![[Ant]Wimp](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/35/35417.jpg?1475248323){kind=avatar}
[Ant]Wimp
Warlord
I agree. Seems fine PCHighway. And towns shouldnt be more then village + walls. So what Embryodead suggested sounds fine.
MIddle-Earth: Lord of the Mods (septa)
- Thread starter Celeborn
- Start date
- Status
Yes!
But I think we should keep the walls as is, didn't we already agreed that each level city would get some type of defensive bonus
? Walls for size 1, castle\keep for size 2, and some type of network of defenses for size 3?Woah
! 11 pages, better get that overview up.
embryodead
Caliph
Originally posted by PCHighway
Yes!
But I think we should keep the walls as is, didn't we already agreed that each level city would get some type of defensive bonus
Umm... Is it really possible to assign defenses only to city size 2 or 3? I don't think so... unless it comes with C3C. I was speaking of universal buildings, that's why I expected bonus for size1+walls equal to size2.
Fier Canadien
Citizen
Yes, that's a nice idea!
Walls - no requierments
Keep - with aqueduct (and walls?)
Citadel (or tower*) - with |something replacing the hospital| (and keep?)
*: Why tower? Every "big" stronghold of Middle Earth has a tower or more. Think of it: Gondolin->the tower of Turgon, Barad-Dur, Minas Morgul, Minas Anor, Minas Tirith, Annùminas, Mithlond->the white towers east of the Shire,
The only problem with this is the actual cities next to rivers and the like. Maybe won't be able to build the second defensive building? We will have to test it out, but if this is the case, then rivers should have a pretty good defense bonus. As for towers, I like the idea, except that it's generally like going 'down' in rank. I would assume a tower wouldn't be as good as a walled town's embattlements. Nor as good as a keep. But tower is still useable, we just have to add a flashy suffix or prefix to it
. IMHO
embryodead
Caliph
The idea is not so good, because it will not work. You can't use Aqueduct (nor Walls) as a requirement, because it can't be built at cities near rivers/lakes.
EDIT: If you won't allow such cities to have keep/castle, the river will be not enough, as usually it doesn't surround cities from all sides...
EDIT: If you won't allow such cities to have keep/castle, the river will be not enough, as usually it doesn't surround cities from all sides...
I am full of half finished ideas. Heres another one, we can give a river\lake specific building to such cities. It will need to be next to fresh water, and will give as much a bonus as the second defensive building?
. Heres another one, we can give a river\lake specific building to such cities. It will need to be next to fresh water, and will give as much a bonus as the second defensive building?
embryodead
Caliph
This is the case, and it pretty much spoils the idea. What about cities near lakes? What about sides of the city that are not protected by river? How realistic is to not allow them to build castles/keeps in this case? I don't understand, why stick to this then?
This is pretty much the same, just without this aqueduct requirement:
City size 1 - 10
City size 2 - 60
City size 3 - 100
Walls +50 (city size 1 only)
Keep/Castle/Tower +25* (no req.)
Fortress +25* (req. keep & "hospital", thus city size 3 only)
* - just a guess/proposition
Make it cost 0 or 1 (i e 10) in that case. It should be a bonus to build on a river, after all.Originally posted by PCHighway
I am full of half finished ideas
embryodead
Caliph
Originally posted by PCHighway
I am full of half finished ideas
That's something different. "Needs fresh water/river" means that river/lake must be in city radius, not adjacent to it. So it will not work, sorry
Damn. Not to worry, however, I have another idea;
Why should we limit cities per size limit? How about this, we make two building lines, one of which goes threw the cities size limit. For instance, the ones that require aqueduct. And another, which only gives +10, then +20, and finally +20, and is not as cheap as the other. So it must be built 3 times to equal that of what will come later, and its spread out technology wise. But you are still getting a slight bonus because you get these building earlier.
This way you can get to the maximum defense bonuses two ways.
Not next to river or lake-
Walls(50) - Keep(50) - Citadel(50)
And the ones next to a river or lake-
Walls(50) -Embattlements(10) -Watch towers(20) -Guard Towers(20) -Citadel#2(50).
Why should we limit cities per size limit? How about this, we make two building lines, one of which goes threw the cities size limit. For instance, the ones that require aqueduct. And another, which only gives +10, then +20, and finally +20, and is not as cheap as the other. So it must be built 3 times to equal that of what will come later, and its spread out technology wise. But you are still getting a slight bonus because you get these building earlier.
This way you can get to the maximum defense bonuses two ways.
Not next to river or lake-
Walls(50) - Keep(50) - Citadel(50)
And the ones next to a river or lake-
Walls(50) -Embattlements(10) -Watch towers(20) -Guard Towers(20) -Citadel#2(50).
embryodead
Caliph
But I said this won't work... There is nothing like "next to a river / lake" in the editor. It's "must be near river / lake" and it means the river/lake must be within city radius, not adjacent to a city, like for city size 2.
As for the idea to split defenses into three instead of two, it seems goods to me.
