Stormrage
Ever Present Taskmaster
well, if you think the city is a possible target, surround it with units, make a living baricade, so that the bastard can`t just sneak in..
Resource icon
- Thread starter embryodead
- Start date
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
Hidden Nationality (player controled) can attack cities if you are at war with the target cities civ.
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
Yup, although you cannot attack cities hiding HN units without declaring war, nor, IIRC, can you attack HN units hidden in a stack of one or more non-HN units.
Stormrage
Ever Present Taskmaster
i think he was reffering to that very same example..
Well I guess I will have to wait awhile before I can attack Burgundy 
Partizanac
Serbian Ambassador in CFC
change the government!! 
Stormrage
Ever Present Taskmaster
What does that have to do with the plague? 
embryodead
Caliph
On Amphibious Assaults
Thanks for the help with amphibious units - that quote about the battle of Lepanto convinced me!
As far as Svetovid's point go: I don't see Arquebusiers being capable of amphibious attacks any more unrealistic than vikings or crusaders in the Renaissance. On top of that, the single-square kingdoms are not good... It may be fun to see them surviving multiple attacks, but in the end, you realize it's so simply because they can't be attacked...
I don't think this whole thing will be stressed at all - During the first and a half era, amphibious assaults are still limited to vikings. The powerful and commonly available infantry that can attack from the sea comes at the end of the game, halfway through the last era...
Assassins
We've got these on the radar before the release (I've had only one game in which those became really annoying) but in the end I think we've left them as they were. As far as them being capable of capturing cities, it's like Virote has said - the AI can do it, the human player can't - blame Firaxis for that. Generally I would not like to see the Assassins go or become utterly useless, though there are ways to change them.
There are several features you can use when implementing Assassin-like units:
* Stealth Attack
* Hidden Nationality
* Invisibility
* All-terrain-as-roads (or movement of 2)
Because of Civ3 "submarine" bug, Invisibility should go with Hidden Nationality IMO, otherwise the AI gets into random wars by moving units into a square with an Invisible unit. At the same time, these two combined can be, as reported, very annoying for the player. What are the options?
1. Stealth Attack + Hidden Nationality (like old Warhammer assassins I think)
2. Hidden Nationality + Fast Movement (like Ushkuiniks)
3. Stealth Attack + Fast Movement (like Inquisitors)
4. Invisibility + Hidden Nationality + Stealth Attack (a.k.a. leave it as it is)
Have to remember how the AI uses these as well. The AI likes to build and use units with HN and Invisible flags very much. At the same time, the least problematic solution (2) won't be of any interest for the AI as far as I can tell.
The Worker in the Water
That's an old civ3 bug I'm afraid. You can encounter it even in the original Civ3/Conquests (with Great Leaders) - it was even posted on the main page's Screenshot of the Month or something. It happens whenever a unit is created out of amphibious attack, whether a Great Leader or an enslaved one. We could remove enslavement ability from Berserkers and Slavers but I'm not sure if these features should be sacrificed really.
Looks like it was switched in the original civ3 too but that can be easily fixed in script.txt at least, thanks!
Thanks for the help with amphibious units - that quote about the battle of Lepanto convinced me!
As far as Svetovid's point go: I don't see Arquebusiers being capable of amphibious attacks any more unrealistic than vikings or crusaders in the Renaissance. On top of that, the single-square kingdoms are not good... It may be fun to see them surviving multiple attacks, but in the end, you realize it's so simply because they can't be attacked...
I don't think this whole thing will be stressed at all - During the first and a half era, amphibious assaults are still limited to vikings. The powerful and commonly available infantry that can attack from the sea comes at the end of the game, halfway through the last era...
Assassins
We've got these on the radar before the release (I've had only one game in which those became really annoying) but in the end I think we've left them as they were. As far as them being capable of capturing cities, it's like Virote has said - the AI can do it, the human player can't - blame Firaxis for that. Generally I would not like to see the Assassins go or become utterly useless, though there are ways to change them.
There are several features you can use when implementing Assassin-like units:
* Stealth Attack
* Hidden Nationality
* Invisibility
* All-terrain-as-roads (or movement of 2)
Because of Civ3 "submarine" bug, Invisibility should go with Hidden Nationality IMO, otherwise the AI gets into random wars by moving units into a square with an Invisible unit. At the same time, these two combined can be, as reported, very annoying for the player. What are the options?
1. Stealth Attack + Hidden Nationality (like old Warhammer assassins I think)
2. Hidden Nationality + Fast Movement (like Ushkuiniks)
3. Stealth Attack + Fast Movement (like Inquisitors)
4. Invisibility + Hidden Nationality + Stealth Attack (a.k.a. leave it as it is)
Have to remember how the AI uses these as well. The AI likes to build and use units with HN and Invisible flags very much. At the same time, the least problematic solution (2) won't be of any interest for the AI as far as I can tell.
