Great mod, but...

[NiKuTa]

This is great mod. it the best which I play. Thx a lot. I've already make 250h+ with this mod.
But there are some issues for me:
1. Taking (capture) cities is to easy. Always cities battles was very hard and long. Attacking units should take more dmg. Whey I developed dynamite I need only one arty to destroy enemy cities with the garrison. Even if I don't destroy cite to 0 HP the garrison is destroyed. Garrison in cities should take a small DMG. The defence calculation of cities should be much more higher. What is the best now, garrison unit take more dmg., then the same unit outside of cities. Cities should give +100% to defence for garrisoned unit. (or even more)

1a. Cities wall, castles should have higher defence bonuses until you research guns. After you research tech which give you guns cities should be taken easier, but not to easy. Now I need 2-3 units and one gun to take cities.

1b. "Young" cities without any defence buildings are really easy to take.

2. Missile units (archers etc.) are useless as a garrison. They don't give to much defence bonuses. For me the defence values should be calculated as defence bonus + distance attack, not only defence bonuses.

3. Missile (archers, or other distance) units are too powerful vs naval units. Valley guns or next machine-guns are very powerful vs ships. I can kill frigate in 2-3 shots. but ships for close combat have a bigger problem, they cant fight vs any missile units. SO they are easy to kill. For me all missile units should have about -50% vs ships and all arty - 25%. My arty kill frigates in one shoot :/

4. Transport ships are to easy to kill, by missile units. you will kill faster a transport ship with valley gun then if you use a ship. Ship make less dmg in transport ship.

5. Raze should have impact on diplo with all civilizations. More late era it should have more impact, and after you reach industrial era, raze should be forbidden. I heard about razes an cities in Middle Ages, and before, but after that not. More "civilized" world should be more civilized and razes of cities should not be allowed.

I have small thing about tech tree, but I'm at work and I don't have screen shoots to show you something.


But anyway this mode is awesome for me. I'v play on emperor (6) difficulty, at the beginning was hard. now it more easier, I have one civil with similar points to me, rest civs have 2 time less point. They are at war all the time. I have 400 gold+, 80 happines+, atc, but one civilization is near to me (with points), and he is my friend. I don't wont fight with him because he have storng army, and he is on the same islands/continents as I , and I have 2-3 wars all the time. New war near me will be dangerous. So it is funny and good game.
Thx for a mod.

P.s. sorry for my English.

 

[Moi Magnus]

This is great mod. it the best which I play. Thx a lot. I've already make 250h+ with this mod.
But there are some issues for me:
1. Taking (capture) cities is to easy. Always cities battles was very hard and long. Attacking units should take more dmg. Whey I developed dynamite I need only one arty to destroy enemy cities with the garrison. Even if I don't destroy cite to 0 HP the garrison is destroyed. Garrison in cities should take a small DMG. The defence calculation of cities should be much more higher. What is the best garrison unit take more dmg. then the same unit outside of cities. Cities should give +100% to defence for garrisoned unit.

If I've correctly understand, the defense of the unit in garnison is not used to compute how many damage it takes : it take a % of damages done to the city.
I think there is a thread in the "general balance" subforum about city being easy to capture, and they answer that it was what they wanted.

1a. Cities wall, castles should have higher defence bonuses until you research guns. After you research tech which give you guns cities should be taken easier, but not to easy. Now I need 2-3 units and one gun to take cities.

Increasing the defense bonus : why not. But I don't want city walls to loose efficiancy with time. I don't want the City wall to be even more a building that you don't to buid but you have to.

1b. "Young" cities without any defence buildings are really easy to take.

Feel a good things for me. If someone forward settle you, the war to rase this silly city will not be stupidly long.

2. Missile units (archers etc.) are useless as a garrison. They don't give to much defence bonuses. For me the defence values should be calculated as defence bonus + distance attack, not only defence bonuses.

Don't agree. I usually use "missile units" in cities. My melee units are too busy killing ennemy "missile units" or doing zone of control to protect my "missile units". And a city is a safe place when only melee units can attack it.

3. Missile (archers, or other distance) units are too powerful vs naval units. Valley guns or next machine-guns are very powerful vs ships. I can kill frigate in 2-3 shots. but ships for close combat have a bigger problem, they cant fight vs any missile units. SO they are easy to kill. For me all missile units should have about -50% vs ships and all arty - 25%. My arty kill frigates in one shoot :/

I've not play enougth with or againt naval to comment that part

4. Transport ships are to easy to kill, by missile units. you will kill faster a transport ship with valley gun then if you use a ship. Ship make less dmg in transport ship.

