[Idea] Realistic City Siege

@TB

Rams after adding new tags works like it should but are too weak. So its good that you plan to add new code to them.
 
If they are too weak now that is probably good. As promotions are developed they should be balanced out. And when you say too weak, what exactly do you mean? My tests showed they could easily be made far too powerful so I was suggesting numbers that could keep them from being too overwhelming. In what situations have they been tested and what were the results?

It'd be nice if we had this in play by the end of the cycle!
 
I mean that rams die very often before even do any damage.
In my test game i loose 10 battering rams and make no harm to 180% defense city see my post from month ago.
 
@hydro

We talking about new system where rams dont have bombard ability but they must attack city to reduce defenses. This system is under development. (not in SVN)
 
Nimek said:
I mean that rams die very often before even do any damage.
In my test game i loose 10 battering rams and make no harm to 180% defense city see my post from month ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok so that's again just an issue of needing to establish a min damage. I'll get that done very soon.
 
Nimek said:
@Hydro or otheer unit modder

Can we tweak rams now.

- Add new tags by Thunderbird
Spoiler :
iBreakdownChance: I'd start our Ram line at 10% for the Log Ram (note that the log ram (hand ram in xml) must be enabled to attack when you make this change and that means the may attack boolean as well as the combat limit amount must be made to be over 0.) Then gradually edge the chance up by another 10% per upgrade.

iBreakdownDamage: Testing showed this amount is very VERY powerful so should be applied extremely gradually. Log Rams should start with a base 1 on this value. Then add another 1 for each unit upgrade (though maybe increase by more than one for more advanced upgrades.)

Note: I was surprised our rams have first strike. I'd suggest they lose it - eventually they'll get some back by having Distance Support units on the stack. But that's how the programming expects them to have it. If any unit type provides the perfect example of a unit type that should NOT have first strike for any logical reason, Rams are it.

- add siege_gatecrasher combat class
- remove first strike
- remove ability to range bombardment

After siege_gatecrasher CC will be added please tweak traps line to also affect on this CC.


Also we need something more early than cataput (reveleted by siege warfare tech) like onager from Total War enable at Matemathics

BTW
I am very proud with all earlier changes. City siege is muchmore realistic and much harder and gives more pleasure :)
I would love to see full functional new rams in v33
Click to expand...

@Nimek: after my next commit all but the red highlighted line mentioned in this post will be completed.

I also need to develop some promo lines for gatecrashers - may be able to get to that today dunno.
 
Yuppie :) it is awesome.
I also saw that hydro added earlier siege units. Thats cool.

Now i have another movement to another flat so no time for any civ game/modding

@modders
I would love to finish my parser but i must be sure that it is useful for you and what features you want.
 
@TB
What about AI do you have idea how to teach AI to use new rams funcionality?
 
Nimek said:
@TB
What about AI do you have idea how to teach AI to use new rams funcionality?
Click to expand...

They should be pretty good at coming up as 'best' units to use to attack cities BUT we'll have to watch how the AI uses (or doesn't) them and see if there's something that will need to be done to improve on their leading off with them (and building them if they don't choose to do so enough.)
 
Not sure if this is a bug, but the AI came to my city (120% Def; can't enter above 60%) with a huge stack but only 1 Arsonist to remove some Def (5% per turn). Gave me enough time to collect my forces there. They definetly were able to build rams but they didn't used seem (or have them).

Latest SVN, Deity.
 
Faustmouse said:
Not sure if this is a bug, but the AI came to my city (120% Def; can't enter above 60%) with a huge stack but only 1 Arsonist to remove some Def (5% per turn). Gave me enough time to collect my forces there. They definetly were able to build rams but they didn't used seem (or have them).

Latest SVN, Deity.
Click to expand...

Yeah... ouch. At some point we'll really have to get serious about writing some improvements into war prep and war decision making AI overall. We might actually see an improvement from the new ram method.
 
When playtesting for a bit I was blindsided by the sudden onslaught of a rather sizeable barbarian army that snuck up on my city as I wasn't paying the best attention... (where did THOSE come from in C2C? I'm impressed the barbs can put up this kind of fight with us now!)

But more importantly, they brought with them a very large stack of Rams, AtlAtls, and Stone Macemen. First of all, I'm thinking - nicely arranged city attack party! Someone did well with AI there!

But the second thing I noticed was when they attacked. The rams came in first, then the atlatls, then the stone macemen. My AtlAtl (among a stone spear, stone axe and dog) came up repeatedly to defend and he did great considering he was on a hill in a city and had 3 city defense promos. He hardly got hurt throughout the whole onslaught. But had he not been so skilled to begin with I might've lost the city. Their order of attack was perfect!

