, it is enough to compare the strength, which everyone safely does for the cavalry that does not have modifiers. At the same time, modifiers can be misleading - later non-specialized units can be at least as effective.

    I mean, it would be more logical to have fines for crowding and ladders for other melee fighters. However, in this case, this means a lot of additional modifiers, so everything is correct in vanilla.

    Where they will be met by spearmen and simply poked with a spear. The same applies to doors, etc.

    Вy whom are they considered? 99.99% of the population is not aware that the spearmen allegedly did not wear shields.

    Compared to a two-handed axe, it is CATASTROPHICALLY faster, because of inertia.
    Compared to the one-handed sword 1, with equal mass, it also has much less inertia. This allows you to make it both faster and longer, while largely maintaining the speed advantage. 2. This is important not only in attack, but also in defense, which squares the advantage. And the little things of this devastating background 3.Dangerous almost along the entire length, it is easier for them to " hit "4. If the sword is double-edged, it allows you to hit on the "reverse course".
    With a stabbing sword, it's even worse for an axeman. Stabbing blows are the fastest, etc.

    If he even manages to do it. Otherwise, everything remains pure theory. At the same time, with a very high degree of probability, this is exactly what will happen.

    And never even close to comparable to them in terms of anti-cavalry capabilities. But it doesn't bother you as much.

    I'm afraid I can. 1. The same beating off arrows with a sword, even in popular culture, is a "superpower", and not the quality of an ordinary warrior. As for the places where mass culture has not reached, there is still a grandfather's bow. 2. In any school textbook and popular culture, a horde of spearmen with shields. 3. Axes were held in the hands of the vast majority of humanity. And she doesn't agree with your theories.

    Recently, you stated that two-handed axemen are not and will not be in fashion. Now you have two-handed become generally all?

    Seriously? Even just using two-handed animation is a strong minority. At the same time, you can cut with two hands with any axe. There are very few normal two-handed axes on a long handle, and in the Middle Ages there are practically no such axes at all.

    I offered to give them an ADDITIONAL anti-cavalry bonus

    That's why they were practically not used in the heyday of classical spearmen? And they were actively used both after and before?
    I, by the way, do not propose to remove their bonus against spearmen. Although you can reduce it. Attack a wall of longer spears without a shield and without very heavy armor was clearly a bad idea.

    Cavalry is on average better protected than infantry.

    It's heavier. As for the difficulty on rough terrain – a big question. See below.

    1. And in your reality, do they still swing axes when running? In fact, even when carrying them in their hands, they are simply taken next to the blade.
    2. Moreover, if an axe with a long handle, it turns out... what a surprise, a staff. The lighter version was called the road axe. It was used instead of a walking stick. See also the Valashka-type mountaineers ' hatchets.
    3. Again, there were several ways not to carry them in your hands. At the same time, two-handed ones were worn in the same way as some one-handed ones, on a belt behind their back.

    Again, the difference is about 1.3 kg maximum. And the minimum - it does not exist at all.

    1. Where does it come from faster? A one-handed axe in the simplest case is simply tucked into the belt with the handle down. You can pull it out instantly. Unlike a minimally long sword.
    2. AND how MANY SECONDS DID you HOPE to win on this?

    And? If someone rushed to attack the archers a fraction of a second earlier, did they gain much from it?

    Where am I talking about this? I mean throwing away/discard/loss.

    Is this someone's suggestion? At the same time, yes, a halberd is a combination of a sword and an axe. However, this very common weapon is not in fashion. Unlike fantasy one-handed units.

    This is absurd. Tell me, where have you ever seen spearmen without shields in large numbers?
    1. This is an incredibly advanced Neolithic



    But shields are used even by the aborigines of Australia, mostly remaining in the Mesolithic.
    1. The shield is much older than the pure impact spear itself. 2. А simple shield is made elementary.
    A spearman without a shield is not even a militia member from the "organized reserve". This is a recruited in panick and time-pressed militia member.
    2. One-handed axemen in the sense of a shield do not differ from swordsmen in anything at all.
    3. Two-handed axemen and not only often also carried a shield. He throws himself behind his back or just throws himself, I repeat.
    The meaning of wearing just in protection from arrows/darts. Plus, two-handed men usually had an auxiliary one-handed weapon that could be used with a shield
    4. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY. Have you forgotten again that a real swordsman is just a spearman who has lost a spear somewhere?