I've not play enougth with or againt naval to comment that part

5. Raze should have impact on diplo with all civilizations. More late era it should have more impact, and after you reach industrial era, raze should be forbidden. I heard about razes an cities in Middle Ages, and before, but after that not. More "civilized" world should be more civilized and razes of cities should not be allowed.

Razing cities already take times, happyness (and maybe give already warmonger penalties).
Having huge penalties to raze cities would be really annoying. When I take a city, sometimes I just raze it to rebuild it one case West. (And in fact, I would want to be able to raze my own cities too, to deplace them if needed).

I have small thing about tech tree, but I'm at work and I don't have screen shoots to show you something.


But anyway this mode is awesome for me. I'v play on emperor (6) difficulty, at the beginning was hard. now it more easier, I have one civil with similar points to me, rest civs have 2 time less point. They are at war all the time. I have 400 gold+, 80 happines+, atc, but one civilization is near to me (with points), and he is my friend. I don't wont fight with him because he have storng army, and he is on the same islands/continents as I , and I have 2-3 wars all the time. New war near me will be dangerous. So it is funny and good game.
Thx for a mod.

P.s. sorry for my English.

My English is possibly worst than your.

 

[zeta]

Capturing cities easy? Well, I always have difficulties taking them myself, I seem to be the only one having this problem

 

[PurpleMentat]

Capturing cities easy? Well, I always have difficulties taking them myself, I seem to be the only one having this problem

In Ancient era, archers can fire on cities from outside city range. When you hit Mathematics, cities get to 2 range, but you also unlock Skirmishers (horse archer, move after attacking) and Catapults (first siege unit).

Without Walls, a city has a combat strength of 6 to 10 during Ancient and Classical. Capitals get a big bonus from the palace, and Venice even more so. Warriors are matched with cities, Spearmen beat them, and Swordsmen crush them.

Horsemen, available with Military Theory, are the equal of Spearmen when attacking cities, move 4, move after attacking, win vs infantry, and crush ranged and siege. You need a UU or Swordsmen to beat them. If you have Ivory, War Elephants are terrors on the battlefield.

The secret to early war is being willing to dedicate your production to units instead of buildings. If neither side has a UU, you can take an AI's expansions with a mixed force of archers and horses before Classical, even on Immortal (haven't succeeded in doing so on Deity). Past early Classical, you should never be melee'ing a city except as the death blow.

 

[Funak]

This is great mod. it the best which I play. Thx a lot. I've already make 250h+ with this mod.
But there are some issues for me:
1. Taking (capture) cities is to easy. Always cities battles was very hard and long. Attacking units should take more dmg. Whey I developed dynamite I need only one arty to destroy enemy cities with the garrison. Even if I don't destroy cite to 0 HP the garrison is destroyed. Garrison in cities should take a small DMG. The defence calculation of cities should be much more higher. What is the best now, garrison unit take more dmg., then the same unit outside of cities. Cities should give +100% to defence for garrisoned unit. (or even more)

Wow, this is really hard to understand. Are you saying that it's too easy to defend cities, or too hard to defend cities?
I don't know if it is the overuse of the word 'should' but this entire post comes off as rather rude.

1a. Cities wall, castles should have higher defence bonuses until you research guns. After you research tech which give you guns cities should be taken easier, but not to easy. Now I need 2-3 units and one gun to take cities.

What?

1b. "Young" cities without any defence buildings are really easy to take.

Yes....?

2. Missile units (archers etc.) are useless as a garrison. They don't give to much defence bonuses. For me the defence values should be calculated as defence bonus + distance attack, not only defence bonuses.

Maybe you're not supposed to use archers as garrisons?

3. Missile (archers, or other distance) units are too powerful vs naval units. Valley guns or next machine-guns are very powerful vs ships. I can kill frigate in 2-3 shots. but ships for close combat have a bigger problem, they cant fight vs any missile units. SO they are easy to kill. For me all missile units should have about -50% vs ships and all arty - 25%. My arty kill frigates in one shoot :/

All ranged land-units already have a -25% combat-penalty vs naval units, and honestly that might even be overdoing it. You have absolutely not chance of defending your coastal cities with only land-units of comparable eras.

