Seon
Not An Evil Liar
No, this does not call for a nerf bat, this calls for the NERFHAMMER.
Mechanos question/help
- Thread starter BenjaminEmbarec
- Start date
Darksaber1
Secret Emperor
AHHH! Both Seon AND Kael are in my head! You knew what I was going to say-err, type!
No, indeed. I never once complained about a lack of victory conditions for the Mechanos (though, in reflection, it is a sad and boring truth). It does fit their civilization's personality, however.
The problem is not the zeppelins, though. It is definitely the Howitzers. They shouldn't be any more powerful than the Dwarven Cannons which are already fine guns, the reason for this being that they are support weapons, and definitely not intended for frontal assault. Theory aside, it disrupts game balance massively and is, frankly, boring.
I think you nerf the howitzer (just a damage cap will do) and the rest will follow.
Nonobots
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2007
- Messages
- 100
What about keeping them as is (überstrong) but having a random chance of mishaps? It is afterall a bit risky to go the all-science way in a world where gods walk the earth and disaprove of everything you stand for.
A random chance (5%?) of dud: nothing happens when you attack; a random chance (5%?) of blocked mechanism: you try to move but you're stuck in place and a random chance (2%?) of major dysfunction: blows up and damage your stack.
This will discourage from having mega stacks - better to spread out. I would rather keep them as is but make them less reliable.
A random chance (5%?) of dud: nothing happens when you attack; a random chance (5%?) of blocked mechanism: you try to move but you're stuck in place and a random chance (2%?) of major dysfunction: blows up and damage your stack.
This will discourage from having mega stacks - better to spread out. I would rather keep them as is but make them less reliable.
Because then they'll be frustrating and boring to play as. In a game like Civilization there is inevitably the "random" element, but to have it dominate your game so far so that your every move has the chance of ruining any meticulous planning - when everything you do needs a contingency in case of error - when you can no longer depend on anything - when you are afraid to do anything from fear of failure - then you have developed a civilization nobody but the most schizophrenic would want to play as (and there is the Balseraphs for them).
Nerfing the howitzer is still the safest and most efficient way to fix the Mechanos. I can so no reason why "random failure lololol" is more attractive than something which you can reasonably expect and plan for.
Nerfing the howitzer is still the safest and most efficient way to fix the Mechanos. I can so no reason why "random failure lololol" is more attractive than something which you can reasonably expect and plan for.
arkham4269
Court Writer - Orbis Mod
Here is a possible idea. Instead of 1 unit, perhaps the Mechanos could have two. I like the idea of a more precision piece of artillery because of who the Mechanos are. As I've written in the Civlopedia entries, because the Mechanos aren't always happy with the answer "It's magic!" their adeptus and scholars went more of the route we did in the 'real' world in going into more of the sciences. Lots of what makes good artillery isn't always the gun but the sights, the mathematics and the theory of air resistance that enables the gunners to more accurately put steel on target as we say in the Army.
Because while Orbis uses the standard
![[civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif "Civ4 [civ4]")
cannon, chances are at first the Erebus races would probably have bombards which I can see being these big damage weapons but also being very inaccurate. I know it'll never happen, but I do wish there was more 'time' in Orbis so you could at least play out a bit more of the transition from melee/archery into firearms because then it would be easier to show the advantages to races like the Mechanos, the Khazad and the Lanun. Anyway, with improvements in metallurgy and science, I'd expect that the Mechanos would have more of what we think of when of canons. I mean historically there is a big gap (like a century or two) between the early cannons and the sort of Napoleonic/ACW canon that the graphics depict.Anyway, I was thinking that since the Mechanos are stuck mostly fighting to win and if their howitzer gets nerfed (as it needs to be) then perhaps they also should have access to an Organ Gun. In both the 1634 series and S.M. Stirlings "On The Ocean of Eternity" series this weapon is used because they don't have the tech to build a gatling gun. Pretty much it's a collection of regular rifles bound together and a plate with the ammo is loaded in and so they all fire at once. Fires faster than a canon but is really only a anti-personnel weapon. Good for breaking up blocks of massed infantry and stopping cavalry charges.
