Yeah, good point. I guess maybe quite a lot of people don't perceive the game as a war game, but instead see it as a builders game with a war component in it.
Improve the Protective trait???
- Thread starter kniteowl
- Start date
Arlborn
Legendary Noob
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,939
Or half-half perhaps? I mean, its in the box, in the manual and in the marketing you know, you can win by pezce or war, you can be a buildr or a warmongger..No I dont see CIV as a war game, nor as a peacefull game, I just see it as, as hum, as a Civilization game heh...
I'm using a lot of the Better AI mod, and when that stack of 20 Trebs + 10 musketmen appears inb my boards, some drill promotions + the rest can be really usefull you know..
Beside the lower costs of upgrate and buildings..
I think cIV continues the fine tradition of empire building games. The most important component here is managing an empire which here consists of cities that extend cultural dominance over land. You choose your research goals and direct some amount of effort (commerce using research sliders or population using specialists) to get there. You build your cities, adding new infrastructure as it becomes available by research. You improve the land and get access to special resources.
The added component available in almost all empire building games is war. You build units instead of infrastructure. You send those units to opposing civs' territory, often with the goal of taking that territory (by capturing citites), but sometimes just to tear down the land improvements, taking the enemy back to the stone ages (lack of food, production, and commerce, due to lack of improved land).
The latter is optional. The former is not. If it is the other way (with building the empire being optional, war not) then it's a wargame with empire building components. That's a different kind of a game. So while clearly warring is a part of cIV, it's not half the game.
Now, being a builder and fighting defensive wars only (or using diplomacy to avoid wars completely) is possible in cIV. If the AI uses it's land and units smarter, then the player has to go down a level to be able to use the same builder strategy. If the AI wages war more aggressively, again the player has to go down a level to keep the same strategy. The choice is modifying the strategy.
Going down a difficulty level isn't a big deal. To me at least. But modifying the strategy is a good choice as well. Not necessarily going for aggressive war, but tweaking the strategy to be more efficient while still allowing for strong reactive army to be built (reactive meaning "one that is meant to actively take out the possible enemy troops that come to my lands"). Having an army has multiple benefits afterall: your power rating is higher, deterring possible aggressors (they might go pick on someone weaker), and if they come, you can crush them. And if you decide it's time for some amount of offensive, you just need to add a few units (city attack troops - reactive army might have catapults and large numbers of various counter promoted troops while lacking trebs and CR troops) allowing you to change from defense to offense fairly fast if you so decide.
The added component available in almost all empire building games is war. You build units instead of infrastructure. You send those units to opposing civs' territory, often with the goal of taking that territory (by capturing citites), but sometimes just to tear down the land improvements, taking the enemy back to the stone ages (lack of food, production, and commerce, due to lack of improved land).
The latter is optional. The former is not. If it is the other way (with building the empire being optional, war not) then it's a wargame with empire building components. That's a different kind of a game. So while clearly warring is a part of cIV, it's not half the game.
Now, being a builder and fighting defensive wars only (or using diplomacy to avoid wars completely) is possible in cIV. If the AI uses it's land and units smarter, then the player has to go down a level to be able to use the same builder strategy. If the AI wages war more aggressively, again the player has to go down a level to keep the same strategy. The choice is modifying the strategy.
Going down a difficulty level isn't a big deal. To me at least. But modifying the strategy is a good choice as well. Not necessarily going for aggressive war, but tweaking the strategy to be more efficient while still allowing for strong reactive army to be built (reactive meaning "one that is meant to actively take out the possible enemy troops that come to my lands"). Having an army has multiple benefits afterall: your power rating is higher, deterring possible aggressors (they might go pick on someone weaker), and if they come, you can crush them. And if you decide it's time for some amount of offensive, you just need to add a few units (city attack troops - reactive army might have catapults and large numbers of various counter promoted troops while lacking trebs and CR troops) allowing you to change from defense to offense fairly fast if you so decide.
And then again about the Protective trait..
Yes, I think walls and castles are weaker than barracks and drydocks. Even playing defensively, barracks are higher priority than walls. Castles I build rarely if at all (if I go for engineering early, I might build walls and castles to some cities that would gain large benefit of the extra trade), drydocks are similarly fairly rare (I build them to productive coastal cities that I might want to build some ships in). Aggressive wins on the buildings.
On free unit promotions though, I don't think aggressive is that much better than protective. The reason aggressive players devalue protective promotions is probably that they don't value archery troops but do value melee troops.
Archers are mainly used against barbs anyway, and axes do the job just fine. Axes also benefit from the barb-duty xp in that they're going to be used in offense. Archers aren't. However, archers can go for drill line with the barb xp, get promoted to crossbows, and become offensive troops that way.
Longbows I feel are good only for city defense. And honestly, I don't expect anyone to get so far as to actually attack my cities - except newly conquered ones.
