Questions/comments

[gamer9865]

I've bought BTS some time ago and like some of the new stuff.
Overall, I think there is room for improvement so here is a list of my comments and questions:

* Is having a spy in a city helps thwart other spies and make it more expensive?
* How come when my spy identity (nationality) is revealed, it is not a cause for war or bad relations?
* Did quite get corporations - where do the hammers go?
* Anti tank should have bonus against mechanized infantry also (I've been there)
* Preserve Forest
* Planes should not be able to rebase beyond their range - that is the good thing about a carrier
* How exactly resistance is calculcated? Is the size of the army and units matter? How come I have it
even after I eliminiate a civ?
* Air bases in other civs and conducting attacks from there and in there (land units as well)
* Transport should only be able to defend
* Sea blockade?
* Great people: air marshal, sea admiral
* Upgrades should only be available in cities. Cities with Drydock/airport/barracks is cheaper
* air space? recon. over enemy land
* Anti tank units should remain anti-tank and not upgrade for MI
* Workers should be allowed to do some work other than roads outside the cultural borders?
* You can see the spy points of another civ. Should be hidden. You can also deduct who operated against you
by tracking that.
* no collteral damage on and by sea units (including air on sea)
* Dropping a paratrooper is cool graphics - if it could also attack the next turn it would have been great
* Cover units - not for attack like mobile SAM
* Air power is devastating - the computer doesn't use it well and it is too powerful
* Submarine can explore rivals territory without causing war. However, if he has a submarine, he can see you.
Doesn't make sense
* Gunship has combat penalty from crossing river
* If air units are hit, there should be a greater chance of shooting them down. Damage shouldn't matter.
* Spy should have "investigate defenses" mission to investigate city/tile for a attack bonus for X turns

 

[MrCynical]

* Is having a spy in a city helps thwart other spies and make it more expensive?

Yes, enemy spies are less likely to succeed, and I think missions may be more expensive.

* How come when my spy identity (nationality) is revealed, it is not a cause for war or bad relations?

You do get a -1 to relations with the civ, but only if your spy is both caught and identified, which doesn't happen all the time.

Anti tank should have bonus against mechanized infantry also (I've been there)

Nope, mechs may look like tanks, but in gameplay terms they're gunpowder units. Treating them as armour would mess up the end game unit counters. You've already got modern armour and artillery to take these guys on.

* Planes should not be able to rebase beyond their range - that is the good thing about a carrier

More accurate would be they hould be unable to rebase beyond twice their range - no need for enough fuel to get back to base, but otherwise I agree with you on this one.

* How exactly resistance is calculcated? Is the size of the army and units matter? How come I have it
even after I eliminiate a civ?

Resistance is inevitable, and I believe is based on the size and culture level of the city. Additional military does not suppress it faster. The only way to cut resistance short is the culture bomb, and that's broken in the current official BtS version. Eliminating a civ isn't really relevant if you think about it though. The population still culturally belongs to that civ even if it has fallen. The French resistance didn't shut down when there weren't any truly free French cities.

* Air bases in other civs and conducting attacks from there and in there (land units as well)

You can already base fighters in friendly cities, and fight wars conventionally with land units on their terrain.

* Transport should only be able to defend

Agreed.

* Great people: air marshal, sea admiral

You can already attach a great general to a ship (effectively a great admiral). I don't know about aircraft though. Wouldn't add much anyway.

Upgrades should only be available in cities. Cities with Drydock/airport/barracks is cheaper

The argument for only being upgraded in cities is dubious (you only have military facilities in major population centres?) and in any case would have no real impact on gameplay. Cheaper upgrades at barracks etc would only make logical sense if you drop the limitation to cities. Upgrades are in any case rather too cheap to begin with. They can't be made any cheaper without creating ruly stupid situations with cash rushing.

* Anti tank units should remain anti-tank and not upgrade for MI

Is there any situation where an anti tank is superior to a mech? If not there is really no point in them not upgrading.

* Workers should be allowed to do some work other than roads outside the cultural borders?

Absolutely not. You can't be allowed to alter other civ's improvements, or even alter blank tiles as it's liable to mess up the already shaky worker AI.

* no collteral damage on and by sea units (including air on sea)

Gameplay always trumps realism - and it creates better balance to have collateral damage at sea, whatever the realism arguments against it.

* Air power is devastating - the computer doesn't use it well and it is too powerful

Air power is a necessity in the modern age, but is that unrealistic or harmful to gameplay - not really. The computer actually isn't bad with it, at least compared to many other areas.

