Combat Animations

[Iceciro]

And I may be the only one who still watches them or leaves them on, to boot, but is there a reason for these two things - particularly a reason I can solve?

1) When only a lone defender is left, especially in the "shoot guys with guns" era, it takes forever to kill him - like 10 seconds of firing? Is this an unfortunate side effect of the Formations! mod?

2) There are wooden siege towers still showing up in said shoot guys with guns era, and its very anachronistic to have a siege tower backing up modern infantry.

 

[os79]

Valid complaints. Because even if you turn on "Show Offensive Combat (Quick)" for your attacking, you still have to sit through boring fights in defensive animations. I leave that on because it is only way for me to know that a specific city or unit is being attacked in between turns.

 

[Afforess]

About #2, the siege towers only appear when units that are attacking and is affected by the city's defenses. Infantry having a siege tower is impossible, since gunpowder units and above ignore city defenses.

 

[gramcrkr103]

Maybe in the modern era the siege tower could switch to be an artillery cannon firing. Wouldn't have any game play effects, just visuals

 

[Sonereal]

Maybe in the modern era the siege tower could switch to be an artillery cannon firing. Wouldn't have any game play effects, just visuals

But there are already artillery units and turning on attack support leads to them firing every time a unit in the stack attacks.

 

[Iceciro]

I think it was due to having the Tower mod added, which adds some towers that don't get completly negated. Fixing that on the reinstall.

Any news/comments/questions about the everlasting combats? Particularly if it's a side effect of Formations!? Because I'm doing a reinstall for Patch D and need to know if there's a way to sidestep that long combat.

 

[gramcrkr103]

But there are already artillery units and turning on attack support leads to them firing every time a unit in the stack attacks.

Ummm, did you not see where I wrote they shouldn't/ wouldn't have any game play effects? Or maybe some other infantry just standing there, or something. I suppose anything would be better.
This just reminds me why I turned combat animations off

 

[Arakhor]

I turn offensive animations off, but I leave my defensive ones on. That way, I can see when I'm being attacked.

 

[Sonereal]

Ummm, did you not see where I wrote they shouldn't/ wouldn't have any game play effects? Or maybe some other infantry just standing there, or something. I suppose anything would be better.
This just reminds me why I turned combat animations off

Because it's redundant and in reality, the artillery thing would be going off every time an infantry unit goes at someone because artillery was used in the field just as often as you would use it against a city.

Again, siege towers were used by units assaulting a walled city because it allowed them to get onto the walls, not because you were trying to take down the wall (that's for trebuchets and catapults).

You use artillery to level walls, not scale them, which is why artillery is a unit and siege towers aren't. That's also the reason why ranged bombardment and attack support are options.

 

[gramcrkr103]

Because it's redundant and in reality, the artillery thing would be going off every time an infantry unit goes at someone because artillery was used in the field just as often as you would use it against a city.

Again, siege towers were used by units assaulting a walled city because it allowed them to get onto the walls, not because you were trying to take down the wall (that's for trebuchets and catapults).

You use artillery to level walls, not scale them, which is why artillery is a unit and siege towers aren't. That's also the reason why ranged bombardment and attack support are options.

So just for the record, you want to watch modern marines make an amphibious assault and bring along their siege tower?
" Again, siege towers were used by units assaulting a walled city because it allowed them to get onto the walls", Have you noticed after gunpowder walls and defenses don't have any effect? Why on earth would they bring their siege tower for a nonexistent wall?
Modern infantry units nowadays have their own support guns ( mortar teams for example) that are separate from artillery batteries, which are usually stationed miles away.
There is no excuse anyone can come up with that justifies siege towers sticking around after gunpowder and the end of walled cities. When my infantry unit attacks a city, I dont imagine one guy running up against a tank, I imagine its an entire battalion (thousands of men) doing a co-ordinated attack, so why wouldn't there be a support gun or otherwise with them?

 

[Afforess]

For the final time:

Siege towers disappear with gunpowder and later units. If you still siege towers with gunpowder or later units, either you are crazy, or it's a bug. Please provide a save and screenshot if you legitimately think it is a bug.

Discussion over.