1) Send in the rams to wear down the defenses (due to a fix on the processing of rams today I think they might've been much more dangerous on the current code.)
2) Send in the Atl-Atl to do some collateral while having the ability to potentially survive the conflict with withdrawal.
3) Send in the Macemen to wrap things up (if they can.)

The only thing they needed to do that they didn't do was get some surround and destroy benefit in there and they may yet have taken the city.


OH, I forgot the reason I came to post here...


At the moment we have the intention of having siege towers enable units on the plot to attack cities that still have a defense level higher than the minimum defense before attack is possible. I'd like to complete that next cycle and I have a good concept now of how to do it without killing processing.

But more to the point:
I'd like to keep ram units relevant after the introduction of distance bombardment. What if we made the minimum defense value in the city still able to be brought down by rams, even though normal bombard won't erode further than the minimum? We could extend this ability from rams through the carriage line (just make carriages SIEGE_GATECRASHER like rams and add breakdown tag usages to them), and from there through a line of Gatecrasher function armored units like 'Combat Tractors' or something along those lines - units that plow through the debris to clear routes to the battle sites. I know I wanted elephant units to be able to develop the gatecrasher abilities.

But first, to determine this: Does anyone else agree that the Ram unit mechanism should be capable of reducing a city lower than its minimum defense level?
 
Thunderbrd said:
But first, to determine this: Does anyone else agree that the Ram unit mechanism should be capable of reducing a city lower than its minimum defense level?
Click to expand...

Not from a realism point... we had the minimum defense value because there are still ruins of the previous walls where the defenders can hide. They are still there, even with rams. And I think later high explosive units would have way more ability to completely make the wall disappear.

You could give Rams higher defense against Archers as well.

What could make them more usefull than range bombardments:
While Rams only destroy the wall, it's quite hard to aim with Trebuchets I guess. THerefore, a Tribuchet might destroy buildings inside the city, so you'd prefer Rams when you want to keep a city.
 
But first, to determine this: Does anyone else agree that the Ram unit mechanism should be capable of reducing a city lower than its minimum defense level?
Click to expand...

No they should not. Gatecrashers only crash the gate when walls still exists.

Fight in taht conditions where attackers has only small gate to enter the city is very difficult and it is realistic that defenders will first protect broken gate at the all cost.

So minimum defense level should stay untouched. I want to avoid unnessesery too much complexity.

Thank you TB for your progrees - it is amazing :)

@hydro
Could you tweak your traps to also affect siege gatecrasher CC if TB agree here.
 
Faustmouse said:
Not from a realism point... we had the minimum defense value because there are still ruins of the previous walls where the defenders can hide. They are still there, even with rams. And I think later high explosive units would have way more ability to completely make the wall disappear.

You could give Rams higher defense against Archers as well.

What could make them more usefull than range bombardments:
While Rams only destroy the wall, it's quite hard to aim with Trebuchets I guess. THerefore, a Tribuchet might destroy buildings inside the city, so you'd prefer Rams when you want to keep a city.
Click to expand...

Snofru1 said:
Yes, I do to some degree: Down to 50% of the original minimum level.
Click to expand...

Nimek said:
No they should not. Gatecrashers only crash the gate when walls still exists.

Fight in taht conditions where attackers has only small gate to enter the city is very difficult and it is realistic that defenders will first protect broken gate at the all cost.

So minimum defense level should stay untouched. I want to avoid unnessesery too much complexity.

Thank you TB for your progrees - it is amazing :)

@hydro
Could you tweak your traps to also affect siege gatecrasher CC if TB agree here.
Click to expand...
What if Rams could reduce defenses past the minimum as another developable ability that only Gatecrashers could get? One that represents something of a path clearing concept which the early rams wouldn't possess so much but later gatecrashers would?

(Also along those lines we should then consider extending the gatecrasher concept beyond rams alone.)

I certainly agree with some traps being keenly suited to countering gatecrashers but it'd be good to chart it out clearly so we could all take a look at 'the plan' before full implementation.
 
Also along those lines we should then consider extending the gatecrasher concept beyond rams alone.
Click to expand...

This is good idea. Like siege droids developed to destroy hitech fortifications.

@Hydro
Lets wait for TB idea how it should look like.

In meantime you can add

Burning Oil building
requires Tar Pit
affect all foot CC + Gatecrashers
Other stats i leave in your hands :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lazy sweeper
Let's talk about the new Walls... I have some questions.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Krikkit1
K
H
Combat mechanics overhaul tied with the three eras
Replies
4
Views
1K
wolverine2112
W
B
What's the difference between Cavalry and Infantry? What's the siege machines bonus against city?
Replies
3
Views
2K
AriochIV
AriochIV
NickGabben
City Defense Discussion
Replies
16
Views
3K
MassRiflemen
M
Predator145
Ancient and Medieval Fortified Walls
Replies
1
Views
832
Predator145
Predator145
Back
Top Bottom