kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
I like that idea but it would have to cost money.I forsee a battle of britain.
New and Changed Unit Stats
- Thread starter GIR
- Start date
I like that idea but it would have to cost money.I forsee a battle of britain.
Pomp
Chieftain
Why would it cost money, beyond normal upkeep on the Fighters themselves? Balance, or do you mean to model some real world detail I'm missing?
Rule Brittania
SAFC Supporter
So if the Anti-Tank Infantary have 100% vs. Armoured Units and starts with Ambush Promotion which gives 25% vs. Amoured Units, the bonuses are cumulative right and the anti tank unit would get 125% bonus straight away against an armoured unit. If this is correct it would bring its attacking strength up to 31.5 when attacking an armoured unit, but this is still not good enough to take out a modern armour, so they won't be very good against them, will the strategy come down to producing more of them than your enemy has modern armour?
Requires: Oil
Pomp
Chieftain
I believe one of the previews states that Anti-tank Infantry are specifically meant to be an early counter to tanks, to prevent the first player who gets a stack of tanks form rolling over the opposition too easily, so it makes sense that they're weak against Modern Armor. A Spearman is an early counter to mounted units, so we don't expect it to handle itself well against Knights or Cavalry.
Do you also think that in BtS it will be easier to win a fight with a Siege Unit?
Or do you think the drop of the Withdrawl Chance makes it way harder?
One reason why they drop the Withdrawl Chance from Siege Units is maybe because now they only have to hurt the Unit till the cap. That means they have a better chance to win a fight. The Catapult only has to fight until the enemy is at 25 hp and then withdraw from combat.
Or do you think the drop of the Withdrawl Chance makes it way harder?
One reason why they drop the Withdrawl Chance from Siege Units is maybe because now they only have to hurt the Unit till the cap. That means they have a better chance to win a fight. The Catapult only has to fight until the enemy is at 25 hp and then withdraw from combat.
It'll probably not change siege as much as the two other changes.
To keep bombardment as effective as it previously was requires either huge stacks of siege units or prolonged periods of motionlessness for siege units outside of enemy cities. Now apply the mounted units' new ability to that. Both situations are more vulnerable to it.
Result: if full-health catapults are to attack cities then the cities won't have lost much of their defensive bonuses so far fewer catapults will succesfully reach the cap than would have previously. Naval bombardment will be far more valuable.
To keep bombardment as effective as it previously was requires either huge stacks of siege units or prolonged periods of motionlessness for siege units outside of enemy cities. Now apply the mounted units' new ability to that. Both situations are more vulnerable to it.
Result: if full-health catapults are to attack cities then the cities won't have lost much of their defensive bonuses so far fewer catapults will succesfully reach the cap than would have previously. Naval bombardment will be far more valuable.
Roland Johansen
Deity
Most of us are assuming that bombardment of city defense bonuses still works the same as in vanilla Civ4 and Warlords. In vanilla Civ4 and Warlords a unit that would bombard 15% of the city defenses (catapult) would reduce the defense bonus of a city with defense bonus 40% with 15% of 40% is 6% and would reduce the defense bonus of a city with defense bonus 80% with 15% of 80% is 12%. This effectively meant that the higher defense bonus didn't help protect the city from bombardment for a longer time. There have been some complaints about this and I'm hoping that it was changed.
I'm hoping that the new catapult which reduces defense bonuses by 8%, will really reduce the defense bonus by 8% points, so a defense bonus of 40% will be reduced to 32% and a defense bonus of 80% will be reduced to 72%.
Under the old rules it would take 7 catapult bombardments to remove the defense bonus from a city with defense bonus 40% and the same 7 bombardments to remove an 80% defense bonus. Under the proposed new rules it would take 5 catapult bombardments to remove the 40% defense bonus and 10 to remove the 80% defense bonus.
Since defense bonuses tend to become higher during the game and the bombardment units become more effective during the game, the time needed for removing the defense bonus from a city might remain about the same.
A small (but not completely convincing) indication that this might be the case is that 8% of 20% is 1.6% and 8% of 40% is 3.2%. I don't think that Firaxis will introduce fractional defense bonuses to cities and I also don't think they will round 1.6% down to 1% (almost all rounding in the game is rounding down). And I see no other solution to keep the old bombardment system. I really suspect a change as outlined above.
