Paratroopers after drop can't take cities with only sea, air or missile units
- Thread starter r_rolo1
- Start date
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
I believe this is a feature and not a bug. Paratroopers also can't attack after their drop, they need to wait for their next turn, so it makes sense they also cannot capture cities until recharging (the next turn).
r_rolo1
King of myself
They can take cities after drop.... they just can't take cities where they can see a unit ( they can take freely a city filled with undetected submarines ), and this means they can't take a city with a worker,a work boat , a missionary or a GP that isn't a great spy inside, that technically is not combat ( as with the ships, the planes and the missiles ... I know, the code calls the combat anyway, but the fact is that in terms of game rules, the paratrooper can only really combat land units in offense ). That is what I think it is a inconsistency, because it relies solely on the fact that there is a unit ( regardless of being one that could actually fight against the paratrooper or not ) that can be seen by the paratrooper ( undetected subs, spies and Great Spies do not stop the paratrooper ).
That is why I never refered to it as bug, but definitely is not intuitive and hardly justifiable, not to mention that this quirk is never mentioned in the manual or in civilopedia ( as usual.... ). Not mentioning that this will port to any unit in a mod that uses the unchanged "drop" function.....
That is why I never refered to it as bug, but definitely is not intuitive and hardly justifiable, not to mention that this quirk is never mentioned in the manual or in civilopedia ( as usual.... ). Not mentioning that this will port to any unit in a mod that uses the unchanged "drop" function.....
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
OK, that makes sense.
How do you think it should be standardized? These are the most obvious options in my mind, not sure which makes the most sense.
Disallow Paratroopers from city capture on the turn of the drop.
Disallow Paratroopers from city capture if there is any unit in the city, invisible or not, allow if unoccupied.
Disallow Paratroopers from city catpure only if combat is required, otherwise allow the capture/destruction of all non combat units with city capture.
How do you think it should be standardized? These are the most obvious options in my mind, not sure which makes the most sense.
Disallow Paratroopers from city capture on the turn of the drop.
Disallow Paratroopers from city capture if there is any unit in the city, invisible or not, allow if unoccupied.
Disallow Paratroopers from city catpure only if combat is required, otherwise allow the capture/destruction of all non combat units with city capture.
Roland Johansen
Deity
Like r_rolo1, I also value consistency in a game. This means consistency with capturing cities (undefended should be equal to defended by non-combat units), but also consistency with killing units. So if you can kill non-combat units inside a city, then you should also be able to kill them outside of a city. Based on this I see two rule-options for paratroopers directly after a paradrop:
1) Paratroopers can't kill units even if these units can't defend themselves and can't capture cities after a paradrop even if they're undefended or defended by non-combat units.
2) Paratroopers can kill units that can't defend themselves after a paradrop and can capture undefended cities or cities defended by units that can't defend themselves.
By the way. I also think it's pretty weird that guided missiles can kill battleships but can't kill workers/missionaries/great people etc.
1) Paratroopers can't kill units even if these units can't defend themselves and can't capture cities after a paradrop even if they're undefended or defended by non-combat units.
2) Paratroopers can kill units that can't defend themselves after a paradrop and can capture undefended cities or cities defended by units that can't defend themselves.
By the way. I also think it's pretty weird that guided missiles can kill battleships but can't kill workers/missionaries/great people etc.
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
Well, I suppose it's up to jdog what he wants to implement (if anything). I agree though, either of those options seems logical.
r_rolo1
King of myself
I would prefer 2), but obviously 1) is easier to implement 
Or maybe:
3) Paratroopers after drop can take/destroy non land-combat units, regardless of where they are, if they don't have adequate cover
Or maybe:
3) Paratroopers after drop can take/destroy non land-combat units, regardless of where they are, if they don't have adequate cover
Roland Johansen
Deity
What do you mean with adequate cover?
r_rolo1
King of myself
Sorry, wasn't clear... I mean, cover from combat-able land units. It might be a big change though , and the prospect of dropping hordes of paratroopers to grab workers might be too much for the game .....
Roland Johansen
Deity
Do you mean that you could paradrop on top of non-combat-able land units? If not, I don't quite see the difference with the option 2 I suggested.
The problem might be in the AI. It might not understand that its workers (or even great persons!) aren't safe anymore when inside paratrooper range. The AI should defend these workers but it might not do that.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Yes, I meant that you could drop in top of non-combat units.... ( again not clear enough 
). I really can't see the reason why you can't drop on top of a settler, a worker or of a non-GSpy GP, in terms of gameplay..... " No sir, we can't drop there because they say that Archimedes is passing by..." 
). I really can't see the reason why you can't drop on top of a settler, a worker or of a non-GSpy GP, in terms of gameplay..... " No sir, we can't drop there because they say that Archimedes is passing by..." Roland Johansen
Deity
Paratroopers are very efficiently stopped by airplanes so I don't really see a problem with paratroopers that can attack non-combat units (after dropping or directly from the air). If the AI can't protect its airspace, then it's in trouble anyhow. Losing a few workers here and there (while the attacker likely loses the paratroopers in the counter attack) is the least of its troubles.
The AI however should learn to protect its vulnerable troops once they don't have air cover and the enemy has paratroopers. So an AI without for instance oil should guard these units. At present that is not the case so a rule change for the paratroopers would hurt it too much. And a civ game without decent competition from the AI is not that much fun however realistic the rules might be.
