Improve the Protective trait???

[Quetzal513]

After I made the post I quickly rethought my suggestions and decided that I didn't really like any of them. In fact, with all respects, I'm not sure that present suggestions do all that much to satisfy me either. But I don't understand why all gunpowder units couldn't promote down the drill line.

I like the 100% vs. barbs b/c it feels like it works nicely historically. kniteowl you're right about it being used for attack, and that doesn't sit with me well. But I also thought if it was only in you're cultural borders that it steals a little thunder from the Great Wall; maybe that's okay, I dunno. It also probably doesn't matter much until you go a little higher in difficulty. But I don't think that it not lasting through the game is a big deal; I'm just looking for a couple little boosts that could make a positive impact for protective. Plus the charismatic bonus for monuments goes away pretty early, and the happiness bonus for broadcast towers is very little quite late in the game. So I think it’s reasonable. It seems like I've heard a lot of people say they like playing with barbs off, so maybe there's a need, but maybe that's just because they hate to see their workers get eaten.

I didn't really like the idea of decreased drafting penalty, plus the vassal bonus seemed a bit to hard to implement; but it seemed to fit the feel of protective and that's what appeals to me.

I'm not a fan of the increased combat bonus within cultural borders, too exploitable, and deceptively complex. You'd get that +10% in your cities. What about newly captured ones? Only squares where you have the cultural majority/plurality? I think it’s too much.

I think occupied forts should have zone of control, that would help with the pillaging a lot. And I've already spent too much time illustrating on other threads how forts could be useful (even though we all know it’s a hard sell). With the protective trait, it would be another subtle boost since those city garrison promotions would be used effectively there too.

kniteowl here's my beef with the improved castle mod. Why does a castle, a fortification, give extra experience to siege units, essential an offensive weapon, other than for the purpose of game balance? You're right about castles not giving exp to artillery, it doesn't seem fair. But if a nice improvement could be made for castles, that would be a big boost to protective. I don't think that trade route should go obsolete, all the effects of monasteries don't go obsolete, just some, it seems reasonable.

 

[kniteowl]

kniteowl here's my beef with the improved castle mod. Why does a castle, a fortification, give extra experience to siege units, essential an offensive weapon, other than for the purpose of game balance? You're right about castles not giving exp to artillery, it doesn't seem fair. But if a nice improvement could be made for castles, that would be a big boost to protective. I don't think that trade route should go obsolete, all the effects of monasteries don't go obsolete, just some, it seems reasonable.

I don't know anything about history, never studied it, never will (history channel and wikipedia don't count ).

I don't know anything about historical significace about castles improving the usage of Seige Weapons, the only reason I allowed Castles to given extra 2XP to seige units (Too all Civs) is because the Spnish Citadel (replaces Castles) gives 5XP to Seige units

So I Made it similar to the Stables and Mongol Ger for Mounted Units.

Stables = 2XP
Ger = 4XP

So for Seige units

Castles = 2XP
Citadel = 5XP

I have no idea historically why the Spanish Citadel gives Seige Weapons Experience.

But these two imrpovements in the game balance sense, do give Protective an edge in the late Midde and Gunpowder Ages.

Protective is relatively still weak in the Ancient Age though, but i can live with that unless I can find another idea to improve it just enough to balance it out.

Edit: I forget that Machine Guns are Seige units, ah well what's an extra 2XP to a unit that can only defend, beside Marines can easily counter them. That and you should have finish most of your non-spacerace games by this point in time... Funny that Machine Guns can only defend and they indirectly benefit from the +2XP from the Castles, sounds "Protective" to me lol!

 

[Watiggi]

Why not just give Protective a bonus that causes damage to attacking units each turn while they're in the Protective leaders borders and also give additional damage when they pillage cottages. This demonstrates the resistance to the invaders.

 

[kristopherb]

i was thinking how about
protective
free city gar1
free drill 1
(to achers,guns,machine guns)
less drafting /free to draft anytime(1 unit per turn
the abillity for protecive guns to get drll 2-4
what do you think? its easy modable
W/o less drafting,free to draft

 

[Quetzal513]

kniteowl following in the citadels footsteps, I see why you gave the siege exp bonus to castles. It seems fair and valid. Why do citadels give siege experience? You've got me there, I've thought about the historical context and it doesn't seem to add up. I can live with that, I'm not one who cries out over historical inaccuracies. I've run across many threads that pick apart the accuracy of certain game elements. But one has to admit it doesn’t seem quite right because it seems to increase warfare, etc

You mention that protective is still weak in the ancient era, I think that bonus vs. barbs w/in cultural boundaries fits the bill. It just feels right; I can feel the truthiness in my gut. I think that improving protective might just hang on improving castles a bit. I wish that trade route didn’t go obsolete. What if Citadels gave some sort of +25% or +50% trade route yield like harbors? (maybe too strong) If you think about Spanish Citadels they really had a lot to do with defending mercantile interests in the 16th through 18th centuries. They were fortifications and government centers. Maybe they could give a free merchant like the artist is to the salon. And don’t have the merchant go obsolete. There is my suggestion: castles trade route doesn’t go obsolete and the citadel grants a free merchant.