Crossbows going the drill line can get to Drill4 with 10 xp if they start as protective. And at that point, they're a real force. Of course you still need siege machines, and you still need spears/pikes, but you don't really need that many CR swords/maces.
I don't go for combat line in promotions. My city attack troops go for CR, my longbows go for CG. Combat line is needed to unlock counter proms (some shock axes/maces is good, formation spears/pike/'phants is good). Drill unlocks these just the same, and crossbows are better anti-melee troops than axes anyway, so I definitelly will value Drill1 Shock crossbow higher than C1 Shock axe. What's left is the anti-mounted troops, where if possible I'll opt for formation 'phants - and neither aggressive nor protective gets promotions to mounted units. Yes, aggressive gets formation spears/pikes easier due to free C1. So they should go for those instead of 'phants I guess.
Maybe some beefing up could be done. But what exactly? 20-30% strength increase in one's cultural borders is simply too much. Higher fortify bonus might ok (but I'd just double it so it's reached in the same five turns). I don't think barb bonuses would be that good an idea. Healing rate bonus - maybe. Forts suck any way you put them, so bonuses to them don't sound useful.
Yes, I think walls and castles are weaker than barracks and drydocks. Even playing defensively, barracks are higher priority than walls. Castles I build rarely if at all (if I go for engineering early, I might build walls and castles to some cities that would gain large benefit of the extra trade), drydocks are similarly fairly rare (I build them to productive coastal cities that I might want to build some ships in). Aggressive wins on the buildings.
On free unit promotions though, I don't think aggressive is that much better than protective. The reason aggressive players devalue protective promotions is probably that they don't value archery troops but do value melee troops.
Archers are mainly used against barbs anyway, and axes do the job just fine. Axes also benefit from the barb-duty xp in that they're going to be used in offense. Archers aren't. However, archers can go for drill line with the barb xp, get promoted to crossbows, and become offensive troops that way.
Longbows I feel are good only for city defense. And honestly, I don't expect anyone to get so far as to actually attack my cities - except newly conquered ones.
Crossbows going the drill line can get to Drill4 with 10 xp if they start as protective. And at that point, they're a real force. Of course you still need siege machines, and you still need spears/pikes, but you don't really need that many CR swords/maces.
I don't go for combat line in promotions. My city attack troops go for CR, my longbows go for CG. Combat line is needed to unlock counter proms (some shock axes/maces is good, formation spears/pike/'phants is good). Drill unlocks these just the same, and crossbows are better anti-melee troops than axes anyway, so I definitelly will value Drill1 Shock crossbow higher than C1 Shock axe. What's left is the anti-mounted troops, where if possible I'll opt for formation 'phants - and neither aggressive nor protective gets promotions to mounted units. Yes, aggressive gets formation spears/pikes easier due to free C1. So they should go for those instead of 'phants I guess.
Maybe some beefing up could be done. But what exactly? 20-30% strength increase in one's cultural borders is simply too much. Higher fortify bonus might ok (but I'd just double it so it's reached in the same five turns). I don't think barb bonuses would be that good an idea. Healing rate bonus - maybe. Forts suck any way you put them, so bonuses to them don't sound useful.
How about allowing Seige Weapons to benefit from the Protective Trait, by giving them free Drill 1 Promotion?,
I believe Before Warlords was released they were thinking about having the Protective Trait give Drill 1 & 2 Promotions to Archery and Siege Units but then they changed it Changed it to free Drill 1 and CG Promotions to Archery and Gunpowder units.
Free Drill 1 to Seige Weapons Would allow for Higher survival Rate of Cats and trebs etc when going for suicidal collateral damage.
I believe Before Warlords was released they were thinking about having the Protective Trait give Drill 1 & 2 Promotions to Archery and Siege Units but then they changed it Changed it to free Drill 1 and CG Promotions to Archery and Gunpowder units.
Free Drill 1 to Seige Weapons Would allow for Higher survival Rate of Cats and trebs etc when going for suicidal collateral damage.
Lance of Llanwy
King
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 710
Drill 1 really isn't very useful though. I mean....seriously, are you going to have drill promoted cats? I think part of the problem is the woeful inflexibility of archery units. They can do nothing but defend, and even that they can only do on a hill or in a city, and even then they need to be well-promoted to outpace axemen against swords especially. They're a one-trick pony, plain and simple. The boosts for gunpowder units are good though...they cannot normally get drill 1, so it's slightly better than Combat 1 in that respect(though they cannot get further drill promotions), and it still allows you to select pinch out of the box just like an aggressive leader, with the added benefit that they all start with CG1.