I'm hoping that the new catapult which reduces defense bonuses by 8%, will really reduce the defense bonus by 8% points, so a defense bonus of 40% will be reduced to 32% and a defense bonus of 80% will be reduced to 72%.
Under the old rules it would take 7 catapult bombardments to remove the defense bonus from a city with defense bonus 40% and the same 7 bombardments to remove an 80% defense bonus. Under the proposed new rules it would take 5 catapult bombardments to remove the 40% defense bonus and 10 to remove the 80% defense bonus.
Since defense bonuses tend to become higher during the game and the bombardment units become more effective during the game, the time needed for removing the defense bonus from a city might remain about the same.
A small (but not completely convincing) indication that this might be the case is that 8% of 20% is 1.6% and 8% of 40% is 3.2%. I don't think that Firaxis will introduce fractional defense bonuses to cities and I also don't think they will round 1.6% down to 1% (almost all rounding in the game is rounding down). And I see no other solution to keep the old bombardment system. I really suspect a change as outlined above.
jdog5000
Revolutionary
I agree and hope it has been changed just as you suggest!
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Of course that means that it will take 50 Catapults to bombard down a Citadel, (100% defense, each Catapult doing 25% of its normal 8% so 2% per capapult) Castles may be Really Useful (and even Walls... a Walled city will only let the Catpults do 6% per shot, meaning 9 Catapults to tear down a wall vs. 8 for a 60% culture, unwalled city v. 10 for a 60% culture Walled City)
Wheras it used to be 7 to tear down the culture city and 10 for any Walled city
Wheras it used to be 7 to tear down the culture city and 10 for any Walled city
I really want to see how the new bombardment works. Without the withdrawal chance, does the siege unit just cause some collateral damage and then disappear from combat? Do we get Civ3 style artillery barrages? Or do they fight an enemy down to X HP and then just die?
El Koeno
Emperor
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,926
Maybe they have decided to reintroduce stand-off attack, but to balance it mounted units can directly attack siege units in a stack (this is what the flank attack on catapults and cannons on horse archers and cavalry respectively, would mean).
Although I would like it that way, I have my doubts that they would change things as drastically as that.
If collateral damage is only delt to seige units once the Horse Archer wins or withdrawls, then all the SOD requires is A LOT of Spearmen and this problem occurs again. A huge seige SOD defended by a huge Spearmen SOD and it'll take lots of seige/Axemen and Horse Archers in order to defeat it, bringing it back to where we started.
Considering collateral damage is dealt when the attacking HA withdrawls, this will make the ability to withdrawl a cheap way of hitting seige units. I do suspect though, that this 'solution' will create many more problems than it'll solve.
One things for sure: it'll be interesting to play
Considering collateral damage is dealt when the attacking HA withdrawls, this will make the ability to withdrawl a cheap way of hitting seige units. I do suspect though, that this 'solution' will create many more problems than it'll solve.
One things for sure: it'll be interesting to play
Roland Johansen
Deity
Your catapults vs a citadel is a bit of an extreme example as the citadel is a unique building with a -75% bombardment damage from catapults and trebuchets while the normal castle is only halve as effective with a -50% bombardment damage. Still, once cannons arrive on the scene, the citadels (and other castles) will go down to a far lower number of bombardments as they ignore the bombardment reduction of these buildings. Even trebuchets, the contemporary bombardment device against castles, will take down castles far more quickly as they probably inflict far more bombardment damage. I do agree that castles and walls will be more effective if bombardment was changed as I described in my previous post and will be a serious hindrance in taking cities.
But we'll have to wait and see how they implemented bombardment in BTS.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIR
how dose it works in warlords if you have 3 sam infantry in one city and the first sam infantry didn't intercept the attacking fighter? will the second sam try to intercept or does this mean a successful fighter attack?
That's one of the biggest questions in Civ4 I think. You can post a question about the most obscure game-mechanic you can think of and get a good answer in no-time, but when it comes to air-combat, nobody seems to know....
That's one of the biggest questions in Civ4 I think. You can post a question about the most obscure game-mechanic you can think of and get a good answer in no-time, but when it comes to air-combat, nobody seems to know....
EDIT: I could open up worldbuilder to check some stuff out, but I'm too lazy I'm afraid
the first sam infantry didn't intercept the attacking fighter? will the second sam try to intercept or does this mean a successful fighter attack?
I think NO. It's 1vs1 combat.
Similar threads