4. Transport ships are to easy to kill, by missile units. you will kill faster a transport ship with valley gun then if you use a ship. Ship make less dmg in transport ship.

What?

5. Raze should have impact on diplo with all civilizations. More late era it should have more impact, and after you reach industrial era, raze should be forbidden. I heard about razes an cities in Middle Ages, and before, but after that not. More "civilized" world should be more civilized and razes of cities should not be allowed.

Most people seem to disagree with you on this point.

 

[jacktannery]

4. Transport ships are to easy to kill, by missile units. you will kill faster a transport ship with valley gun then if you use a ship. Ship make less dmg in transport ship.

What?

He means that embarked units are too vulnerable to ranged land-based units, but actually quite resilient to melee sea units. And I completely agree with him: an archer can take down an embarked horseman in 1 hit, but a trireme takes 2 attacks to do the same. Should be the other way around.

NiKuTa, don't mind Funak, he's like that with everyone . I think you raise some good points, and even though your English isn't perfect I was able to completely understand everything.

 

[Funak]

He means that embarked units are too vulnerable to ranged land-based units, but actually quite resilient to melee sea units. And I completely agree with him: an archer can take down an embarked horseman in 1 hit, but a trireme takes 2 attacks to do the same. Should be the other way around.

I meant 'What?' as in I'm really not experiencing that at all. To me, melee-ships deal a lot more damage to embarked units than archers. I've also never seen an archer oneshot a horseman, embarked or not.

 

[Dallandra]

I meant 'What?' as in I'm really not experiencing that at all. To me, melee-ships deal a lot more damage to embarked units than archers. I've also never seen an archer oneshot a horseman, embarked or not.

I actually just had that situation as well. Had a few embarked barbarians next to a city-state, the archer I happened to have there did way more damage than a nearby trireme would have done to it.

 

[DarkZero]

I actually just had that situation as well. Had a few embarked barbarians next to a city-state, the archer I happened to have there did way more damage than a nearby trireme would have done to it.

Not only ranged units deal significant more damage on embarked units than melee boats, the boats also take 20 to 30 damage in retaliation from basically attacking dudes in a boat, makes no sense to me...

 

[Funak]

I actually just had that situation as well. Had a few embarked barbarians next to a city-state, the archer I happened to have there did way more damage than a nearby trireme would have done to it.

That makes absolutely no sense, the only advantage an should archer have attacking an embarked unit compared to a ship is that they don't receive the -25% RCS when attacking.
Otherwise a trireme have 15 CS and an archer have 7RCS, there is no way an archer should deal more damage than a trireme.

Only situation I can think of where I have exact numbers is a game I played last night where an embarked worker took a hit for 95 damage from a trireme, compared to the 40ish it takes from an archer.

Also had a scout get oneshot by a hostile trireme, something I've never seen happen by an archer.

 

[Iamblichos]

In my opinion, I agree with the poster on point 1. When I do happen to play CBP, city taking has a snowball affect after the first one is taken of a given major civ.

 

[PandorasActor]

I will use this opportunity to mention a couple of minor issues I have with defensive structures that are mostly related to the OP:

1. Walls and castles should become obsolete in the late game. It has always felt so odd to have modern cities still constructing walls for defence. Most of the defence should come from arsenals and military bases. At the very least, walls should be unavailable for construction after you research a certain technology (dynamite?).

2. The Great Wall. Why is this still only negated once the BUILDER has researched dynamite and not the attacker? I end up with plenty of games where I am the first to dynamite, but apparently I have to wait until the builder of the Great Wall researches it before I can effectively attack him. It's quite silly, but i'm not sure if it would require a lot of work to change? If so, I can live with it.

Cheers.

 

[Gort]

In my opinion, I agree with the poster on point 1. When I do happen to play CBP, city taking has a snowball affect after the first one is taken of a given major civ.

Well, that's kind of integral to the design of Civ, isn't it? Once someone starts to lose stuff there's no "Your citizens want their city back! +50% production in all cities!" modifiers to help them turn things around - their empire is just one city weaker, and they probably lost a lot of their army trying to prevent the loss of that city, so the next city will be easier to take.