I have an idea for them.
link the max damage limit to enemy fortification bonus and city fortification
ex: enemy spends two turns fortifying in a city with a %15 defense bonus (10+15=25)
the howitzer can only damage it 75%.
maybe also make a tiny chance for a direct hit that can go above that limit
My reasoning is that I've always seen the howitzer as using an explosive shell so that given advanced warning and proper fortifications that, in the exception of a direct hit where they are hiding, a howitzer should not be able to kill every member of a squad, just whoever dosen't get behind something that can stop the blast.
link the max damage limit to enemy fortification bonus and city fortification
ex: enemy spends two turns fortifying in a city with a %15 defense bonus (10+15=25)
the howitzer can only damage it 75%.
maybe also make a tiny chance for a direct hit that can go above that limit
My reasoning is that I've always seen the howitzer as using an explosive shell so that given advanced warning and proper fortifications that, in the exception of a direct hit where they are hiding, a howitzer should not be able to kill every member of a squad, just whoever dosen't get behind something that can stop the blast.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
Here is a possible idea. Instead of 1 unit, perhaps the Mechanos could have two. I like the idea of a more precision piece of artillery because of who the Mechanos are. As I've written in the Civlopedia entries, because the Mechanos aren't always happy with the answer "It's magic!" their adeptus and scholars went more of the route we did in the 'real' world in going into more of the sciences. Lots of what makes good artillery isn't always the gun but the sights, the mathematics and the theory of air resistance that enables the gunners to more accurately put steel on target as we say in the Army.
Because while Orbis uses the standard
Anyway, I was thinking that since the Mechanos are stuck mostly fighting to win and if their howitzer gets nerfed (as it needs to be) then perhaps they also should have access to an Organ Gun. In both the 1634 series and S.M. Stirlings "On The Ocean of Eternity" series this weapon is used because they don't have the tech to build a gatling gun. Pretty much it's a collection of regular rifles bound together and a plate with the ammo is loaded in and so they all fire at once. Fires faster than a canon but is really only a anti-personnel weapon. Good for breaking up blocks of massed infantry and stopping cavalry charges.
First off I love the Oceans of Eternity series... Stirling is an amazing author.
As for an organ gun, there's actually a very good model I used in my version instead of trebuchets.
Ahwaric
Shrubbery-hugger
Make that four. Cannons were much earlier than muskets and were used inearly XV century.
A nice idea. I like trebuchets and think they fit mechanos, so not much space for bombard, but making howitzer good in destroying forts and individual units, while organ gun is great at collateral. It would both nerf the howitzer and strengthen Mechanos siege flavour.
I understand your reasoning, but it woulb be hard to code. Also, city and tile defenses are already considered in deciding ranged damage. It excludes building defences as all cannons ignore them. Maybe I should restrict the ignoring only to khazad mortar and mechanos howitzer? But it would still be different to what you propose.
To all:
Thanks for the feedback and keep it comming!
I know it takes long wait to get the fixes but I want to do it right this time - to make it balanced while keeping the flavour.
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
Yeah, I know that cannons were used in Hundred Year War or something. it was also apparently the only war where the mythical French Army won, which was led by a young girl aged 14
Rule#1 of warfare: French army wins only when they are led by a non-Frenchman
Rule#1 of warfare: French army wins only when they are led by a non-Frenchman
arkham4269
Court Writer - Orbis Mod
Funny, while they may have lost in the end, the French did take over most of Europe, invaded England successfully back in 1066 as well as did rather well in the 3 Indian wars in North America considering the fact they couldn't supply their troops as well as the English due to the Royal Navy.
The difference is the French were mostly successful through Diplomacy and getting others to fight for them. Plus, you can't knock the French for WW I since every major European country was in the same boat and in WW II pretty much everyone thought the way the French did. In the US, except for Patton and a few others, the tank was seen in the exact same light as the French and British did: a infantry support weapon. Actually the French had MORE tanks than the Germans but since they were spread out with the infantry, they couldn't mass as quick as the German High Command feared. Good thing too since then Guderian and Rommel would have taken the Brits at Dunkirk which didn't happen because they Germans High Command was worried about a French counter-strike that wasn't coming or wouldn't be strong enough.
