apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Yeah but the scenario oh I don't have iron is now even worse.
If catapult don't require iron then ok but if so then it is a unbalance game mechanic in my opinion
Game changed for the escapist
- Thread starter snipperrabbit!!
- Start date
Yeah but the scenario oh I don't have iron is now even worse.
If catapult don't require iron then ok but if so then it is a unbalance game mechanic in my opinion
Even the Book "The Art of War" says that you must avoid attacking cities without destroying the city's defense first . IIRC,it says that you'd lost 1/3 of your soldiers if you send them attacking cities with walls,so requiring siege weapons to weaken enemy's defense is something that makes sense . I guess that if you don't have catapults,then you have to compensate it with lot of archers/composite bowmans .
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
They will proparly make it less effective against cities and more against units.
So korea becomes more a defencive civilization in the a-early game wich suits them well
headcase
Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn
The problem is if you need iron to build a siege unit. Hopefully catapults won't need iron, or at least iron will be revealed earlier so players can at least know in advance they can't go the early domination route.
That saved my butt a few times during an attack but more importantly, such a mechanism allowed the AI to attack more against me (which we need more of). Perhaps allow the AI to fully heal (or some variation) while giving us some limits?
They could change Iron to be revealed when the player researchs Bronze Working or even Mining . The "Unofficial Patch and Vanilla Enhanced" change it to Bronze Working .
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
The AI is an insta heal junky. I'd prefer to see it take the proper promotions and cycle the units out of combat to heal them (or get medic/march).
Bronze working would be much better. It might not make perfect sense historicly but for gameplay it allows you to plan much more. Especially because the iron working tech is totally useless without iron. With bronze working you can still use spearmen and if you don't have iron you can back them up with either archers or horses. Spearmen and archers make for a pretty decent attack force early on.
Maybe they made some kind of early siege unit that everyone can build, like an early wheeled siege ladder, which was used by Egypt, before the battering ram was even close to being thought of. The funny thing is why should the Huns have the only early siege unit. To me that makes no sense. They did not invent the damn thing. The Assyrians did.
Yeah that is one thing I am a little concerned about. Battering Ram & Horse archer as UUs, WWI bomber, WW1 infantry etc are really bad name choices. Anyway I won't bother too much about that as Thal is going to fix those broken names once G&K comes out.
King_Course
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 465
I like that they put more distance between the unit upgrades. Especially musketman and rifleman. As of now, especially because of GS bulbing, musketman never comes to use. Especially as USA and France this is bad. You can't upgrade from former melee units, and if you are to build a whole musketman army, you will be upgrading them to riflemen before you attack.
The big problem over the board is GS bulbing of course.
The big problem over the board is GS bulbing of course.
seasnake
Conquistador
I agree. They changed insta-heal though to partial heal, so maybe instant of instant tech it's now 1 free tech or beakers up to a certain amount in the later eras.
There are human players that cannot even do that effectively and you expect the AI to be able to?
Yes, I would expect the simplest solution is to have a decreasing amount of value for each GS expended - much like cost of GP or the value of GE in building wonders.
Regarding insta-heal, I like the idea of making it a level 3 promotion (perhaps after Medic II?). That would give us a greater choice to make. Or perhaps the use of insta-heal will entail some negative consequences?
No, remove it & every time u promote ur unit some damage would be healed. Insta-heal is broken & very very annoying for the opponent as well as completely unrealistic & has negative impact on balance of the game..
I agree with you both on here. Something should definitely be done with the insta-heal and you both made good arguments. Insta-heal fix and the Trading Post 'upgrade' has been two my most wanted "minor" game fixes and TPs seems to be revamped in G&K, truly hope that I-H is as well.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Yeah, that's personally what I'd have done. However, that's not as good for the AI.
snipperrabbit!!
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,396
insta-heal I :
+ 50 hp when implemented
let you spend 25 exp for 25 hp
consumes unit turn
level 3
insta-heal II :
+ 100 hp when implemented
let you spend 35 exp (totaling 60) for 35 hp (totaling 60)
consumes 1 move
level 4 ; requires insta-heal I
AI do not require these prom but cannot use them either
AI inate insta-heal is limited to 50 hp max. [1;50]
rule for unit turn is equivalent to human case
+ 50 hp when implemented
let you spend 25 exp for 25 hp
consumes unit turn
level 3
insta-heal II :
+ 100 hp when implemented
let you spend 35 exp (totaling 60) for 35 hp (totaling 60)
consumes 1 move
level 4 ; requires insta-heal I
AI do not require these prom but cannot use them either
AI inate insta-heal is limited to 50 hp max. [1;50]
rule for unit turn is equivalent to human case
Another option is to have the instaheal reduced to 25% when using it at 10XP, 50% at 30XP, 75% at 60XP and 100% at higher levels. This way you reduce it for new units, but make instaheal useful for highly promoted units, which deserve it and which will be passing on a strong promotion like Blitz or March.
