Monkeyfinger
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,002
<snip>
Way to make early rushes even stronger.
edit - pic removed. Not necessary and mildly offensive. Consider it my Friday warning.
I was looking at the description for the future patch and saw this
- Thread starter Monkeyfinger
- Start date
<snip>
Way to make early rushes even stronger.
edit - pic removed. Not necessary and mildly offensive. Consider it my Friday warning.
frenzyslave
Warlord
Theres been alot of talk and collaberation about this one, but i would agree with you. It makes early clubbing of civs even that more easy... Dramatically powers up civ removal civs such as the Clan, Doviello, and Khazad.
Kael
Deity
Walls may become a better defensive building than an obelisk.
Note: there is probably no chance that it will go back. But if early rush is to strong (im not convinced that it is since you dont have signficant culture defense against early rush either) we would probably add another defensive building, the palisade, which wouldnt have any tech requirement.
Note: there is probably no chance that it will go back. But if early rush is to strong (im not convinced that it is since you dont have signficant culture defense against early rush either) we would probably add another defensive building, the palisade, which wouldnt have any tech requirement.
slowcar
King
i think its a very good idea in general, maybe a bit too harsh. the palisade would be a good addition
Quite a concept.
Yay, waited a long time with fingers crossed for this concept to be realized
Vehem, I, and some others were posting in the Fall Further thread and it seems like a good idea to reward the super 
cities more than a standard linear increase.
I'd suggest 0/5/10/15/25/40, but by that time it might not make a difference.
cities more than a standard linear increase.I'd suggest 0/5/10/15/25/40, but by that time it might not make a difference.
marioflag
History Addict
I think that the change to cultural defense was really needed because it gave walls or city fortificatons a really marginal role, it could also help barbarians giving you much troubles.
As others i fear for the AI being less competitive though, an option perhaps to give them free walls(palisade) as soon as a tech is discovered could be considered until devs take care of AI.
As others i fear for the AI being less competitive though, an option perhaps to give them free walls(palisade) as soon as a tech is discovered could be considered until devs take care of AI.
You can hopefully add the proper weight to early defensive buildings so that the AI wants to build them. Maybe have palisades be available with no tech prereq so people have an option to build stuff other than warriors. Maybe a non-graphical building could be a trench that in conjunction with a palisades or walls works even better. With more techs maybe a portculis could be built if you have walls or adding towers to existing walls increases defense? Lots of better options than saying an obelisk gives you +20% to defend in x turns.
Monkeyfinger
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,002
This would help a lot, I think.
Tugendbold
Chieftain
I like the change in a strategic as well as roleplaying perspective. In the end you can have an even higher defense bonus as before if you invest in defense. It doesnt have that much impact on singleplayer games anyway since offense is still the best defense and grants a lot more experience.
onedreamer
Dragon
Good thing, but I would have just halved them and made Castle come earlier.
Vehem
Modmod Monkey
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 3,219
Possibly even provide a Pallisade as a "free building" to the capital - to counteract the really early ones (if it's even an issue).
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I think that it would make sense for the civ's palaces to give extra defense too.
Vehem
Modmod Monkey
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 3,219
Actually - that'd be a better option than the "free palisade" - just give the relevant amount of defense to the palace (whether it be a walled stronghold or a cultural focus that inspires the defenders).
Kael
Deity
I tend to think that adding palace defense isnt a real solution because it just stalls the last step. If you can get a civ down to just its capital its usually game over for them anyway. Making that last city hard doesnt really balance, just drags the game on.
On the other hand it does push early rushers to go for ancillary cities instead of the capital, which if the sacrifice stalls their advance (they werent able to "roll over") is less fo a hit than taking a capital.
On the other hand it does push early rushers to go for ancillary cities instead of the capital, which if the sacrifice stalls their advance (they werent able to "roll over") is less fo a hit than taking a capital.
xienwolf
Deity
Adding some defense to your palace could be a decent move, but I think that overall it is just a good move in general. And now you might actually find Archers to be better at holding a city than your warriors. Though I still wish that warriors would lose their City Defense bonus to make that even more likely.
Couldn't the same be accomplished just by lowering the warriors city defense bonus to +10% instead of eliminating it. Still gives you a bonus early game when you need it but by the time you get you weapon upgrades does not push you up to the defendinglevel of an archer.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
I've modded the palaces to provide a +100 defense bonus and it's worked well.
At the very early stages of the game only one city isn't too bad if the other civs only have a few. At the higher difficulty levels the AI builds settlers quickly: Just one city can become multiple cities again dismayingly fast.
But, true, knocking a civ back to 1 city is something they often never really recover from. OTOH, it generally means you have an implacable enemy until you can muster enough force to wipe them out. So the palace defense can even be a significant deterrent.
As a player who enjoys settling near another civ, quickly wiping them out and thus claiming 2-civs worth of early-game land rather than just one... I've found the increased palace defense a good change. I've had some very enjoyable games where the guys I "rushed" very early in the game held on and came back to cause me significant headaches later.
I don't, btw, think increasing the palace defense is a cure-all of any sort. And adjustments to the strengths/bonuses of the units might be a much better solution. As things are now, though, I think it's a real improvement.
At the very early stages of the game only one city isn't too bad if the other civs only have a few. At the higher difficulty levels the AI builds settlers quickly: Just one city can become multiple cities again dismayingly fast.
But, true, knocking a civ back to 1 city is something they often never really recover from. OTOH, it generally means you have an implacable enemy until you can muster enough force to wipe them out. So the palace defense can even be a significant deterrent.
As a player who enjoys settling near another civ, quickly wiping them out and thus claiming 2-civs worth of early-game land rather than just one... I've found the increased palace defense a good change. I've had some very enjoyable games where the guys I "rushed" very early in the game held on and came back to cause me significant headaches later.
I don't, btw, think increasing the palace defense is a cure-all of any sort. And adjustments to the strengths/bonuses of the units might be a much better solution. As things are now, though, I think it's a real improvement.
