Emp. Killyouall
EVIL Emperor
My beef: they nerfed seige, but they also nerfed what it was originally supposed to do- take down city defenses!
New and Changed Unit Stats
- Thread starter GIR
- Start date
That's a good question. I think Siege Units will fight till the cap.
The "missile" sub has 50% as well. The high withdrawal chance is the only reason why I use subs in Warlords.
marioflag
History Addict
In Civ4 and Warlords they were far from being overpowered, i would say there were really a few reason to build them instead of Destroyers or Battleships.Now that trade routes are pillageable and they can transport missiles things change. I would in any case use submarine to harass enemy economy than to destroy its ships.
In my opinion it was too easy to take down the city defence with a few Siege Units +Accuracy Promotion. I hope they reduce the benefit from the Promotion from +10% City Bombard Damage to +8% (or +4%).
(they have to change it anyway 4%/8%/12%/16%/20% system)
winddbourne
Prince
I understand why seige weapons can't kill units, good idea, but what is this with them not being able to bombard city defense down to 0% anymore? That's what they are for!
There had better be some major changes in power balance to make this work. When a city defense has a bonus of 25% and a longbowman gets a bonus to it bringing to +50%, then most normal units simply can't take the city. Especially if that city is on a hill. (+75% after a seige)
Are we really going back to the days when one longbowman in a city could hold off an army??????????? Especially given the "new" protective trait from warlords. I'm very worried and I'm not even a war player.
There had better be some major changes in power balance to make this work. When a city defense has a bonus of 25% and a longbowman gets a bonus to it bringing to +50%, then most normal units simply can't take the city. Especially if that city is on a hill. (+75% after a seige)
Are we really going back to the days when one longbowman in a city could hold off an army??????????? Especially given the "new" protective trait from warlords. I'm very worried and I'm not even a war player.
Who says they can't reduce the city defence to 0%?
I think they can!
The only nerf with the city defence is that one Siege Unit needs more turns to reduce it to 0% (e.g. Catapult: Can Bombard City Defenses (-8% / Turm) (was -15% in Warlords)).
marioflag
History Addict
Actually in Warlords and Civ4, the percentage wasn't fixed, infact how much city defense was lowered by siege units depended on what was the starting city defense, so if a city had 80% city def. or 20% city def., it took the same number of turns to lower it to 0%, which made walls,Chichen Itza and Castle nearly useless.We have to see whether this system is changed because otherwise bombard city defense "amount" will not be really representative.
What was the purpose of the Accuracy Promotion?
I always attacked with accuracy promoted units and it seemes to worke quite well in Warlords. (too well !)
marioflag
History Addict
Yes what i mean is:
- if you had 4 catapults and attack a city with 80% CD or a 20% CD you took in both cases 4 turns to lower it to 0%.
-if you had 4 catapults with accuracy promotion and attack a city with 80% CD or a 20% CD you took in both cases 3 turns to lower it to 0%.
In both cases bombard city defenses is relative to starting CD.
- if you had 4 catapults and attack a city with 80% CD or a 20% CD you took in both cases 4 turns to lower it to 0%.
-if you had 4 catapults with accuracy promotion and attack a city with 80% CD or a 20% CD you took in both cases 3 turns to lower it to 0%.
In both cases bombard city defenses is relative to starting CD.
winddbourne
Prince
Thanks for the clarification, I was worried listening to some of the previous posts. Looking up at the actual Screen Shot I see what your talking about. Though in post warlords I have used large stacks of units to take a city down to 0 defense. Usually it takes between 5-10 units attacking in a group to do so. So I'm not sure this is really a change. Usually it seemed like cats took a city down by a random percent per attack, averaging around 10%.
20% cultural defence means that the defending unit gets a 20% bonus but -15% bombard city defences does not mean reduce the city's defensive bonus by 15. It means reduce the city's defensive bonus by 15%. It was intended so that 15% bombard damage reduces 0% city defence to 17%, not 5%.
Also,
In Warlords walls and castles reduced the affects of bombardment by 25% each - the reduction in defences caused by each catapult was lessened by 25% for a walled city and 50% for a castled city.
