New Version - August 10th (8/10)

[Finarvi]

[...]
Finally, I'd like to say that, as this is the first CBP game I've played in a while, I'm really enjoying the combat mechanics. I play on epic speed so the units have plenty of use, but the thing I find most interesting is how much danger units can be in. I've lost several archers thinking spearmen can't possibly be that strong. That's when I noticed an archer's combat strength is way lower than their ranged strength. Lost my upgraded scout that way too.
[...]

Well, even in vanilla, for ranged units was usually much lower than .

But yeah, current units are generally well-balanced I like especially changes to unit upgrade paths and addition of lacking units (volley gun, explorer and so on). I've even made an image of it, you can take a look (link in my signature).


And in the topic of WLTKD: I agree with Funak's argumentation.

 

[Enginseer]

Could it be possible to implement purchasing buildings in Venice only?

The problem is that the puppeted cities of Venice will rarely ever build the invested buildings in making it a waste of gold and while also a nerf to Venice.

 

[dylansan]

Well, even in vanilla, for ranged units was usually much lower than .

True, but IIRC they're much more varied now. IIRC the archer has 5 combat strength and 15 ranged? Or something crazy like that.

But yeah, current units are generally well-balanced I like especially changes to unit upgrade paths and addition of lacking units (volley gun, explorer and so on). I've even made an image of it, you can take a look (link in my signature).

One thing I have noticed in my ongoing war with Montezuma is that it's pretty hard to get a foothold in far away territory. For one thing, taking cities is really really easy, which makes keeping them really really hard. Right now I'm using my swarm of cruisers just to pick off any and all melee units around the cities I've taken. The problem I'm facing is getting a substantial land force from the two annexed cities I have. Now that it's the modern era I need Military Academies to buy units, and the production of these new cities is pretty low (especially since they went back and forth several times.

My main concern is with city strength. Cities that have flipped back and forth are very weak, which makes sense. The problem is, after taking it with a unit, if they take it back on that turn, it kills my powerful Ironclad or Infantry in the process. Long story short, I think the strength from garrisons does not reflect the strength of the unit actually inside, allowing units to take the city which normally could never kill the garrisoned unit. It would be nice if the opponent actually required a strong enough unit to take it.

 

[Funak]

True, but IIRC they're much more varied now. IIRC the archer has 5 combat strength and 15 ranged? Or something crazy like that.

One thing I have noticed in my ongoing war with Montezuma is that it's pretty hard to get a foothold in far away territory. For one thing, taking cities is really really easy, which makes keeping them really really hard. Right now I'm using my swarm of cruisers just to pick off any and all melee units around the cities I've taken. The problem I'm facing is getting a substantial land force from the two annexed cities I have. Now that it's the modern era I need Military Academies to buy units, and the production of these new cities is pretty low (especially since they went back and forth several times.

My main concern is with city strength. Cities that have flipped back and forth are very weak, which makes sense. The problem is, after taking it with a unit, if they take it back on that turn, it kills my powerful Ironclad or Infantry in the process. Long story short, I think the strength from garrisons does not reflect the strength of the unit actually inside, allowing units to take the city which normally could never kill the garrisoned unit. It would be nice if the opponent actually required a strong enough unit to take it.

The trick is to clear out the enemy units before you take a city. Or block entrances with zoc or things like that.

 

[Strigvir]

My main concern is with city strength. Cities that have flipped back and forth are very weak, which makes sense. The problem is, after taking it with a unit, if they take it back on that turn, it kills my powerful Ironclad or Infantry in the process. Long story short, I think the strength from garrisons does not reflect the strength of the unit actually inside, allowing units to take the city which normally could never kill the garrisoned unit. It would be nice if the opponent actually required a strong enough unit to take it.

It just means you do NOT take the city until you are 100% sure you won't lose it on the next turn. Or just bump your ironclad until it will have several attacks a turn. Also the freshly captured cities are in the rebel stage, which means it's not entirely under your control and stationing units won't do much here.

 

[dylansan]

It just means you do NOT take the city until you are 100% sure you won't lose it on the next turn. Or just bump your ironclad until it will have several attacks a turn. Also the freshly captured cities are in the rebel stage, which means it's not entirely under your control and stationing units won't do much here.

Usually what happens is I take a city, then a swarm of cavalry and rifles come out of the fog. Most of these are easy to pick off, but all he needs is one.

I suppose I probably neglected my land army when preparing. All I really need is a good barrier of infantry and I'd probably be good. That's how I kept the other cities.

I have to admit, it's much more satisfying to keep cities this way, since you're never sure until a few turns have passed.