Not to mention walls and castles aren't worth the time unless you have stone and are protective, because the AI mostly just pillages and any attempt to take a city is usually laughably pathetic. Basically, the only benefit archery units provide is promoting them to gunpowder units to utilize Drill promotions, and there's nothing wrong with those. Cumulatively, they're deadly, and Drill IV has the added +10% vs. mounted(something your typical rifleman will die for, as they have pretty shoddy odds against cav even with Formation, which you can basically throw out the window because of Pinch) and also a cumulative? -60% collateral damage. But cats eat archers in the open for breakfast, not that the archer would even be the first defender in the open anyways. The only archery unit that really brings anything compelling to stacks are Skirmishers(because they actually have the power to do something, but they don't get protective anyhow) and Crossbowmen. One of those is a UU. Cho-ko-nus are just beastly. But that's it.
So, really, in closing, there's nothing wrong with Protective. But archery units pretty much stink...
Arlborn
Legendary Noob
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,939
But his opnion has EVERYTHING to do with this thread, about improviments in Protective trait
And my opnion and his are simple, this trait does exactely what it supposed to do, so it doesent need further improviments..
By the way, dont forget it is also for gunpowder units..
kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
promos for seige units
50%more effects from walls and castles
-25 to bombard damage
units are hurt when pillaging
50% when foritied
machine guns get promos
btw; city gar 3 drill 1 pinch redcoats are easy to get
50%more effects from walls and castles
-25 to bombard damage
units are hurt when pillaging
50% when foritied
machine guns get promos
btw; city gar 3 drill 1 pinch redcoats are easy to get
Mercenary82
King
Protective is already very powerfull, especially with Tokugawa once you get gunpowder. No need to improve it anymore, Although this trait isnt quite as powerfull when using other civs, improving it would make Japan overpowered.
Personally havn't played Toku on warlord but I believe he's pretty overpowered already, able to draft 3 Riflies units, Under nationhood civic every turn that each one having 3 promotions + Barracks & Theology you get a 4th promotion. Depending on the number of cities you have and whether you got gobal threatre up and running or not. you could having an army of 15 soilders in 5 turns! That faster then any military production city I know of... while your drafting you can build those seige units eg-trebs or cannons.
My biggest issue with some of the benefits to be added with siege units is that it helps aggressive warfare, which shouldn't be a benefit of a Protective Trait.
I'd favor something like a 10% combat bonus on battles within one's cultural borders. A benefit that wouldn't help you much in taking over an opponent, but would go a long way to helping you "protect" your empire.
I'd favor something like a 10% combat bonus on battles within one's cultural borders. A benefit that wouldn't help you much in taking over an opponent, but would go a long way to helping you "protect" your empire.
Indeed. Drill1 isn't much. Drill promotion line has a steep curve, and IMHO Drill4 is in most cases better than Combat4. The problem is getting four promotions in the Drill line. That practically requires protective trait and getting those proms on archery unit, as archery units start with the first one thus getting fourth at 10 XP.
Note that promotions are almost always situational - sometimes Combat4 is better, but I feel Drill4 is better more often. As you can't choose the situation, I'd rather lean on the Drill side than Combat side, then just grit my teeth those times Combat4 would be better.
I almost agree with that one, with the exception of Crossbows. They have a solid place in the game. They're probably the only archery unit I consistently use on offensive campaigns. For them, Drill promotion line is great - if you think you can get all the way to Drill4, which practically requires protective trait (or charismatic with its lower xp requirements).
Archers at least are useful early game, with barbs. Longbows almost never engage in combat, just sitting in cities keeping watch.
If there was a stronger position for archery units, protective trait would be a lot better. Now it's slightly lagging, although IMHO not as much as some people seem to think.
Mr. Civtastic
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 488
If we're gonna talk about overpowered civs, I wouldnt start with Japan. His ub is situational and Im willing to best most people dont build it or only build a couple. His UU is solid, but against a knight its just a maceman...so it is balanced. And I dont think a trait shouldnt be buffed because of how it might affect other traits...they just buffed creative, organized and expansive, making some leaders just outright nasty (the romans, mehmed come to mind).
Exactly. Protective doesnt chance this at all. And that is the problem. Sheer numbers will bring down ANY city, I dont care if you're protective or not. If they made it too strong and you couldnt take a city, then it would be overpowered. But leaving it as is, the only time I hesitate to attack a protective civ is if I dont have catapults...which you can pick up quick if you beeline for it, its only a couple techs past alphabet. So worst case scenario, I attack a protective civ second instead of first. Otherwise...I dont think twice, its not a big deal. And I know it has frustrated me when Ive lost a city while being protective...there goes half my trait because if I cant defend then what can I do, considering my buildings go obsolete with musketmen which you can get pretty quick. Heck, Izzy's ub gives better protection then anything protective has against siege weapons!
to all of you saying protective doesnt need improvement, what level do you play on? lets judge the credibility
Does the difficulty level really matter? For me, Prince (for easy games) and Monarch (if I want challenge).
Or maybe you're saying that on higher difficulty levels you can only war, and thus the only thing that matters is if the trait helps you in offensive war? If that's how it is, I couldn't care less about higher difficulty levels, and would balance the traits on mid-levels where you don't need to war to play a good game.
Arlborn
Legendary Noob
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,939
Similar threads
