Does anyone else hate gunpowder?

[WarKirby]

I must say that it really doesn't make sense for musketmen to be able to ignore building defences.

I mean, these muskets fir what? little metal balls?

Even modern guns on't penetrate 12 foot thick stone walls, except maybe the high powered sniper rifles. Why should early muskets be able to do it?

I'd say the defence ignoring thing should be removed, and give them fear instead.

 

[HadesScorn]

Yeah, a sniper round won't punch through a dozen feet of stone or concrete. It's designed to puncture armor. For attacking targets in bunkers, the US army uses special bombs [called, imaginatively, bunker busters]. For blasting a hole in a [city] wall, artillery or tank rounds. It has to do with the impact and explosive power, rather than the penetrating power.

However, the earliest cannons completely invalidated all previous fortress design. High, thick stone walls cracked much faster under a steady bombardment of cannonballs. This necessitated the switch to a new style of fortification, called trace italienne or star fort, which allowed for a resumption of classical siege warfare.

 

[Dora190]

However, the earliest cannons completely invalidated all previous fortress design. High, thick stone walls cracked much faster under a steady bombardment of cannonballs. This necessitated the switch to a new style of fortification, called trace italienne or star fort, which allowed for a resumption of classical siege warfare.

Nope, gunpowder didn't invalidate walls by craking them faster, it invalidated them by knocking them over. The std method of protection before gunpowder was to build up, so as to prevent ladders getting up there, which generally meant thin especially the higher up. Gunpowder made knocking them down real easy. Defenders were forced to lower the walls and thicken them. Any castle/wall still standing today has been reduced to take that into account.

The star forts are much later again.

 

[HadesScorn]

The star forts are the descendants of the original modifications, this is true.

Regarding the effect of cannons, I base my statement on that most unreliable source, wikipedia. If need be, I'll pull out Keegan's "The Face of Battle" or Lynn's "Battle" and find a more reputable source.

In order to counteract the power of the new weapons, defensive walls were made lower and thicker. They were built of many materials, usually earth and brick, as brick does not shatter on impact from a cannonball like stone does.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Also, if the Amurites research Gunpowder before Sorcery, some AI weights should be modified.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

*snip* Nevermind...Sorry for that.

 

[StormbringerGT]

I must say that it really doesn't make sense for musketmen to be able to ignore building defences.

I mean, these muskets fir what? little metal balls?

Even modern guns on't penetrate 12 foot thick stone walls, except maybe the high powered sniper rifles. Why should early muskets be able to do it?

I'd say the defence ignoring thing should be removed, and give them fear instead.

I agree, although I still think cannons should ignore wall defense. Although I do still think Cannons should be but except for maybe the Dwarves.

 

[Dora190]

The star forts are the descendants of the original modifications, this is true.

Regarding the effect of cannons, I base my statement on that most unreliable source, wikipedia. If need be, I'll pull out Keegan's "The Face of Battle" or Lynn's "Battle" and find a more reputable source.

Brick was very common in the east of europe, a lot of the teutonic castles were made of brick, as well as a lot of middle eastern castles. But castles were made of what was available. It should also be remembered that early cannon balls were made of stone not metal and the ability to get hard stone also impacted on the cannon's effects (sorry no pun intended).

Cannons big advantage was that they could be fired from out of the defenders range and unlike catapults they really could damage a wall, which if tall and thin would fall down as a result. Defenders reacted by lowering them and thickening them. Stone or brick a wall that is 15-20 feet thick is going to take a lot of pounding from what were very low energy projectiles as opposed to one twice as high and only a two or three feet thick.

 

[Karnja]

I gotta tell ya.... I can see blasting powder as a dwarf-specific late-game resource that improves mining output.... and maybe (just MAYBE) some form of improved seige weapon.....

But as far as everybody getting guns.....

Then once the AI has guns..... that's all they build.