Not to mention the other "snowball" mechanics - the attacking army will likely be more experienced attacking the second city, the defender might have focused his building of defensive improvements and buildings on his border cities rather than his now-vulnerable interior ones, the attacker now has an extra city to fuel their war-machine, the attacker might now have a great general they didn't have at the start of the war...

Civ is a game of snowballs in general, both in vanilla and the mod, is what I'm using too many words to say.

 

[zeta]

I will use this opportunity to mention a couple of minor issues I have with defensive structures that are mostly related to the OP:

1. Walls and castles should become obsolete in the late game. It has always felt so odd to have modern cities still constructing walls for defence. Most of the defence should come from arsenals and military bases. At the very least, walls should be unavailable for construction after you research a certain technology (dynamite?).

2. The Great Wall. Why is this still only negated once the BUILDER has researched dynamite and not the attacker? I end up with plenty of games where I am the first to dynamite, but apparently I have to wait until the builder of the Great Wall researches it before I can effectively attack him. It's quite silly, but i'm not sure if it would require a lot of work to change? If so, I can live with it.

Cheers.

Very good points. Made me think of these for a while. Especially about Great Wall. It's attackers technology and units what's behind, not mine.

 

[Iamblichos]

Well, that's kind of integral to the design of Civ, isn't it? Once someone starts to lose stuff there's no "Your citizens want their city back! +50% production in all cities!" modifiers to help them turn things around - their empire is just one city weaker, and they probably lost a lot of their army trying to prevent the loss of that city, so the next city will be easier to take.

Not to mention the other "snowball" mechanics - the attacking army will likely be more experienced attacking the second city, the defender might have focused his building of defensive improvements and buildings on his border cities rather than his now-vulnerable interior ones, the attacker now has an extra city to fuel their war-machine, the attacker might now have a great general they didn't have at the start of the war...

Civ is a game of snowballs in general, both in vanilla and the mod, is what I'm using too many words to say.

I agree somewhat, but to the affect that it takes me x amount of turns to take the first city, it takes the same amount of x turns to completely wipe them out or less. The AI, rightly, puts a lot of what they can muster on the front line of a strong or severe opponent encroachment. Once that is taken out, reserves are easy mop up after the first city. If cities were just a tad bit stronger it would slow down much of that snowball effect, and allow some y amount of extra build turns for units.

 

[Sendaf]

I fully agree with the Great Wall dynamite problem. It really makes no sense that I can't use dynamite to knock down a fancy wall because the builder doesn't know what dynamite is.

 

[Funak]

I fully agree with the Great Wall dynamite problem. It really makes no sense that I can't use dynamite to knock down a fancy wall because the builder doesn't know what dynamite is.

It's simply for the sake that the control of the wonder should be with the builder of the wonder, you want to know when the wonder you build will actually stop working yourself.

Also I'm not really sure the attacker dynamite thing is even possible without some kind of annoying promotion given to all units at dynamite to make them ignore the great wall, I mean as it currently works the wall goes obsolete and stops working once you reach dynamite, that's one simple condition. Having it 'go obsolete' for others once they reach dynamite would require at least one check per civ in the game, probably a lot more than that.

 

[Putmalk]

It's simply for the sake that the control of the wonder should be with the builder of the wonder, you want to know when the wonder you build will actually stop working yourself.

Also I'm not really sure the attacker dynamite thing is even possible without some kind of annoying promotion given to all units at dynamite to make them ignore the great wall, I mean as it currently works the wall goes obsolete and stops working once you reach dynamite, that's one simple condition. Having it 'go obsolete' for others once they reach dynamite would require at least one check per civ in the game, probably a lot more than that.

If I had to guess it would be a lot simpler than that to implement. And a smarter change would be to have the Great Wall not work against units of a certain Era or higher.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I have always used ranged units as garrisons simply for the extra ranged attack they provide.
Since the 'garrisons take damage' mechanic was introduced I have begun to re-examine my strategy.
Personally I don't like that garrisons take damage, and therefore weak ranged units even more so.
For what its worth I agree with the OP that ranged units are a poor choice based on the state of the mod now. Apparently though I'm in the minority in thinking garrisons taking damage is a bad idea.

 

[BenchBreaker]

garrison taking damage actually mean that city takes less damage, you'll notice that once garrison falls, even if the city strength only reduce by 1 or 2 the city hp drops much faster after the garrison is gone