Nikis-Knight
Deity
No, only by being Balseraph do you get the puppet ability, it isn't inherent to the unit.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Thread starter Kael
- Start date
arcticnightwolf
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,301
Where is Elohim diplomatic music from?
Nox noctis: It's nice to have unvisible units. But: When defending e.g. an important improvement, an enemy unit can enter this field and destroy the improvement even if it is defended - he does not see and "feel" the defender. But by this way every defence is useless.
Also it's not so easy to see all intruders, mostly barbarians, "under" the own units. To attack them without movement 2 or similar is not so easy.
It should be changed to an invisible defender who defends actually, the intruder should be surprised to find a unit being there, giving a bonus to the defender.
Also it's not so easy to see all intruders, mostly barbarians, "under" the own units. To attack them without movement 2 or similar is not so easy.
It should be changed to an invisible defender who defends actually, the intruder should be surprised to find a unit being there, giving a bonus to the defender.
You make a great point for not building the Nox Noctis, Gabriel.
This is the reason I stopped building it because it really changes the way you defend your territory, especially from barb units with multiple movements like Wolf Riders and Chariots.
It's just a little too confusing for me, so I skip that Wonder.
This is the reason I stopped building it because it really changes the way you defend your territory, especially from barb units with multiple movements like Wolf Riders and Chariots.
It's just a little too confusing for me, so I skip that Wonder.
You are absolutely right. But sometimes there are so few mana nodes in the world, so I need this wonder as source for shadow mana.
Skitters
Prince
Alternatively fortifying a position reveals it? The assumption being that if you are fortifying a position you want it to make an obvious static defence.
That'd give the Nox Noxis owner the option to defend with a mix of invisible and visible units
Maybe I did not understand you correctly: It is a defence, but doesn't function as defence any more. With Nox noctis any units outside cities are invisible for intruders. But so much that your units do not work as defenders of points of interest (e.g. a gold mine, a mana node, a rice field) any more. This points cannot be further fortified by a citadel or similar, only by one or more units, which I call here defender(s).
This should be changed considerably, so that this wonder works only positive for the owner without inducing such negative effects.
what skitters suggested (which i actually like), is that units who are ordered to fortify (and thus gain fortification bonusses) become visible, since a fortified camp would be easily spotted.
Units that you don't want visible wouldn't be attacked, so there's no need for them to be fortified. Units that you want to be attacked would be fortified, thus visible. The best of both worlds
Units that you don't want visible wouldn't be attacked, so there's no need for them to be fortified. Units that you want to be attacked would be fortified, thus visible. The best of both worlds
Thank you for clarifying. But I disagree.
You have two orders: trenching (which you call fortifying) and staying at a place and monitoring (staying and watching). In both cases I do not want my units to be visible for intruders. Then you loose the advantage Nox noctis should offer.
When trenching at a point, an intruder can pass by quite easily, only this point is defended. By monitoring each intruder passing by is considered, the unit "wakes" up and inhibits the intruder to pass by. Of course you loose the trenching bonus, but you can defend the areas aside also.
So I do not want units to be attacked, I want a point or area to be defended. If the unit is invisible it is a surprise for any attacker and should give a bonus to the defender - the attacker does not expect resp. see a defender being there. It's like a hiding and surprise bonus for waiting in ambush for the defender.
How about coding it as an event. Any attempt to pillage a tile guarded by an invisible unit allows the invisible unit to choose to reveal itself and "scare away" the pillaging unit OR remain invisible and let the pillage occur (you may not want to defend if you are probably going to lose...). I don't think the current event model can initiate combat but maybe their can be a 1-turn promotion to handle the relevant attack/defense bonuses that are desired. Since the unit pillaging can be made to lose all its movement then it will be an easy target for a counter attack by either the now visible unit or nearby units that may have a better chance of winning.
xienwolf
Deity
Problem with that is you are trying to trigger an event for the player who is not currently active. Won't work till after the move is already long done and the defending player starts his turn.
Really the best solution I have seen is to link it to having a defensive bonus. Then a unit who cannot defend (workers, and most Mounted units) would never be revealed, and units that you move will not be visible, but those units whom you have standing still for at least 1 turn (so quite likely WANT to have them where they are) will be revealed.
Of course, this means 2 things: 1) massing your troops on the border requires micromanagement of moving them every turn so they remain hidden from the enemy. 2) You cannot send a defender out to guard a resource/improvement as a reaction, because if he JUST moved to the tile, nobody will see him and he cannot defend, he has to have been there before the enemy gets in range to pillage.