Kinda loses the "fantasy" feel when everybody is running with muskets and cannon..... American Civil War anyone?

i stick with the OP

 

[WarKirby]

However, the earliest cannons completely invalidated all previous fortress design. High, thick stone walls cracked much faster under a steady bombardment of cannonballs. This necessitated the switch to a new style of fortification, called trace italienne or star fort, which allowed for a resumption of classical siege warfare.

Yes, but we're not talking about cannons here.

We're talking about musketmen. Guys with rifle-esque thingies they hold in their hands. Certainly NOT a huge siege weapon.

Why do THEY get to ignore walls? Seems like only cannons should do so.

 

[WarKirby]

the problem here, is the AI choosing to make only guns. Not that musketmen are overpowered.

An Eidolon, phalanx, immortal, paladin, and various other units are more than capable of defeating them.

The (non dwarven) AIs just need to focus on industrial techs a bit less. Because they all stupidly play in the exact same manner.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Maybe someone really should modify the leaderhead flavours as an experiment, and then reporet the results.

 

[Iceciro]

I think the source of the problem here is what the AI favors as opposed to the tech itself.

 

[Seven05]

Maybe someone really should modify the leaderhead flavours as an experiment, and then reporet the results.

I did that, and then realized that the flavors for many of the buildings, techs and units needed to be adjusted as well, and then there is the AIWeight used all over the place and some of the other values the AI relies on being a bit off... I gave up.

I can tell you that from standard Civ4 the AI will respond very well to flavor settings since it first evaluates what they would gain and then modifies that by the flavor. The end result in vanila Civ4 is that the AI will prefer flavorful buildings, techs and units only if it doesn't need something else more such as building a market if they're running low on gold even though their flavor is slanted towards cultural buildings.

There was another post on the poor AI a few weeks back where I gave some examples of the changes needed to units to get the flavor values to even work correctly in the first place.

 

[zup]

I love gunpowder. Especially the hydra cannon in Orbis. Looks like an anti aircraft tank or something. Never, ever remove my gunpowder!

 

[Lone Wolf]

I did that, and then realized that the flavors for many of the buildings, techs and units needed to be adjusted as well, and then there is the AIWeight used all over the place and some of the other values the AI relies on being a bit off...

Well, I slightly modified them, reducing the militiary flavours by 5, and removing the -5 on science for some leaders. I wonder, will that make a difference.

 

[Jabie]

Personally I've no probs with Gunpowder. Adding the Pinch promotion to the tech to Blasting Powder might disincentivise over-specialisation, and should be relatively easy to do. If this doesn't stop the AI, turning Arquebusiers into National Units (say 6 Max) is another solution.

I kind of like the idea of the Khazad getting a Trace Italienne instead of walls. It could provide the same bonus as a wall, but halve the effectiveness of all Bombard effects, making it useful against fireballs and catapults too.

 

[Seven05]

Well, I slightly modified them, reducing the militiary flavours by 5, and removing the -5 on science for some leaders. I wonder, will that make a difference.

It depends really, FfH needs a little more flexibility when you tweak things since there are still a lot of changes the AI doesn't understand. This means the AI would not see the true benefit of build Warrens for one example. So when you go through and adjust the flavors you won't always be able to use arbitrary rules like reducing them all by 5.

I have some changes in my leaderhead xml that do help with some of the issues I had, I can share that with you when I get home tonight. It doesn't really help with their build & tech decisions though.

 

[the_fish]

While I don't mind gunpowder in this setting, I do sort of mind guns. Though they fit some civs (Bannor, Luchuirp, Khazad, Malakim, Lanun, Grigori, Kuriotates), they really don't fit others.

I'm surprised there's no suicide gunpowder bomber unit (destroyed after attacking, collateral damage, ignore walls). Think of the 2nd LOTR film at Helms Deep. They'd fit perfectly into the Balseraph or Clan civs.

Both Elf civs, the Sidar, Infernals, Doviello, Illians and Sheaim don't seem gunpowder-appropriate. Hippus, Amurites, Elohim, Mercurians and Calabim are closer calls, but I don't think they fit here either (Witchhunters, maybe?).

 

[Lone Wolf]

Some civs can't build Arquebusiers, including Calabim, if I'm not mistaken.