Overall result:
It would always require 7 catapults (7*15% = 105%) to bombard a city down to 0% defences. In Warlords it would always require 9 catapults (9*15%*0.75 = 101.25%) to bombard a walled city down to 0% defences and 14 catapults (14*15%*0.5 = 105%) to bombard a castled city down to 0% defences.
In BtS 25 catapults (25*8%*0.5 = 100%) would be required to bombard a castled city down to 0% defences assuming the affects of walls and castles are unchanged.
Drago Askani
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 293
wow thats gonna change early wars a bit I guess. Combine that with blakes better AI and the first foe you try to drop might not be so easy eh? MIght have to wait for guns to fight...
bonafide11
Worker
It will make early wars more difficult, but I certainly won't be waiting until Gunpowder to attack. I don't need catapults to take cities in the early game. This certainly won't counter the 8-10 axemen showing up at my neighbors door in 1500BC 
hrmmm so flanking is deffinately just the flanking upgrade, horseman can't actually single the seige weapon out.
and a catapult can kill anything in defence just not attack? cant attack a lonely wounded scout in your territory that is pillaging improvements and kill it?
furthermore it takes more effort to deplete city defences completely, therefore making larger defences more useful as it would be more beneficial to do collateral damage on a cities units after a couple of bombards, so if you lose half of an 80% city defence, it still works better than losing half of a 40% city defence.
Also i assume that if a catapult can only do a maximum say.. 75% damage on attack, then it will increase its survival rate by withdrawing when meeting said target (if it does...) so it would no longer require the 25% chance of withdraw bonus. Reach your damage quota or die head to head. Thats all well and good until you have artillery up against tank stacks? would these all be suicide missions? Hence anti tank units? Then if against a modern armour stack? you need to suicide collateral damage your artillery and then with your tanks or anti tank units?
I assume tanks can still do collateral damage and kill? so... artillery nerfed twice? so don't bring artillery to a tank war?
Edit: To be honest that would suit my style of catapult play early game? sure, a catapult makes a kill now and then, but i use them for collateral damage and "some" city defence reduction. If my collateral damage catapults are going to live longer, they will level up better. What is wrong with using other units for head to head combat gee = )
and a catapult can kill anything in defence just not attack? cant attack a lonely wounded scout in your territory that is pillaging improvements and kill it?
furthermore it takes more effort to deplete city defences completely, therefore making larger defences more useful as it would be more beneficial to do collateral damage on a cities units after a couple of bombards, so if you lose half of an 80% city defence, it still works better than losing half of a 40% city defence.
Also i assume that if a catapult can only do a maximum say.. 75% damage on attack, then it will increase its survival rate by withdrawing when meeting said target (if it does...) so it would no longer require the 25% chance of withdraw bonus. Reach your damage quota or die head to head. Thats all well and good until you have artillery up against tank stacks? would these all be suicide missions? Hence anti tank units? Then if against a modern armour stack? you need to suicide collateral damage your artillery and then with your tanks or anti tank units?
I assume tanks can still do collateral damage and kill? so... artillery nerfed twice? so don't bring artillery to a tank war?
Edit: To be honest that would suit my style of catapult play early game? sure, a catapult makes a kill now and then, but i use them for collateral damage and "some" city defence reduction. If my collateral damage catapults are going to live longer, they will level up better. What is wrong with using other units for head to head combat gee = )
I'm not really sure I like all these changes. It seems that all these changes are buffing defenses across the board and I already think that defenses are too strong, thus necessitating siege engines as they were in the first place. They need to tone down archers, longbowmen and machine guns.
i dunno about that andrew.... it eliminates siege SOD's, no biggy to me. I may have to build one or two more catapults to do the same amount of bombard damage i like, but one or 2 more collateral damage catapults will survive? perhaps wont have to send in catapult reinforcements as often. I like it. i'm the first to say that hey? hehe (we can still upgrade to +25% chance of withdrawal yer?).
If a unit has the option of +25% chance of withdrawal, does that mean it has a base rate to start with? or is that base rate 0%...?
If a unit has the option of +25% chance of withdrawal, does that mean it has a base rate to start with? or is that base rate 0%...?
Panda
Metal head
Nice round-up there from the OP! 
Similar threads
- Locked