So many people like to rag on the French, but I tell you, over in Afghanistan when I was there, they had a better handle on what we should have been doing. They constantly harped on the fact that we (The US) was doing a bang-up job training the ANA (Afghan National Army) but no one was really training the police or even having anyone train the Afghans in the principles of government we all in the West take for granted. Plus, I was amazed that the French did a lot better than the Brits in a counter-insurgency role. I guess they still remember all the lessons from Algiers or something.
Obviously the quote does not apply to all of military history but the French in taking over Europe were led by Napoleon, an Italian by any standards and it is an accident of history that he was a French citizen.
As for 1066 (and all that) the invasion there was led by a Norman, not a Frank. There is a colossal difference there.
As for the Indian Wars, come on, dude, the Indians had inferior technology and military organization. The spanish killed all of the Aztecs severely outnumbered with zero supply.
Building a lot of tanks has nothing to do with actual strategy or military ability. The French were steamrolled quite simply by a more prepared, more efficient, and altogether better fighting force than their own. But you are correct in the assumption that they make up the difference in diplomacy (which isn't equal to military strategy either but whatever): they kowtowed to the Germans very easily. Vichy, anyone?
So many people like to rag on the French, but I tell you, over in Afghanistan when I was there, they had a better handle on what we should have been doing. They constantly harped on the fact that we (The US) was doing a bang-up job training the ANA (Afghan National Army) but no one was really training the police or even having anyone train the Afghans in the principles of government we all in the West take for granted. Plus, I was amazed that the French did a lot better than the Brits in a counter-insurgency role. I guess they still remember all the lessons from Algiers or something.
And it only took them 1000 years.
You should know I'm not a Francophobe - quite the contrary, in fact. But French apologists or historical revisionism doesn't serve anybody.
arkham4269
Court Writer - Orbis Mod
I have you know I've been studying military history since I was in the first grade and I have 17.5 years of military intelligence work behind me. It isn't a question of apologizing for anything or having to revise history. It's looking at the broad picture and knowing what went down.
Look at it this way, the British were caught just as flat-footed as the French and only the English channel saved them. At the time, the US army practically didn't exist (as was our general pattern till the Cold War) and we had pretty much the same attitude toward tanks as the British and French did. If we were part of the Continent, I'm sure the Germans would have invaded us too.
If Hitler had listened to Goering and not stopped bombing the RAF to attack cities, the planned invasion of England would have gone off and with the RAF destroyed, the Luftwaffe would have bounded the Royal Army into hamburger, so why is it only the French that get the 'loser' tag?
After watching what was going on in the Atlantic (and seeing what they did in WW I) the US still didn't adopt the convoy system til many a merchant marine went down to Davy Jone's locker without needing to. As for WW I, you'd think that after the Boer War the British would have seen first hand changes that smokeless powder and the power of machines could do. So why is it that the British simply had mostly one tactic? You know, "Once more into the breech?" Yet even though the Brits and their 'vassals' the Australians and Zealanders lost a good chunk of a generation of men, it's only the French who were losers?
For that matter, with the Enigma engine, the Allies often had the marching orders of the Germans in WW II often as soon as the Wehrmacht did and even with air superiority, the Germans put in quite a good lick. Funny how movies like Patton often forget that he got a lot of his forces ambushed a few times by the Germans.
As for the Vichy, when one considers the history of France and realizes that area was brutalized due to religious persecutions in horrible ways 2 or 3 times in their history, is it any wonder they revolted? One might also look at the Soviets as the Ukrainians were happy to be liberated by the Germans and if they had been nice to them instead of treating them like crap and sicking the SS on them, they probably would have gone along with the Germans.
For that matter, lets look at the US when a good chunk of our own country was perfectly willing to buck world opinion at the time, continue their 'peculiar institution' that kept millions of their fellow man in bondage and tried to break away to continue to do so. THEN many of the folks living in that area today have the GALL in one breath to point fingers at some of us and denounce or so called lack of patriotism because we have legitimate concerns on how our countries wars are being won and in another breath threaten to secede AGAIN because a recent election went against them. Boo-. .. .. .. .ing-hoo.