* Submarine can explore rivals territory without causing war. However, if he has a submarine, he can see you.
Doesn't make sense

Certain illogicality there, but messing around with sub visibility is notorious for creating declare war bugs. Gameplay wise this works fine, and I don't think its worth the risk of bringing something like the civ 3 sub bug back for such a trivial point.

* Gunship has combat penalty from crossing river

Wasn't that fixed in an early patch?

* If air units are hit, there should be a greater chance of shooting them down. Damage shouldn't matter.

So if units are damaged there should be a greater chance of killing them (so damage matters) but damage shouldn't matter?? I don't understand what you're saying here. The damage system on aircraft seems fine at present.

Spy should have "investigate defenses" mission to investigate city/tile for a attack bonus for X turns

Effectively already exists with the "city revolt" mission that eliminates the city defense for a turn - just could use a different name.

I've missed out a few, but mainly because I can't tell what you're actually asking in them, e.g.

* Preserve Forest

What about it?

 

[Willem]

* Upgrades should only be available in cities. Cities with Drydock/airport/barracks is cheaper

That's how it used to be in previous versions of Civ and there's a couple of reasons why it was changed. First, the AI isn't all that smart when it comes to upgrading, it wouldn't be very good at moving all the units it has in the field back to cities in order to upgrade them. In previous versions of the game, many people were complaining that they were battling Longbowman, Macemen with their Tanks and Infantry. This change is one way of eliminating that.

It also reduces the micromanagement required in having to upgrade your units. Before, it could be a real hassle moving units back to cities in order to upgrade them. There was a conscious decision made when the game was first designed to eliminate some of the "unfun" aspects of gameplay. This was one of them.

 

[gamer9865]

Yes, enemy spies are less likely to succeed, and I think missions may be more expensive.

You do get a -1 to relations with the civ, but only if your spy is both caught and identified, which doesn't happen all the time.

I rarely if ever had a -1 even when my spy got caught.

Nope, mechs may look like tanks, but in gameplay terms they're gunpowder units. Treating them as armour would mess up the end game unit counters. You've already got modern armour and artillery to take these guys on.

I've been there, meaning I served in a main battle tank in the military. If anti tank weapons are good against tanks, they are just as good against other combat vehicle if not more (less protection).

You can already attach a great general to a ship (effectively a great admiral). I don't know about aircraft though. Wouldn't add much anyway.

I meant having sea victories and air victories accummulate points to their own unique great person which is military related.

The argument for only being upgraded in cities is dubious (you only have military facilities in major population centres?) and in any case would have no real impact on gameplay. Cheaper upgrades at barracks etc would only make logical sense if you drop the limitation to cities. Upgrades are in any case rather too cheap to begin with. They can't be made any cheaper without creating ruly stupid situations with cash rushing.

Cities are the only thing (aside from fort) which come close to a military base.
Yes, if in order to upgrade you have to be in your own territory, you might as well be in a city to do that.

Is there any situation where an anti tank is superior to a mech? If not there is really no point in them not upgrading.

Yes! Although today some mechanized infantry units may be equipped to battle tanks via anti tank missile, not all of them are. You can ambush armor with anti tank missile with "footmen".

Absolutely not. You can't be allowed to alter other civ's improvements, or even alter blank tiles as it's liable to mess up the already shaky worker AI.

I meant, build roads and mines in uncharted territory as preparation for a settlement.

Gameplay always trumps realism - and it creates better balance to have collateral damage at sea, whatever the realism arguments against it.

I know that realism and the extent to which it is in the game, is a matter of taste. I still think that collateral damage at sea doesn't make any sense.

Air power is a necessity in the modern age, but is that unrealistic or harmful to gameplay - not really. The computer actually isn't bad with it, at least compared to many other areas.

I agree - look at all the talks about Israel or US hitting Iran nuclear facilities from the air. Never the less, it has been my experience that the computer isn't good with it.

Certain illogicality there, but messing around with sub visibility is notorious for creating declare war bugs. Gameplay wise this works fine, and I don't think its worth the risk of bringing something like the civ 3 sub bug back for such a trivial point.

I disagree - if finding and identifying a spy causes -1, so does the presence of a rival civ (even in peace) with fully armed sub in your waters. I don't see much difference here.

So if units are damaged there should be a greater chance of killing them (so damage matters) but damage shouldn't matter?? I don't understand what you're saying here. The damage system on aircraft seems fine at present.

I'm saying that I rarely if ever had one of my bombers shot down. Intercepting a bomber with full health should have a much greater chance of taking it down right away. This will increase the importance of anti aircraft units and defenses.

What about it (preserve forest)?

