Citizen and Buildings Defense Bonus?

[Spoonwood]

Looking in the editor, I see numbers by Citizen and Building for Defensive Bonuses in General Settings. Previously, I had the impression that another building or citizen wouldn't change any of the defense bonuses. Do the numbers mean that each additional building gives the city a +16 % defense bonus, and + 16% for each citizen? For example, according to that information, a size 1 city with a fortified spearman on flatland, has defense of 2 + (.5 x 2) [for the town] + (.25 x 2) [for fortification] + (.1 x 2) [for flatland] + (.16 x 2) [for the 1 citizen] = 2 + 1 + .5 + .2 + .32 = 4.02. But, if the city is size 2, that spearmen has a defense of 4.44 if I've read that right (the civ III combat calculator assumes equal sizes of cities and no buildings). If it's a capital it has at least one building, so it would have at least .32 more defense for the spearmen.

 

[SayHayKid]

I believe I read in a previous post that it doesn't increase the defense multiplier, but effects defensive bombardment. The higher the number the less likely a citizen or building will be destroyed by bombardment. But I am not an expert, so maybe somebody who dreams C3C rules in their sleep will chime in. lol

 

[SayHayKid]

I am thinking it might work like this. Let's say you bombard a town with a canon (8/1/1), you'd have a .33 chance of causing damage to a citizen or building (8/8+16). I could be wrong. Maybe @Flintlock knows?

 

[Civinator]

According to the Civ3ConquestsEdit these values in the general settings for citizen and buildings mean the following:

Citizen (Defensive Bonuses):

Determines the defensive rating (0-1000) of citizens. Default is 4. This value is used only to determine population losses during city bombardment. Note that this value is linked to the bombard strength value of a unit, such that a unit with a bombard strength of 4 would have a 50% chance of killing a citizen with a defense rating of 4. Edit: I think the default value of 4 (in Civ 3 vanilla version 1.07) now must be updated to 16.

Building (Defensive Bonuses):

Determines the defensive rating (0-1000) for each building in a city. Default is 4. This value is used only to determine building losses during city bombardment. Note that this value is linked to the bombard strength value of a unit, such that a unit with a bombard strength of 4 would have a 50% chance of destroying a building with a defense rating of 4. Edit: I think the default value of 4 (in Civ 3 vanilla version 1.07) now must be updated to 16.

Edit: It seems there is a problem between the value of 16 and the "default" value of 4 written in the Civ3ConquestsEdit. According to that post in Civ 3 vanilla in version 1.07 it was 4 by default, but Firaxis increased that to 16 to lower bombardement accuracy. I think the Civ3ConquestsEdit entry was forgotten to be updated from a default value of 4 to a default value of 16 and here the default value of 16 should be inserted instead the default value of 4.

 

[tjs282]

Are you saying this is the cause of the "C3C-style targeting" that hits units primarily, instead of citizens and buildings (as in Vanilla + PTW) ?!?

That is, if a modder wants to re-instate PTW-style targeting again, they don't need C3X to patch it, they can just reduce the bombard-defence values instead?

 

[Civinator]

Are you saying this is the cause of the "C3C-style targeting" that hits units primarily, instead of citizens and buildings (as in Vanilla + PTW) ?!?
That is, if a modder wants to re-instate PTW-style targeting again, they don't need C3X to patch it, they can just reduce the bombard-defence values instead?

I posted the statements in the Civ3ConquestsEdit. The rest is speculation.

 

[SayHayKid]

Edit: It seems there is a problem between the value of 16 and the "default" value of 4 written in the Civ3ConquestsEdit. According to that post in Civ 3 vanilla in version 1.07 it was 4 by default, but Firaxis increased that to 16 to lower bombardement accuracy. I think the Civ3ConquestsEdit entry was forgotten to be updated from a default value of 4 to a default value of 16 and here the default value of 16 should be inserted instead the default value of 4.

Thus, my formula above should be correct?

Bombard Formula: B / (B + D)

Where:
B = Attacker Bombard Value
D = Defender Defense Value

Vanilla Catapult = 4 (catapult bombard value) / 4 (catapult bombard value) + 4 (citizen defense value) = .50 (50%)
C3C Catapult = 4 (catapult bombard value) / 4 (catapult bombard value) + 16 (citizen defense value) = .20 (20%)

That would mean a pretty big nerf between vanilla C3C.

 

[Spoonwood]

Are you saying this is the cause of the "C3C-style targeting" that hits units primarily, instead of citizens and buildings (as in Vanilla + PTW) ?!?

That could be a result of the difference in perspectives between those at Firaxis and those at Breakaway Games. Sulla talks about the people at Breakaway Games first coding a 10k cultural victory as default for single city victory, because not having enough 20k victories was an issue for the people at Breakaway Games (they weren't necessarily as wrong as Sulla believed... or at least... when has anyone ever seen an AI win by 20k victory?). Then after writes:

but starting in Conquests the bombardment units always hit units first in cities, never improvements or population. Always units. Since in prior versions of Civ3 bombarding cities had only a 1/3 chance to hit units, this means that bombardment essentially becomes 3 times more likely to hit units in Conquests.

Perhaps those at Breakway Games wanted to motivate players to use artillery units more also, and tried to do so by removing bombardment of buildings... unless all units in the city end up redlined. If you're going to capture and keep a city, it's not desireable that you want your cannons to have their discharge hit courthouses. So, if you can prevent that, then playing capture and keep ends up more valuable. And I suspect that there have existed many players who raze and replace, when playing capture and keep could better fit their goals (this is something I remember even struggling with... I played raze and replace in a Demigod histographic game, when capture and keep likely could have had more benefit).