 

[Quetzal513]

Watiggi I think your suggestion changes the game's mechanics too much. It might make it impossible to ever even take a protetive's city. Imagine if you had to march in a few tiles with your catapult stack, now they're all at 75% health and will continue to suffer damage each turn?

kristopherb I know that I said I thought that some drafting bonus or reduction in penalty seemed to fit the spirit of protective, but I don't think it's an appropriate bonus. Its too specific to only opperate while you're in one civic. As I thought about it, I'm sure players would devise some major maceman rush strategy where you pop them like crazy without discovering gunpowder. Then its just some sort of exploit. If you allow protective leaders to draft w/out nationhood then you've made it way to strong. You'd be able to draft from the beginning of the game, plus with the bonuses that archers get, devaluing nationalism, etc, it would just be way too strong.

I think allowing guns to promote down the drill line seems resonable, but that's without doing any testing. The developers may have intentionally disallowed this promotion line after testing out its effects. Including machine guns with protective promotions seems resonable, but it may also have been investigated (but I hardly build machine guns).

I think the zone of control for forts would slove the pillaging issue, and like I said before it seems to indirectly boost protective since those city garrison promos could be used there. Plus forts would actually be relevant. The AI would also have to be improved, since as it stands now, you know if you build yourself a fort it'll be the only one on the whole globe.

I still like improving castles and the bonus vs. barbs w/in cultural borders, but I'm probably the only one following their gut on this one

 

[Antilogic]

The reason why catapults are cheap is because you have to replace them so often during a conflict--the lack of an ability to barrage enemies and damage them without sacrificing your catapults to direct combat is something I think Firaxis should have left in Civ4.

Castles yield extra trade routes because historically castles were built to defend trade routes and emphasize a particular noble's economic domination over an area. At least, that's how I understand most of the European castles that have been built. There were a few castle builders like Ludwig who just built them for the hell of it.

The direct improvement looks too much like Aggressive; I'd like to find something different, if it's even necessary. I think Quetzal513 makes a good point in his second statement. It has to be simple, and it has to be only a marginal improvement. I think that rules out vassal states, simply because the option can be turned off in the main screen as well as I cannot envision a simple and marginal boost to vassal states.

If you consider this a lecture, skip it!
On 3., several civilizations historically have used the pillage the fields but don't attack the cities strategy. I will cite Sparta in the Peloponnesian War as a prime example: they did not besiege Athens until 405-404 BCE, but instead since 431 BCE simply pillaged the fields and crowded the Athenians into their city. Their fort at Decelea was built so they could do this through all seasons and not have to retreat during the Winter months. There is good historical precedent for simply destroying your opponent's economy and then forcing their eventual submission.

That being said, I don't see how you can do a quick boost to protective to bump that up.

 

[Quetzal513]

Antilogic you're comments are appreciated (as are everyone’s). I agree completely that pillaging is a great element of the game with many historical connections (If I said I didn’t want a lecture it was about how to defeat pillaging units, I’m competent enough to have figured it out). I suppose what I was lamenting is that when I've played as a protective leader that's all the other civs seem to do, all pillage and no city raiding. But I realize that you'd have to improve the AI's behavior more than anything to improve this.

I still feel enthusiastic about giving zone of control to forts. For each unit garrisoned in a fort, allow it to take a small amount of damage off (some ratio of the two units strength) one passing unit per turn. That doesn’t put an end to pillaging, since I’ve got to choose to build forts rather than improve the work-ability of the terrain, I’ve got to man and stock the forts, and balance extra units and the resources to build them. It indirectly would give a minor bonus to protective with the free city garrison promos, and help improve a near useless feature of the game.

And if someone can explain why Firaxis decided to have the Citadels give +5 exp to siege units with any historical significance that would be much appreciated.

 

[kniteowl]

Here the Change to the Improved Protective Mod

Gunpowder units can now gain Drill II, III & IV Promotions
Castles Give +2XP to Siege units (Obsolete with Artillery)


My modding skills are VERY limited, if you want a 100% Bonus against Barbs with in cultural Boarders, you have to ask someone else, maybe Watiggi

 

[Watiggi]

And if someone can explain why Firaxis decided to have the Citadels give +5 exp to siege units with any historical significance that would be much appreciated.

I'm not big on Spanish history, but I think the bonus xp to seige units is more about it being given to the Spanish rather than the Citadel actally giving a bonus to seige.

IOW, because the Citadel is solely for the Spanish, and (apparently) giving the Spanish a strong bonus to seige is appropriate for them, it would seem fitting to put the bonus on the Spanish UB. This doesn't mean that the Citadel actually does anything for seige units though. Again, my Spanish history is low, but this makes gameplay sense to me assuming my assumptions are correct.

 

[gettingfat]

Antilogic

And if someone can explain why Firaxis decided to have the Citadels give +5 exp to siege units with any historical significance that would be much appreciated.