Oops, my bad. It is so late in the game and really doesn't have any significance.

 

[Willem]

Oops, my bad. It is so late in the game and really doesn't have any significance.

It should. Forest Preserves are a nice improvement to have in a city raduis. Each one gives 1 happiness to the city and if you have two of them, the Forests alone will give you one healthy. A nice thing about them is that they will have an effect on two cities at once if they are in a tile that overlaps two city radius. So if you happen to have a Forest that two cities can acces, it's a good idea to save them for later in the game and turn them in to Preserves. Also, the National Park is a good thing to build if you have a city with several Preserves. You get a free specialist for every one you have within the radius.

 

[MrCynical]

I rarely if ever had a -1 even when my spy got caught.

It probably depends on relative espionage levels how likely your spy is to be identified as awell as found. I've picked up a fair number of diplomatic negative from spies though, so there are definite impacts.

I've been there, meaning I served in a main battle tank in the military. If anti tank weapons are good against tanks, they are just as good against other combat vehicle if not more (less protection).

I know that realism and the extent to which it is in the game, is a matter of taste. I still think that collateral damage at sea doesn't make any sense.

Both these essentially boil down to the realism/gameplay debate. In gameplay terms, both these changes would be detrimental, so they aren't going to happen.

Yes! Although today some mechanized infantry units may be equipped to battle tanks via anti tank missile, not all of them are. You can ambush armor with anti tank missile with "footmen".

Again, I'm talking gameplay. There is no in-game situation that I can think of where an anti tank is superior to a mech, so cutting the upgrade path doesn't make sense. A more modern version of the same unit type to upgrade to would make more sense, though the gunship to some extent already fills that role. The marine and paratrooper units could also use one last upgrade step as they tend to be a little pointless once modern armour and mechs are available.

I disagree - if finding and identifying a spy causes -1, so does the presence of a rival civ (even in peace) with fully armed sub in your waters. I don't see much difference here.

A diplomatic pernalty for an intruding sub is an interesting idea (though it would need to wear off fairly fast and the AI would likely have trouble with it). Need a cap on it at about -2 to prevent silly situations as well. What about Caravels, since they can intrude into closed borders as well? Granted they can't deliver nukes, but they can still bring spies and scout.

I'm saying that I rarely if ever had one of my bombers shot down. Intercepting a bomber with full health should have a much greater chance of taking it down right away. This will increase the importance of anti aircraft units and defenses.

What kind of difficulty level are you playing at? The AI generally seems to put up a more creditable air defense in my games than you seem to be seeing. There's usually fighters covering most major cities, which guarantees major damage if not destruction of bombers.

Oops, my bad. It is so late in the game and really doesn't have any significance.

I generally regard the forest preserve as basically a component of the National Park (where the value of the extra specialists is huge), beyond that though I don't use them.

 

[GenocideBringer]

I've been there, meaning I served in a main battle tank in the military. If anti tank weapons are good against tanks, they are just as good against other combat vehicle if not more (less protection).

Look at the name. "Mechanized Infantry", e.g. infantry with transportation/support vehicles. It's still an infantry group.

Yes! Although today some mechanized infantry units may be equipped to battle tanks via anti tank missile, not all of them are. You can ambush armor with anti tank missile with "footmen".

again, you seem to think "mechanized infantry" means "APCs" and such. IT doesn't. It includes infantry with all various support, which includes AT weapons.

I meant, build roads and mines in uncharted territory as preparation for a settlement.

You can already build roads. Building mines like this would be essentially useless.

I know that realism and the extent to which it is in the game, is a matter of taste. I still think that collateral damage at sea doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. Naval units usually are fairly close together. If a shell misses one, it very well may hit another.

I'm saying that I rarely if ever had one of my bombers shot down. Intercepting a bomber with full health should have a much greater chance of taking it down right away. This will increase the importance of anti aircraft units and defenses.

A unit being damaged represents some bombers in that group getting shot down (one bomber unit represents more than one bomber). Regardless, intercepting works fine.

Oops, my bad. It is so late in the game and really doesn't have any significance.

Untrue. It's a massive boost to the environmentalism civic, it allows you to spread around forests for National Park. Hell, spreading around forests also lets you put lumbermills on them, and lumbermills are awesome.

 

[gamer9865]

"You can already build roads. Building mines like this would be essentially useless." - not true, and very much so early in the game. Sometimes it takes quite a while for your cultural border to grow and I end up giving workers orders just to build roads instead of building a mine/quarry because the city will be ready to use them in a few turns.


