Defending on clear tiles is a DEATH sentence

[linearcore]

There seems to be only two variables that control bonus/penalties specific for tiles. One that is "Flat Lands" and another that is "Hills". It seems that all other tile terrain types will be classified as one or the other.

My guess is that a marsh is considered "Flat Lands" and that forests will be "Hills" as far as bonuses are concerned.

Yes it is fun. Starting game 2 tonight.

Actually, looking through, it's a little more complicated. The terrain[\i] modifier is only applied if there is no feature modifier to apply. For instance, a forest on a hills doesn't give +50%. It only gives +25%...for the forest. The Hills modifier is only there for blank hills. There is a file in the folder ../Assets/Gameplay/XML/Terrain called "Civ5Features" that you can check. Each feature itself can effect the tile defense modifier. Only one modifier is used though, and features trump terrains. I tested my game out with just that flat land modifier changed and a flat grassland was a 0 modifier, but an oasis, for instance, was still at -33%, which I liked. It, effectively, defined three classes of terrain combat can take place in.

Edit: This is probably a lot deeper than you ever wanted to go though. Sorry.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

...it's a little more complicated. There is a file in the folder ../Assets/Gameplay/XML/Terrain called "Civ5Features" that you can check. Each feature itself can effect the tile defense modifier.

Nice catch, I have modified all the -33% features to be 0%.

 

[vendur]

The penalty makes sense to me. The only thing I'd change, however, is the damage bonus/penalty would be modified by the percent of your movement points you ended the turn with. So if you had 1/2 movement points, you'd only get like a 16% penalty; 0 penalty if you have all your movement points, of course. Then it makes real good sense.

 

[Jamuka]

Do horsemen and other mounted units get the -33% on open terrain? The tooltip says they don't get defensive modifiers, but the AI never builds horsemen so I can't tell for sure.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Do horsemen and other mounted units get the -33% on open terrain? The tooltip says they don't get defensive modifiers, but the AI never builds horsemen so I can't tell for sure.

Very good question Jamuka. I would guess that horsemen do not get the penalty due to the actual penalty being called an "EXTRA_DEFENCE"

 

[H4run]

even if u get shock, still u get blown up by cannon, ship unit and archer badly in open train. Yes, it is a death sentence, or at least its like your unit said to other "wounded me please, i want it badly"

 

[Sonereal]

even if u get shock, still u get blown up by cannon, ship unit and archer badly in open train. Yes, it is a death sentence, or at least its like your unit said to other "wounded me please, i want it badly"

Shock is pathetic anyway. It gives you a crazy 53% bonus against a defender but you only get a -13% defense modifier for defending. I don't see why it the modifier isn't zero. It isn't like the shock promo isn't doing its job already.

 

[AriochIV]

The open terrain defense penalty makes sense when under ranged attack, but it doesn't make sense for melee combat. Most ancient battles were fought on open ground, and there was no huge advantage to the "attacker."

In terms of play value it's not horrible, but as pointed out, the AI doesn't seem to understand it, and the penalty doesn't make sense in the first place.

 

[Sonereal]

The open terrain defense penalty makes sense when under ranged attack, but it doesn't make sense for melee combat. Most ancient battles were fought on open ground, and there was no huge advantage to the "attacker."

In terms of play value it's not horrible, but as pointed out, the AI doesn't seem to understand it, and the penalty doesn't make sense in the first place.

Ranged units should probably get a natural bonus against open terrain anyway but here's a pic showing just how powerful artillery is against full-HP infantry on open terrain with Shock I.

Spoiler :

Nine damage.

 

[MeowTau]

-33% is just too steep. Ranged units with one shock promotion should not be instagibbing equivalent tech enemy units in one turn on open terrain. The only sensible fix is to set flat tiles to 0%. This would balance horses and ranged units.

 

[Monsterzuma]

This is also another reason for the poor performance of the AI in this game. The punishment vs. reward ratio between intelligent decisions (defending on hills/forests) and unintelligent ones (defending on plains) is huge. Obviously, the human has a massive advantage over the AI where intelligence is concerned.