The Worker in the Water
That's an old civ3 bug I'm afraid. You can encounter it even in the original Civ3/Conquests (with Great Leaders) - it was even posted on the main page's Screenshot of the Month or something. It happens whenever a unit is created out of amphibious attack, whether a Great Leader or an enslaved one. We could remove enslavement ability from Berserkers and Slavers but I'm not sure if these features should be sacrificed really.
Looks like it was switched in the original civ3 too but that can be easily fixed in script.txt at least, thanks!
Svetovid
Chieftain
Assassins... I agree with you Alan McG 100%, they are *$@%& annoying. I'm playing as the Byzantines and I completely destroyed the Turks (early on in the game) and later the Abbasids. However, the Fatamids started sending assassins into my newly conquered Abbasid territory and they started capturing my workers who were there to rejuvinate the war torn Middle East (Abbasids didn't go without a bitter fight, so lots of roads had to be rebuilt).
At first, I wasn't too worried about my workers getting nabbed, but then the Fatamids sent a column of soldiers through my territory to fight their enemies the Tartars... that was the last straw. I declared war.
I dealt with their soldiers easy enough, but their assassins are incredibly annoying, they even conquered two of my cities (which I promptly regained, but still). And remember, since I am the Byzantines, I have no way to detect these bastards, not even later on in the game.
As annoying as they are, the assassins are adding an interesting flavor to the whole game. First, they are making my Middle East a constant battleground between my powerful conventional forces and their guerilla tactics (hmmm... sounds familiar....) Also, the assassins are basically going to force me to massacre all Muslims on the map. Once I am done with the Fatamids, I know the same is waiting for me with the Moors. Thankfully, Cordova is reduced to one city, so I probably won't have to worry too much about them.
Partizanac
Serbian Ambassador in CFC
What does that have to do with the plague?
I don't know, but every time I change the government the plague is gone
It peaked at 12 cities and finally stopped 4 turns after that.
I don't think switching goverments is fair
Anyway me and Barbarossa tag teamed Burgundy they lasted 22 turns even when the Rus joined in on turn 9 . It is the 311th turn and the Rus have conquered a huge Empire Spoiler :
I think I will take Sicily so I can launch a three pronged invansion of North Africa 
Polietileno
Sleep Is For The Weak
Not only that: During the 15th and 16th century, he atacks on the Mediterranean coasts become more troublesome. The used of pikes and arquebusers become the main weapon on assaulting coastal fortresses.
About Assassins:
Thiey are a pain, but western civs (other than Spain) should be able to build units to "see" them. I also suggest an increse in cost, due the fact that AI loves to mass-build them.
Svetovid
Chieftain
I agree about the cost for the assassins, I thought of the same thing. I had one of my cities attacked by about 12-14 assassins once... what the hell? How can you hide away THAT many troops. Still, adds flavor like I said, so it's up to you guys... You could also maybe have the Muslim civs have assassins spawn somehow.
Point on the amphibious assaults. As I said already, it is up to you... random map issue is the key as Yoda put it. However, you can't convince me that harquebusiers were "marine" units. Also, the fact that coastal island fortresses like Malta and Rhodes withstood repeated assaults by massive invasions points to the historical record on this issue: a well defended island fortress was practically impervious, I am sure it was just as annoying to the Ottomans as it is to us late in the game. If the invading force had sufficient room to disembark and prepare an assault, the harquebusiers, cannons, siege machines et al. would have of course had the upper hand eventually.
BUT, I am not harking on this issue because I don't think the late Renaissance needs a better "marine" unit. You made a good point about the necessity of improved amphibious unit, no need to try to justify it with supposed historical record (which in the light of the Siege of Malta is iffy). Gameplay reasons are sufficient. As embryodead put it, later on in the last age we will finally get to see those bastions of defiance go, I am sure by then they will be sufficiently annoying to demand a massacre! He he he...
P.S. Siege of Malta is probably a better analogy than Lepanto anyways... Lepanto was an engagement between fleets, not an amphibious assault. Maybe I am wrong on this, but Malta is exactly the kind of scenario people are having difficulty with: Small island fortress being able to defend against a superior (both technologically and numerically) force.