"It makes perfect sense. Naval units usually are fairly close together. If a shell misses one, it very well may hit another." - Hardly. I believe they are at least a few hundred yards away from each other to avoid collision. Very much so with a submarine.

 

[Underdawg]

I think the AI uses Air units just fine. They always tend to have their border cities packed with them.

 

[GenocideBringer]

Doublepost

 

[GenocideBringer]

Sometimes it takes quite a while for your cultural border to grow and I end up giving workers orders just to build roads instead of building a mine/quarry because the city will be ready to use them in a few turns.

Whatever.

"It makes perfect sense. Naval units usually are fairly close together. If a shell misses one, it very well may hit another." - Hardly. I believe they are at least a few hundred yards away from each other to avoid collision. Very much so with a submarine.

Really now?

 

[gamer9865]

Whatever.
Really now?

Indeed!
Although they look close, they are far apart.
I would also suspect that they aligned this way in order to have a nice picture. Imagine for a second that some of these ships (escorts) had to fire. They can't! (at least not those in the middle) As there is friendly forces in the way. Remember also that a ship is not a car - you can stop it that fast.
Last, but not least, escorts (destroyers, submarines, whatever) are probably miles apart from each other providing defense for the carrier. Otherwise, how can they protect it? Anybody can take a shot at the carrier from miles away (torpedoes, guns, whatever).

 

[GenocideBringer]

Although they look close, they are far apart.

No they're not. It would be extremely easy for a shell missing one to hit the other.

I would also suspect that they aligned this way in order to have a nice picture. Imagine for a second that some of these ships (escorts) had to fire. They can't!

They would be firing at a high enough angle to avoid it. The only time they really get far apart is when the smaller ships like destroyers (in the WW2 era) would move forward to provide a screening force for the others.

Remember also that a ship is not a car - you can stop it that fast.

It's also the open sea, not a crowded highway.

Last, but not least, escorts (destroyers, submarines, whatever) are probably miles apart from each other providing defense for the carrier. Otherwise, how can they protect it? Anybody can take a shot at the carrier from miles away (torpedoes, guns, whatever).

If we're talking about the WW2ish era, then the destroyers would move forward to provide a screening force (although they would still be fairly close to each other) and the bigger ships would still be fairly close to the carrier.


Ships at sea aren't that far apart.

 

[gamer9865]

No they're not. It would be extremely easy for a shell missing one to hit the other.


They would be firing at a high enough angle to avoid it. The only time they really get far apart is when the smaller ships like destroyers (in the WW2 era) would move forward to provide a screening force for the others.



It's also the open sea, not a crowded highway.




If we're talking about the WW2ish era, then the destroyers would move forward to provide a screening force (although they would still be fairly close to each other) and the bigger ships would still be fairly close to the carrier.


Ships at sea aren't that far apart.

I must confess that I'm no sailor. but now adays, but I'm very much aware of ballistic trajectory. Non of the less, every artillery battery, infanry's "mobile" mortar, tanks, and infantry, never have somebody in front of them, even if in some cases they can go ballistically above the other. The reason being that there have already been lots of bad cases and things like that will continue to happen. Imagine also that the ship would have to fire at almost zero degrees - it can't!

I agree that it isn't much of a highway, yet ships still collide into each other.
Perhaps there is a sailor in who reads this thread and can give his feedback?

I know that an enemy shell can miss and hit another ship. However, it would rarely happen in my opinion. It is not like an artillery shell that has shrapnels (indirect hit).

 

[TheDS]

You asked for it, you got it. As a former sailor, I have been in medium-sized fleets consisting of 20 or so ships, and how far apart they are depends on a great number of factors, primary among them being the expected threat.

Versus aircraft, they spread out. It's not unusual for ships in the core to not be able to see more than 1 or 2 other ships. Before missiles and jets were popular, they would bunch up, and you'd see most of the fleet from any ship. This was to mass the AAA and create a thick wall of lead for the enemy planes to fly through.

Versus subs, you want to be close together, because your sensors don't have very good range. You probably also want a few leading ships that detect subs, which may be over the horizon from the rest of the fleet, or may not. With faster and quieter subs, and cruise missiles launched from them, you'll want to spread out a little more.

Keep in mind that the above is by no means hard and fast rules; war is complicated, and higher tech makes it moreso.

As to collateral damage, you must remember that ships have more than one weapon, and can fire at multiple targets at a time. Big guns are good for shooting at big targets. What are little guns to do, but shoot at little targets? So in the case of the navy, you can think of collateral damage as being the mounting of additional weapons.

I notice you're ignoring the preposterousness of sending a single unit in at a time. If you can sleep at night with this, then you can sleep at night with naval collateral damage.