You misunderstand me. What if we split it into two separate buildings lines. One line is for cities not next to river or lake, that requires an aqueduct-
Walls(50) - Keep(50) - Citadel(50)
Then there is another line, for cities who don't need an aqueduct.
Walls(50) -Embattlements(10) -Watch towers(20) -Guard Towers(20) -Citadel#2(50).
We can go about this by making wall 'replace all city improvements with this flag checked'. No?
Sorry it took so long to reply, was working on the overview.
. What if we split it into two separate buildings lines. One line is for cities not next to river or lake, that requires an aqueduct-Walls(50) - Keep(50) - Citadel(50)
Then there is another line, for cities who don't need an aqueduct.
Walls(50) -Embattlements(10) -Watch towers(20) -Guard Towers(20) -Citadel#2(50).
We can go about this by making wall 'replace all city improvements with this flag checked'. No?
Sorry it took so long to reply, was working on the overview.
Hello,
So we are working on:
Revamped Defensive Bonuses
1.) Level size 1: 10 (wallsORtower +50=60)
2.) Level size 2: 50
3.) Level size 3: 100
4.) Fortress: 75
5.) River: 40
6.) Fortifications: 30
7.) Citizen: 5
8.) Building: 5
Hmmmm. The big complaint that I would have would be the fact that a fortress over a river would have a greater defense than a metropolis. basically this is saying that the Gondorian soldiers at the Ruins of Osgilliath were as better protected than if they were inside Minas Tirith. I think that the fortress is too high. MOst of the real ME fortresses wil be represented as cities. In fact, my understanding is that most of these cities are fortresses. Therefore, the fortress that workers place on the terrain would most likely be a small watchtower. I think that 75% defense bonus would be too much for that.
The other thing -- I have heard that the artillery for this mod will be less useful. I therefore have a question about the overall defense of the metropolis. Even with tanks it takes a 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1 concentration of forces in order to capture a metro with infantry and civil defense and a radar tower. since the two upgrades mentioned (keep, fortress, etc.) bring the total up to 150% and I'm sure that we will have a radar tower equiv, we can have cities with that defense. Since I'm quite sure that there will be no units as overpowering as MAs fighting infantry equivs, would somebody pls comment on effectiveness of above without much of an artillery presence.
RRnut
So we are working on:
Revamped Defensive Bonuses
1.) Level size 1: 10 (wallsORtower +50=60)
2.) Level size 2: 50
3.) Level size 3: 100
4.) Fortress: 75
5.) River: 40
6.) Fortifications: 30
7.) Citizen: 5
8.) Building: 5
Hmmmm. The big complaint that I would have would be the fact that a fortress over a river would have a greater defense than a metropolis. basically this is saying that the Gondorian soldiers at the Ruins of Osgilliath were as better protected than if they were inside Minas Tirith. I think that the fortress is too high. MOst of the real ME fortresses wil be represented as cities. In fact, my understanding is that most of these cities are fortresses. Therefore, the fortress that workers place on the terrain would most likely be a small watchtower. I think that 75% defense bonus would be too much for that.
The other thing -- I have heard that the artillery for this mod will be less useful. I therefore have a question about the overall defense of the metropolis. Even with tanks it takes a 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1 concentration of forces in order to capture a metro with infantry and civil defense and a radar tower. since the two upgrades mentioned (keep, fortress, etc.) bring the total up to 150% and I'm sure that we will have a radar tower equiv, we can have cities with that defense. Since I'm quite sure that there will be no units as overpowering as MAs fighting infantry equivs, would somebody pls comment on effectiveness of above without much of an artillery presence.
RRnut
I wouldn't consider it quite the same as you
. In C3C Breakaway has added a feature that gives fortresses much more defense than 75. And it works flawlessly. The truth of the matter goes quite a bit beyond fortresses, it takes quite a bit of a time to build one, and really is not as helpful as it should be. Indeed, with a +115 bonus on a fortress who 'just so happens' to be across a river. Guarded by only one man, it would take less effort to kill that than it would a walled village. I look at a fortress takes 24 turns to build, and a defensive wall structure only 10-20 in a metro. Such as civil defense, a well deveolped metro can have 250 defense. Or at least 180.
We will work on the attackers bonus, but it's very incorrect to use siege in Middle-earth, maybe we can use some types of 'human\orc wave' attack. Of course this would only be possible with Munits.
Don't worry, we don't like impossible to conquer cities anymore than you do. The offensive line will be very good in the later ages. You can help us out by testing it when it comes
.
embryodead
Caliph
Originally posted by PCHighway
You misunderstand me
Walls(50) - Keep(50) - Citadel(50)
Then there is another line, for cities who don't need an aqueduct.
Walls(50) -Embattlements(10) -Watch towers(20) -Guard Towers(20) -Citadel#2(50).
I understood you. What I'm trying to tell you, is that you have not given a practical way to do this. A simple question: how do you know if the city requires aqueduct or not, so it will build only in one of the lines?
and what is the benefit here?
- Status
Similar threads