Really the best solution I have seen is to link it to having a defensive bonus. Then a unit who cannot defend (workers, and most Mounted units) would never be revealed, and units that you move will not be visible, but those units whom you have standing still for at least 1 turn (so quite likely WANT to have them where they are) will be revealed.
Of course, this means 2 things: 1) massing your troops on the border requires micromanagement of moving them every turn so they remain hidden from the enemy. 2) You cannot send a defender out to guard a resource/improvement as a reaction, because if he JUST moved to the tile, nobody will see him and he cannot defend, he has to have been there before the enemy gets in range to pillage.
Forgot about that aspect of the event system...
Hidden Nationality was implemented with a promotion to reveal nationality, would a similar mechanic work to "tag" a unit as being an anti-pillager who becomes revealed (but not attacked) if a unit on its tile attempts a pillage. Basically my original idea but modeled as a pre-selected choice for a particular unit via promotion. You still get the option NOT to attack superior forces and/or can bring in reinforcements. From a pure game mechanic it makes sense (to me at least) and gives one more advantage to being invisible (defended tiles cannot be pillaged without first killing the defender guarding the tile AND repelling an initial offensive). The case that needs to be considered is if multiple units are within range of pillaging; can the subsequent units attack and kill the defender or are any attacks against the unit aborted until the next round. Is being able to infinitely hold off a pillager with fodder likely and over-powering (since you could bring in another unit - or hide the now revealed defender - to guard the tile and repeat the process; the subsequent attackers question is necessary to resolve before addressing this)
Hidden Nationality was implemented with a promotion to reveal nationality, would a similar mechanic work to "tag" a unit as being an anti-pillager who becomes revealed (but not attacked) if a unit on its tile attempts a pillage. Basically my original idea but modeled as a pre-selected choice for a particular unit via promotion. You still get the option NOT to attack superior forces and/or can bring in reinforcements. From a pure game mechanic it makes sense (to me at least) and gives one more advantage to being invisible (defended tiles cannot be pillaged without first killing the defender guarding the tile AND repelling an initial offensive). The case that needs to be considered is if multiple units are within range of pillaging; can the subsequent units attack and kill the defender or are any attacks against the unit aborted until the next round. Is being able to infinitely hold off a pillager with fodder likely and over-powering (since you could bring in another unit - or hide the now revealed defender - to guard the tile and repeat the process; the subsequent attackers question is necessary to resolve before addressing this)
Skitters
Prince
You also have the issue that whilst a human player who stumbles on an invisible unit may decide to withdraw his/her stack after a failed first attack, the AI could very well end up throwing a stack of troops at a well defended invisible tile
Considering that fortifying an invisible unit is for the most part useless outside a city, I'm convinced that fortifying a unit should be seen as an intentional waiving of Invisibility.
Indeed this topic does beg one question - does the AI fortify units outside a city when using Nox Noctis?
Considering that fortifying an invisible unit is for the most part useless outside a city, I'm convinced that fortifying a unit should be seen as an intentional waiving of Invisibility.
Indeed this topic does beg one question - does the AI fortify units outside a city when using Nox Noctis?
Problem would be that you would have to move every unit you want to stay invisible every turn. It might be better if nox nortis gave every unit a spell: turn off/ on invisible while in cultural borders (and maybe with one or two turns casting delay)
![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
just make it so that fortifying cancels invisibility but "sleeping" does not, then you can choose between the two 
that could work well! but can you makes spells/items geographically sensitive?
Good solution. In .2x it was possible to give every unit even when no forther movement was possible an order such as trenching. And it was done.
Now in .32 and .33 this is not working any more: Even if done the unit comes back the very next turn and asks for an order again.
I am sorry about this considerable change. It also made the micromanagement easier.But a "good" defending bonus for units able to defend including mounted units as well would be the best and easiest solution. But a defending unit should not be seen before, therefore this unit has the hiding resp. defending bonus - as being in ambush for the attacker. Also this seems to be easier in logic and programming.
Sorry, I habe to disagree strictly. Fortyfying with an invisible unit means: Hiding and being in ambush against any intruder is a very big advantage, which should not be lost. The effect in defending must be rather great.
that's the tough part. They're invisible untill attacked, simply by moving a couple of slaves along with the army, and sending them to every empty tile, it's damn easy to find out where your units are. Adding to that, every single unit will defend (ambush) when other (enemy) units enter the tile, even workers and mages. I still prefer the sleep / fortify option (sleep = invisible, fortify isn't), maibe with another +20% strenght within borders to emphasis the surprise advantage