 

[Sonereal]

So just for the record, you want to watch modern marines make an amphibious assault and bring along their siege tower?
" Again, siege towers were used by units assaulting a walled city because it allowed them to get onto the walls", Have you noticed after gunpowder walls and defenses don't have any effect? Why on earth would they bring their siege tower for a nonexistent wall?
Modern infantry units nowadays have their own support guns ( mortar teams for example) that are separate from artillery batteries, which are usually stationed miles away.
There is no excuse anyone can come up with that justifies siege towers sticking around after gunpowder and the end of walled cities. When my infantry unit attacks a city, I dont imagine one guy running up against a tank, I imagine its an entire battalion (thousands of men) doing a co-ordinated attack, so why wouldn't there be a support gun or otherwise with them?

A.) I didn't say there should be siege towers with gunpowder units. There are no siege towers with gunpowder units or above. Update your version of AND or do a fresh install.

B.) There is a support gun with them when you bring artillery. With that logic, we should get rid of AT units since logic dictates that infantry would have that with them already.

So, unless you make this mortar add-on to the infantry combat animation actually doing damage, a tank should win anyway unless the infantry has heavy defensive advantages (such as artillery batteries).

You're arguing something that's already implemented using attack support. 10 out of 10 times when my infantry attacks a unit and the stack my infantry is in has an artillery piece in it, the piece does show up in the combat animation.

If you're going to throw the mortar team into the infantry unit, then you would have to throw in the AT-unit and machine gunners as well which gameplay wise, is silly.

 

[gramcrkr103]

No one likes a troll Sonereal, Im not arguing anything of the sort. I was very clear in saying (twice) that there shouldnt be any gameplay changes, only aesthetics.

You are taking this way too literally, and you have to remember the scale of this game. One AT unit IS NOT one man with a bazooka, just like one tank isn't a lone tank, its one tactical group, therefore there would be no game mechanic changes, since they are already implemented.

I doubt many people use the combat animations since they are frankly boring and uneventful. Two static animations, both without effect on the other, determined by number calculations that nobody sees?? Who wants that?
But the scale and scope of this mod makes it irrelevant. Just another idea bounced around the internet... I mean its what we are supposed to do in a forum, right?

But the next time you want to say someone is arguing a point, perhaps you could be sure about the point they are arguing?

 

[Sonereal]

No one likes a troll Sonereal, Im not arguing anything of the sort. I was very clear in saying (twice) that there shouldnt be any gameplay changes, only aesthetics.

You are taking this way too literally, and you have to remember the scale of this game. One AT unit IS NOT one man with a bazooka, just like one tank isn't a lone tank, its one tactical group, therefore there would be no game mechanic changes, since they are already implemented.

I doubt many people use the combat animations since they are frankly boring and uneventful. Two static animations, both without effect on the other, determined by number calculations that nobody sees?? Who wants that?
But the scale and scope of this mod makes it irrelevant. Just another idea bounced around the internet... I mean its what we are supposed to do in a forum, right?

But the next time you want to say someone is arguing a point, perhaps you could be sure about the point they are arguing?

I knew that you were arguing for that point. I said it was stupid and a waste of resources regardless. Then I proceeded to point out why it would be a bad idea if it did have an effect.

Point is, someday Civilization may make combat animations interesting but the idea of throwing random things into the animation makes no sense. A siege tower does make sense and very little other does.

I was saying that if you're going to make the point that a single infantry unit contains hundreds of men and that's why a mortar unit (whether or not just for show) should be included. I pointed out that if you have a mortar unit just for show, it'll be annoying because that would mean that infantry unit should also have some kind of AT animation for attacking tanks and SAM infantry included in the modern era.

Again, let's not forget you started this thread because you erroneously stated that siege towers show up when gunpowder units attack.

 

[gramcrkr103]

Good point about infantry needing some AT animation against tanks for realism's sake. This game is already hard enough on my pos comp, without more graphics

You are unfortunately dead wrong though about me starting the thread and stating about the siege towers. Iceciro started the thread, and mentioned siege towers with modern infantry.
I said that perhaps a more modern graphic would make sense, but I turned off combat animations long ago in the early days of ROM, so to most people it wouldnt be worth the effort.