    And using only the sword adds tens of percent of the speed in the race? And why? In what PHYSICAL way, and not "I see it like this", does a stick in your hands prevent you from running?
    And most importantly-how if it BEHIND BACK?
    By the way, the length of the pole for high jumps from 4,6, m for men is 70-80 kg. It's the equivalent of a pica or sarissa, all of a sudden.

    And how does this cancel out the fact that you are repeating already refuted arguments that you could not reasonably defend?

    I will rather make my own mod. And in the process of communicating with you, I practically write an accompanying text. Something like "pre-industrial war for beginners".

    Once again, throwers will retreat from a sufficiently damaged opponent in ISOLATED cases.


    You show a lack of understanding of the simplest text. One more time. The first one in my example is the best axe.
    So, you have a garrison of axe and spearman. He is attacked by a stack of axes. ONE axe is the first to fight, but it is quickly killed. In particular, because melee units do not receive a bonus from the city at all. Therefore, the strength of 7.5/7.5
    Spearman is almost useless – 4 against 7.5 for the attacker.
    As an alternative, you have three archers with a strength of 5.25 against 5 at attacking axes. Plus the first hit.

    1. Only here swords appear at the 4th level of technology, and at the 6th level crossbowmen appear, with a strength like a sword, 6 and a 50% bonus against melee. After that, your cross-stack is practically useless.
    2. Any advantage of a single axe over three archers is virtually eliminated if the archers have managed to gain a foothold in the city. Then the sword's power advantage is only 10% and the archers have the first hit.
    That is, you have either one capable of fending off the sword axe 6,6/7,5 or three archers-6,6 against 6 plus the first strike.

    And if not? That's right, you have half the garrison useless
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2021
  17. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    One man's abuse is another man's basic use of a tool apparently.
    Do we show our spearmen using shields? Rarely.
    All that WOULD argue for swords being the anti-melee line but that's not what Civ IV established so I'm not flipping player expectations on its head to make that change. Axes were established as the anti-melee line so that's how it stays.
    Swords didn't have any bonuses against cav in vanilla, nor would they here, but they were generically stronger than most other units of their age and that was the way mounted were given strength so swords are 'somewhat' capable of fighting cavalry, although never what you'd want to specialize in it. No difference here.
    Yeah, true. So...?
    That would really clutter the role of the axe.
    No- I state there's no distinction, however I tend to assume axemen to be 2 handed non-shield users.
    All of these arguments just don't help the game design to achieve a proper balance in unit interactions so I'm ignoring them.
    You're forgetting that I don't care about your ultra-realism at all.
    That's a pretty idiotic viewpoint imo. I really don't think I'd even begin to enjoy the flavor of a game that doesn't include a swordsman here.
    Not when that core half of the garrison is still VERY good at defending cities in general.
    They retreat due to the damage on themselves, not the opponent. Thus even a little damage can get them to start wanting to retreat unless you promote them to ignore it more and reduce their early withdrawal. You've always been able to just make all your units withdrawal units - even in vanilla - in fact the AI would do just that, bring mostly entirely mounted units with withdrawal rather than even bother with swords at all. It wasn't as effective but that's what they'd do.
    Oh thank God. Please do.
     
  18. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    Whose shields? Spearmen/throwers or one-handed swordsmen who practically did not exist in nature at all? In addition to the option "situational swordsman" = spearman who lost or put aside a spear, thrower, spent darts, etc.
    P. S. The Australian "swordsman" tries to see the hordes of spearmen without a shield at least in the native Mesolithic
     
  19. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Nice picture of a Javelineer you have there.

    Of course, Australian aborigines didn't have a lot of reasons to need to train spearmen either considering there weren't a lot of horses (or any other mounted unit type to be concerned with) in Australia.
     
  20. pecheneg

    pecheneg Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2021
    Messages:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't doubt you. Rose, "Aborigines of Australia "" There were basically two types of spears used as weapons and tools. This is a striking spear that was not thrown, and a throwing spear." And yes, can you tell me where the spearmen came from in America before the arrival of the Europeans? Moreover, Wikipedia slanders something about Inca peaks 6 m long.
     

Share This Page