Point on the amphibious assaults. As I said already, it is up to you... random map issue is the key as Yoda put it. However, you can't convince me that harquebusiers were "marine" units. Also, the fact that coastal island fortresses like Malta and Rhodes withstood repeated assaults by massive invasions points to the historical record on this issue: a well defended island fortress was practically impervious, I am sure it was just as annoying to the Ottomans as it is to us late in the game. If the invading force had sufficient room to disembark and prepare an assault, the harquebusiers, cannons, siege machines et al. would have of course had the upper hand eventually.
BUT, I am not harking on this issue because I don't think the late Renaissance needs a better "marine" unit. You made a good point about the necessity of improved amphibious unit, no need to try to justify it with supposed historical record (which in the light of the Siege of Malta is iffy). Gameplay reasons are sufficient. As embryodead put it, later on in the last age we will finally get to see those bastions of defiance go, I am sure by then they will be sufficiently annoying to demand a massacre! He he he...
P.S. Siege of Malta is probably a better analogy than Lepanto anyways... Lepanto was an engagement between fleets, not an amphibious assault. Maybe I am wrong on this, but Malta is exactly the kind of scenario people are having difficulty with: Small island fortress being able to defend against a superior (both technologically and numerically) force.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Actually, both Rhodes and Malta are big enough that the Turks had sufficient room to disembark and prepare an assault - in Civ terms the islands would be 2+ tiles. They just plain failed to carry out a successful siege on Malta.
Alan McG
Cannelloni
I didn't know that changing govs stops the plague! Doesn't make much sense, but good to know... Which gov you think is best? I just researched absolute monarchy and I'm trying it...
And @Polietileno, so then the western civs can detect assassins? Which unit does that? And how come Spain is the only nation that can't build them? They were as far as I know the only nation involved in a permanent war with arabs, I think they also should be able to detect them.
Doesn't make much sense, but good to know... Which gov you think is best? I just researched absolute monarchy and I'm trying it...And @Polietileno, so then the western civs can detect assassins? Which unit does that? And how come Spain is the only nation that can't build them? They were as far as I know the only nation involved in a permanent war with arabs, I think they also should be able to detect them.
Svetovid
Chieftain
Hey Conformist, Rhodes definitely yes, Malta DEFINITELY no (been to both, so I can vouch for that). Regardless, the point is not just about there being enough room, the point is also that they are islands, that you need to ship the troops and the siege engines AND (most importantly) that you are stuck on this island without an easy way to get either your reinforcements or supplies. Thus, your window of time that you have to perform your invasion is cut. Therefore the fact that they are represented as one tile in this mod by the authors may help to simulate all these logistical difficulties. So no, it wasn't just that the Ottomans "failed to carry out a successful siege". Lets not forget that it took them 2 GIGANTIC invasions before they finally got Rhodes, with HUGE losses in the tens of thousands, AND that there was an invasion of Malta that failed before the big one in 1565, which also failed. Wow, all of a sudden the Ottomas seem awfully incompetent, especially for a nation that almost conquered entire European continent... hmm...
It did cross my mind that perhaps Malta and Rhodes were tough nuts to crack because of the defenders (the crazy Knights of Hospitaller) and that the island part was spurious to the discussion. However, I think it would be quite a stretch to ignore the difficulties of assaulting an island fortress.
Anyhow, I think it adds flavor to the scenario... But just like with the recent discussion about assassins, flavor can very quickly get really annoying... So yes, give us some "marine" harquebusiers! For that matter, make a cannon unit be able to fire from a ship... (not being sarcastic).
On the point of assassins, question for Yoda and embryodead, what was the reasoning behind letting only the Muslim civs have assassins in the first place? If there was no real reasoning that you are wedded to, then it would be easy to fix the problem as Kumquat suggested. However, if you want to stay true to some original intent, then maybe we need to know what the intent was before offering advice on how to change it. I think assassins are fine, it's just a bit annoying when the AI starts mass producing them.
It did cross my mind that perhaps Malta and Rhodes were tough nuts to crack because of the defenders (the crazy Knights of Hospitaller) and that the island part was spurious to the discussion. However, I think it would be quite a stretch to ignore the difficulties of assaulting an island fortress.
Anyhow, I think it adds flavor to the scenario... But just like with the recent discussion about assassins, flavor can very quickly get really annoying... So yes, give us some "marine" harquebusiers! For that matter, make a cannon unit be able to fire from a ship... (not being sarcastic).
On the point of assassins, question for Yoda and embryodead, what was the reasoning behind letting only the Muslim civs have assassins in the first place? If there was no real reasoning that you are wedded to, then it would be easy to fix the problem as Kumquat suggested. However, if you want to stay true to some original intent, then maybe we need to know what the intent was before offering advice on how to change it. I think assassins are fine, it's just a bit annoying when the AI starts mass producing them.
Similar threads