So ragging on the French is ignoring the fact that most countries step on their genitalia quite often. As an analyst I have to point out if you were a French analyst and had to look at possible future threats to France, regardless of any current ties, the biggest threat would be by the U.S. - that and perhaps the French...like you know, normal people, don't like being bossed around by other people. Seeing lots of the press releases we in the US have churned out, if I was French, I'd be tempted to tell us to go to Hell as well.
I stopped reading after the first paragraph when it became obvious that you were going to back up your arguments with not facts but credentials.
I would also advise against making nebulous, sweeping rants against people who you think are disagreeing with you but really are pointing out three things you actually did get terribly wrong. Having 17 or whatever (and a half) years of military intelligence work doesn't count for much if you still can't tell a Norman from a Frank.
So yeah, maybe the French get kind of a bum rap, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. So England was saved by the Channel, we came in late, and the Russians were saved by thousands and thousands of square kilometers of empty, muddy plains; this does not make the French by proxy an army of brilliance. Because you know what? You still have all of their other military failures to account for. And, at the end of the day, Napoleon is still Italian.
I would also advise against making nebulous, sweeping rants against people who you think are disagreeing with you but really are pointing out three things you actually did get terribly wrong. Having 17 or whatever (and a half) years of military intelligence work doesn't count for much if you still can't tell a Norman from a Frank.
So yeah, maybe the French get kind of a bum rap, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. So England was saved by the Channel, we came in late, and the Russians were saved by thousands and thousands of square kilometers of empty, muddy plains; this does not make the French by proxy an army of brilliance. Because you know what? You still have all of their other military failures to account for. And, at the end of the day, Napoleon is still Italian.
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
What have I done? 
arkham4269
Court Writer - Orbis Mod
I know very well the difference between the Franks and the Normans...as well as the Burgundians and Bretons. However, if you want to quibble about that, one could say the US Army didn't defeat the British in the War of Independence because we weren't really 'Americans' then. Considering that the Normans had assimilated enough that they were speaking French and had adopted most of the Continental ways makes them "Frankish" enough in my book. Many Americans forget that the France as we know it was made up of many different types. It's just they unified much earlier than the Germans.
As for their military failures, so what? Show me a country that hasn't failed? We certainly have. My point is why do you seem wedded to restating a tired old stereotype that causes real problems for people in real situations. I've worked with the French and I've had to deal with soldiers who would practically call these soldiers 'surrender monkeys' to their face. Considering that the modern French soldier is just as good as our soldiers (maybe better considering most of them can speak at least one other language) it's down-right rude. Considering that many of the French soldiers understand the concept of having to work with the locals instead of just dictating to them, you might understand why I get peeved when I hear that tired old joke. Sure the French have issues, problems and have stepped on their dicks in the past; we all have so why rag on them? You do their soldiers in the field, out there backstopping a lot of other countries soldiers, no service.
Actually, in 1066 the Normans had not assimilated, considering the fact that it was slightly more than a century earlier that those Viking raiders sailed up the Seine and demanded the concession of territory (911). By 980, when the Normans were instrumental in putting the first Capet on the throne (and received as a reward the ability to operate, practically, completely independent of the French throne), they had developed a set of unique institutions and culture that set them apart from the surrounding French culture and was reminiscent of early Scandinavia, England under the Danelaw and, of course, Iceland. The Norsemen, for all practical purposes, invented the feudal system, and Duke William was able to leverage that system to great effect to conquer England in 1066. You display a glaring lack of understanding of this specific period in history to assert that "France" conquered England. It was a very unique set of circumstances, derived largely from Viking forebears, that enabled the conquest of England. (Even a thousand years later, this conquest is still known as the "Norman" conquest, not the "French" conquest.)
One could go on to argue that the Norman conquest (oops, sorry, I mean the "French" conquest) of England provided the English with a framework to utilize their own military capability to best advantage. But then I would have to bring up Henry V and the outmoded and unimaginative French army he faced almost 500 years later at Agincourt and I'm sure we all agree that is a chapter the French regard as best closed and preferably unmentioned.
One could go on to argue that the Norman conquest (oops, sorry, I mean the "French" conquest) of England provided the English with a framework to utilize their own military capability to best advantage. But then I would have to bring up Henry V and the outmoded and unimaginative French army he faced almost 500 years later at Agincourt and I'm sure we all agree that is a chapter the French regard as best closed and preferably unmentioned.