I was only concerned because, well actually I can't put my finger on it. It's very different from what I'm used to. Ma ybe I'm just frustrated with Monty pumping out units and turning into a war of attrition. Maybe I'm just not good at this game.

 

[Stalker0]

Overall, I really like the new take on city strength. It focuses on units around the city and walls/castles to make a city strong. It does take getting used to the idea of not taking a city when you can....you really have to clean out the army first to hold it.

I do think the scaling could use a little work towards the late game....when an artillery can take most smaller cities down to 0 in a single shot I think it gets a little nuts.

 

[Gazebo]

I don't feel that there is a strong consensus on the WLTKD issue, so I'm going to leave it as-is for now. I understand that this hurts China's UA, but keep in mind that I designed China's UA with this in mind. It also makes happiness more important, which is of benefit.

G

 

[dylansan]

Yeah, I think the problem I had was I expected the units in the city to be about as useful and important as those around it. It's something you can learn to plan around but to new players it feels a little off.

 

[Funak]

I don't feel that there is a strong consensus on the WLTKD issue, so I'm going to leave it as-is for now. I understand that this hurts China's UA, but keep in mind that I designed China's UA with this in mind. It also makes happiness more important, which is of benefit.

I think the discussion got sidetracked, but everyone who actually cared to comment on it agreed with me


Anyways at the moment this isn't an issue at all because happiness is a non-factor, but since that really isn't fun at all, I was hoping that was getting changed. At which point the China WLTKD issue becomes a problem.


Btw speaking of China, as someone mentioned in the thread, the Chinese UU obsoletes at the wrong tech. It goes obsolete at Industrialization, when it should go obsolete at Dynamite.

 

[Gazebo]

I think the discussion got sidetracked, but everyone who actually cared to comment on it agreed with me


Anyways at the moment this isn't an issue at all because happiness is a non-factor, but since that really isn't fun at all, I was hoping that was getting changed. At which point the China WLTKD issue becomes a problem.


Btw speaking of China, as someone mentioned in the thread, the Chinese UU obsoletes at the wrong tech. It goes obsolete at Industrialization, when it should go obsolete at Dynamite.

Except Stalker and I. In any case, I don't think it's a good move to change it, honestly. It verges on exploit for a human player, and I don't think that unhappiness needs the value hit.

G

 

[Funak]

Except Stalker and I. In any case, I don't think it's a good move to change it, honestly. It verges on exploit for a human player, and I don't think that unhappiness needs the value hit.

I was going to drop this, mostly because I just don't care enough to argue about it, but how is a UA actually working 100% of the time instead of only when you're over a certain number of a completely unrelated counter possibly exploitable in any way?

 

[Gazebo]

I was going to drop this, mostly because I just don't care enough to argue about it, but how is a UA actually working 100% of the time instead of only when you're over a certain number of a completely unrelated counter possibly exploitable in any way?

Eh? The exploit here is that, if your growth bonuses from WLTKD etc. are simply higher than the unhappiness penalty, then what is the point of the unhappiness penalty? Players can simply stack bonuses and ignore a major element of unhappiness (growth penalties).

Furthermore, the suggestion that WLTKDs be postponed could be exploited (as you could still get WLTKD bonuses, for example, while it is 'postponed') without significant reworking of the existing functions.

It's a quagmire, and I think it works fine as-is.

G

 

[Funak]

Eh? The exploit here is that, if your growth bonuses from WLTKD etc. are simply higher than the unhappiness penalty, then what is the point of the unhappiness penalty? Players can simply stack bonuses and ignore a major element of unhappiness (growth penalties).

Isn't the unhappiness penalty a food-penalty, not a growthpenalty? Meaning it is counted before growth and is way more severe?

Furthermore, the suggestion that WLTKDs be postponed could be exploited (as you could still get WLTKD bonuses, for example, while it is 'postponed') without significant reworking of the existing functions.

Yes, sure that could be exploitable, I don't see why anyone would purposely go into negative happiness to delay WLTKD, but whatever.

 

[Strigvir]

I don't feel that there is a strong consensus on the WLTKD issue, so I'm going to leave it as-is for now.

The arguing was mostly about semantics and the main issue is not exploitable/non-exploitable but AI not benefiting from WLTKD at all, due it being poor at happiness management.

Eh? The exploit here is that, if your growth bonuses from WLTKD etc. are simply higher than the unhappiness penalty, then what is the point of the unhappiness penalty? Players can simply stack bonuses and ignore a major element of unhappiness (growth penalties).

1. You can't have WLKTD lasting forever.
2. Unhappiness still reduces other yields and food too.