Do horsemen and other mounted units get the -33% on open terrain? The tooltip says they don't get defensive modifiers, but the AI never builds horsemen so I can't tell for sure.

I haven't checked this, but my god. It would lend another explanation to the insane dominance of Horsemen if they don't. This would actually turn "no defensive modifiers" into a frickin bonus!!

 

[dubrown]

This explains alot, I would say this solves quite some problem and also explains why a hilly map seems to keep an even "battlefield" longer than other maps. I've used the Highland map for some games and that seems atleast to keep one AI from wiping the other AIs out too quickly. Downside is that it's a map with plenty of natural chokepoints which the human brain can use a whole lot better than the AI.

I will test this fix as well as I feel it makes perfect sence. To bad though that you can't differentiate ranged vs meele penalties (or can you?) as ranged should have a slight bonus against a unit in open terrain. Perhaps that can be solved by adding some slight bonus for a ranged unit when attacking a unit on open terrain (like an extra shock promo or something).

 

[MaXimillionZero]

It would make a sort of sense: it would be easier to defend in grasslands than a marsh.

Surely that should be the other way around? I certainly wouldn't want to attack someone who's fortified themselves at marshland, especially if I was attacking with cavalry.

 

[Nunya]

You generally wouldn't want to fight in a marsh at all.

 

[Bibor]

Mongolia Jones, you're now officialy my new HERO! You just saved CIV5 from being totally and I mean totally boring.

Okay, where do I change the defense value for grasslands/plains?! Quick!

EDIT: Nevermind, found it in ..\Assets\Gameplay\XML\GlobalDefines.xml, line 887 (notepad++).

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Okay, where do I change the defense value for grasslands/plains?! Quick!

EDIT: Nevermind, found it in ..\Assets\Gameplay\XML\GlobalDefines.xml, line 887 (notepad++).

You should also check out the xml file -> CIV5Features. Marsh, Oasis, Flood Plains and Fallout all have the -33 defense modifier that can/should be altered.


Other things that I have tweaked are build times for units (2x speed) and a define which alters the threshold (making the threshold higher so it happens less) at which the AI surrenders all it's cities once it has been defeated militarily on the field of battle.

 

[Bibor]

You should also check out the xml file -> CIV5Features. Marsh, Oasis, Flood Plains and Fallout all have the -33 defense modifier that can/should be altered.


Other things that I have tweaked are build times for units (2x speed) and a define which alters the threshold (making the threshold higher so it happens less) at which the AI surrenders all it's cities once it has been defeated militarily on the field of battle.

Yes I modified those already (only kept a new 15% penatly in marsh, others are zero).

On the AI surrender note, I presume you talk about PEACE_WILLINGNESS_ and other values in this area. Can you please give me some example numbers you used? I'd like the AIs to be more likely to make peace when they have an overwhelming army (going for profit from peace agreements rather than killing off the other AI completely), as well as having weaker AIs fighting more to the bitter end (higher cap threshold). Hopefully this would somewhat make cities more likely to belong to their founders, yet still winning wars would still benefit the victor by large profits in lucrative peace agreements (all gold, all gpt, all resources etc. for 30 turns etc.)

 

[eric_]

I like the idea of an attack boost if attacking from hills or forest, or if a ranged unit hits a unit in flatland. Other than that, I don't think any sort of penalty for defending in flat terrain makes any sense at all. I almost wonder if it was only meant to apply to flatland units being attacked by ranged units and they messed up deployment.

Also, I think in a marsh or floodplain, the *attacker* should actually be at a disadvantage, because they'd have to muck their way through soggy terrain before laying sword to shield (or scalp or whatever .

edit: PS, on a side note, Sonereal (or anyone else who knows), how do you show the resources icons? CTRL+R isn't working for like in cIV.

 

[slowjames]

Has anyone tried building forts to mitigate this issue?

 

[Thalassicus]

Interesting... so could be summed up as:

1. Normal pathfinding takes shortest route to destination.
2. Open terrain is shortest route.
3. Units on open terrain defend at half strength vs rough terrain.

Those 3 things combined really do explain a lot about the AI I had never thought about before.