I would be in favour of option 3 (your option) with some tweaking of the AI (which might be more difficult than we think) or otherwise just option 1: no attacking at all after drop.
The AI however should learn to protect its vulnerable troops once they don't have air cover and the enemy has paratroopers. So an AI without for instance oil should guard these units. At present that is not the case so a rule change for the paratroopers would hurt it too much. And a civ game without decent competition from the AI is not that much fun however realistic the rules might be.
I would be in favour of option 3 (your option) with some tweaking of the AI (which might be more difficult than we think) or otherwise just option 1: no attacking at all after drop.
jdog5000
Revolutionary
Well, this is an interesting inconsistency. Basically what happens is that each unit has a boolean flag for whether or not it has attacked already that turn. When paratroopers perform their landing, it eats up their attack for that turn so they can't then attack even non-combat units.
The game, however, does not consider capturing a city with no units in it to be an attack move and so a paratrooper is free to do that. This, I feel, is the inconsistent part. Capturing an undefended city to me is the same kind of action as attacking a non-combat unit.
Here are a couple other uncommon scenarios where this will pop up:
a) A knight attacks an enemy warrior on grassland. The knight wins and moves into the tile, revealing an undefended enemy worker adjacent to the knight's new position. The knight cannot capture the worker.
b) A knight moves to capture an enemy worker on grassland. After capturing, another enemy worker is revealed adjacent to the knight's new position. The knight cannot capture the second worker.
c) A knight attacks an enemy warrior on grassland. The knight wins and moves into the tiles, revealing an undefended enemy city adjacent to the knight's new position. As it stands, the knight can capture the enemy city.
My proposal would be to make it so that a combat unit entering an undefended enemy city is considered an attack move. This would be Roland's first proposal and also make it so that the knight in example (c) cannot take the city. I think this is the most consistent and logical approach.
Implementing Roland's second proposal and allowing paratroopers to attack non-combat units after landing would be more difficult. It would require some special case handling for paratroopers, and would also require the AI be taught to defend non-combat units in the interior of its territory.
Thoughts?
Roland Johansen
Deity
I'm fine with that.
If I understood you correctly, then I would have wished for a broader change in this case: attacking a unit that has no combat value is not a combat manoeuvre. I wouldn't have wished for a paratrooper that can attack non-combat units while a knight can't capture a worker if it has already attacked once that turn.
Teaching the AI is probably the tricky part. I must say that I would think it would be more interesting to have paratroopers that can attack non-combat units after landing (and knights that can capture 2 workers per turn). But maybe other players would ask:
why can paratroopers attack non-combat units after landing while they can't attack combat units?
In the end, the restrictions to paratroopers have an artificial reason: game balance.
MadmanAtW
Knight
I agree that taking an empty city should be an attack action. Otherwise all similar things should be made non-attacks (including taking a city with sea units, etc), rather than any paratrooper-only change- this inconsistency makes it possible to "find" invisible units if taking an "empty" city actually kills them, and that is something I would like to see disappear, which requires either city taking to always or never be an attack action.
But I think the easiest and most straightforward way to handle it would be making taking an empty city into an attack action. It occurred to me briefly to wonder if the game would then refuse to move an attacker onto the city after killing the last defender (requiring another "attack action" to take that step), but I realized that shouldn't be the case, as you already do sink anchored boats under those circumstances.
But I think the easiest and most straightforward way to handle it would be making taking an empty city into an attack action. It occurred to me briefly to wonder if the game would then refuse to move an attacker onto the city after killing the last defender (requiring another "attack action" to take that step), but I realized that shouldn't be the case, as you already do sink anchored boats under those circumstances.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Making city taking a attack action would not make that a non blitz unit unable to take a city after killing the last defender? 
MadmanAtW
Knight
That occurred to me and I will defer to someone that can say for sure, but given that right now it "costs an attack action" to take a city that has a navy in it (ie, right now the paratrooper can't do it after a drop), but killing the last defender in a city lets you take the city even if it has a navy. So my assumption is that it won't cause that problem, but I don't know for sure.
jdog5000
Revolutionary
I'm also pretty sure that won't be a problem, will find out shortly.
Just to be clear, does this mean that paratroopers can't take a city on their drop turn?
Example; Used Helicopters to destroy every unit in city. Paradrop next to the city. Can't capture the city with that paratrooper? Or is it now conditional on what is left in the city?
If it takes away that paratrooper ability wouldn't that make paratroopers less useful?
Edit:
Rolo got me in the main forum thread on this, but I think it's game philosophy doo doo. Seriously, what useful things CAN paratroopers do now?
Example; Used Helicopters to destroy every unit in city. Paradrop next to the city. Can't capture the city with that paratrooper? Or is it now conditional on what is left in the city?
If it takes away that paratrooper ability wouldn't that make paratroopers less useful?
Edit:
Rolo got me in the main forum thread on this, but I think it's game philosophy doo doo. Seriously, what useful things CAN paratroopers do now?
r_rolo1
King of myself
Exactly the second option. if there is a non-land military visible unit ( like a worker , a GP ( except a GSpy ), a missionary , a corp exec, a visible sub, planes, missiles and ships other than submarines ) the city is not takeable. Otherwise, the city is takeable ( even if it has 400000 undetected submarines ). The real fun in this is the submarines: if you pass a airship in recon , you can't take the city ( airship makes the submarines visible ), if you don't use the airship you can take the city. Completely unintuitive.
Similar threads