Hmmmm..... let me guess... maybe Isabella would test the strength of her citadels by attacking them with her own seige units, sort of like crash dummy tests on cars. After all these practices, her crash dummies became more experienced!

 

[Quetzal513]

I'm not big on Spanish history, but I think the bonus xp to siege units is more about it being given to the Spanish rather than the Citadel actually giving a bonus to siege.

Well I thought about this too, so I did a little homework. I'll spare too much detail since some find those sorts of historical interjections a bit boring. And note that I'm completely ready to have my ignorance straightened out by a European history major at any time. It seems to me that the Spanish were more innovative with infantry tactics and introducing Arquebusiers (early musketmen) than with siege weapons. However attempting to take the city of Granada, during their efforts to push the Muslims out of southern Spain, forced them to seek new solutions to improve their siege warfare.

Besieging a city is far more complex than the game really can allow; cutting off ports, eliminating food supply, using engineers, bribing local feudals. The Spanish were probably good at the whole siege engine as a whole, but I don't find anywhere they were particularly adept at it. Other than pillaging (which really doesn't have any direct impact of decreasing the strength of a besieged city), the only way to represent this is by making siege units stronger. So fine, that’s ok by me, for the Spanish. Could someone address the suggestion of having the castle's trade route not go obsolete? Is it terribly short sighted? I think having castles giving 2exp for siege is alright, especially in terms of game balance, but definitely think that should go obsolete when the castles defensive bonus does. Why not make castles a "good" building, rather than just bump it up to "I'll now consider building it"?

 

[scy12]

Why not just give Protective a bonus that causes damage to attacking units each turn while they're in the Protective leaders borders and also give additional damage when they pillage cottages. This demonstrates the resistance to the invaders.

Watiggi I think your suggestion changes the game's mechanics too much. It might make it impossible to ever even take a protetive's city. Imagine if you had to march in a few tiles with your catapult stack, now they're all at 75% health and will continue to suffer damage each turn?

Other than taking damage each turn an other way to disrupt enemy units would be to half all the healing being done while they are inside your borders. Is it still an unfair boost ?

 

[Quetzal513]

Other than taking damage each turn an other way to disrupt enemy units would be to half all the healing being done while they are inside your borders. Is it still an unfair boost ?

Maybe not, but is it really relevant? Someone would have to do some number crunching, but I'm pretty sure that any of the 10% boost to strength, etc is too much. Like wise continual damage is too much. Lack of healing? I dunno, does the AI heal much in your territory? Wouldn't you just withdraw your units to heal in more friendly territory where they heal faster anyway?

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I don't see what's wrong with +10% strength within cultural borders. It makes sense in multiplayer, doesn't allow you to abuse AI, and as always, when in doubt, use the weaker medicine.

 

[hamstercommando]

My two cents:
-Drill 1 + 2 free, skip CG 1
-Increased great general emergence within cultural borders

 

[Spammurabi]

What if they just made walls and castles obsolete at Artillery or Flight? The extra time for the Castle trade route might make it worthwhile.

 

[Watiggi]

My two cents:
-Drill 1 + 2 free, skip CG 1

This is how it was originally with the information coming out of Firaxis while they were making Warlords. The problem here is that this setup could also make for a great offensive army, effectively outdoing Charismatic or Aggressive.

 

[Quetzal513]

I don't see what's wrong with +10% strength within cultural borders. It makes sense in multiplayer, doesn't allow you to abuse AI, and as always, when in doubt, use the weaker medicine.

Are you suggesting +10% w/in cultural borders in addition to the free drill and cg promos for archery and gunpowder? It seems like that would be way too much. The way I figure, that would be like having a free combat 1 promotion for all units w/in cultural borders. That's like combining aggressive and protective together. If you're playing single player, and doing your duty to wage offensive wars, your opponents with protective would basically have three traits. And what of Tokugawa? What of Tokugawa in multiplayer?

If you're suggesting +10% w/in cultural borders w/out the free promotions then you've made a weaker version of the aggressive trait, and protective would be even more shunned.

I don't know that slower healing/weaker medicine would be much of a deterrent to human players, especially with the Great generals being used to make a medic III unit. Plus, how would the AI use it? How often do you find AI units healing in enemy territory? If there are few of them and they're weakened, they're usually mopped up pretty quick.

What if they just made walls and castles obsolete at Artillery or Flight? The extra time for the Castle trade route might make it worthwhile.

This may work. The only thing I think of is that cannons were really the end of castles as fortifications (even though cannons and gunpowder just necessitated another evolution in fortification design) So maybe it’s reasonable; maybe Steel is a more reasonable obsolescence for castles. But simply pushing it back is reasonable.

 

[DigitalBoy]

This is how it was originally with the information coming out of Firaxis while they were making Warlords. The problem here is that this setup could also make for a great offensive army, effectively outdoing Charismatic or Aggressive.

Except archers are still crummy offensive units. Drill I + II would have been much better, I think, because it would let archers be somewhat useful outside of city walls.