Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
This thread is to discuss ranged attacks as implemented in the mod History Rewritten.
Ranged Attacks, History Rewritten
- Thread starter Howard Mahler
- Start date
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
While ranged attacks is a good idea, I think there is significant room for improvement.
(I do not know whether some of these can be addressed in the context of a modification of BTS.)
(I do not know whether some of these can be addressed in the context of a modification of BTS.)
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
Those naval units that have had ranged attack added, without taking anything away, should have their building cost increased.
Wooden ships should not be able to inflict ranged attack damage on ironclads, let alone destroyers.
(In any case, I think that ironclads should be made stronger compared to Frigates in BTS.)
Currently, a fleet of for example Frigates can sail out of a Harbor, inflict ranged attacks on the enemy Frigates, sail back into harbor, without facing any counterattack.
This is both unrealistic and very bad for game play.
Maybe a ranged attack could end the naval units movement.
Currently a fleet of 4 frigates can gang up on a frigate by itself, with 3 of them doing ranged attacks and the last one going in for the kill. This is good for game play.
It is unclear exactly what ranged attacks of one naval unit on another are meant to represent. Frigates would fire their cannons at each other from a distance, while destroyers would fire their guns at each other from longer distances. All of this is still well within the 200 mile or more width of a tile.
I thought this is what regular naval combat represents.
Naval units now have the option to apply ranged attacks to any land units foolish enough to be on the coast. This is a significant ability and greatly increases the value of frigates, destroyers, etc. They can come in, fire a ranged attack, and withdraw without fear of reprisal by a land unit. This also increases significantly the difficulty of defending coastal cities.
Perhaps coastal cities should be able to build special defenses against naval attacks (didn't they have this in Civ III?)
I suspect I would be OK without ranged attacks for any naval units, with the possible exception of battleships.
In addition, catapults, cannons, etc. can attack enemy naval units foolish enough to end their turns next to an enemy coast. This is something the player can deal with but probably not the AI.
Wooden ships should not be able to inflict ranged attack damage on ironclads, let alone destroyers.
(In any case, I think that ironclads should be made stronger compared to Frigates in BTS.)
Currently, a fleet of for example Frigates can sail out of a Harbor, inflict ranged attacks on the enemy Frigates, sail back into harbor, without facing any counterattack.
This is both unrealistic and very bad for game play.
Maybe a ranged attack could end the naval units movement.
Currently a fleet of 4 frigates can gang up on a frigate by itself, with 3 of them doing ranged attacks and the last one going in for the kill. This is good for game play.
It is unclear exactly what ranged attacks of one naval unit on another are meant to represent. Frigates would fire their cannons at each other from a distance, while destroyers would fire their guns at each other from longer distances. All of this is still well within the 200 mile or more width of a tile.
I thought this is what regular naval combat represents.
Naval units now have the option to apply ranged attacks to any land units foolish enough to be on the coast. This is a significant ability and greatly increases the value of frigates, destroyers, etc. They can come in, fire a ranged attack, and withdraw without fear of reprisal by a land unit. This also increases significantly the difficulty of defending coastal cities.
Perhaps coastal cities should be able to build special defenses against naval attacks (didn't they have this in Civ III?)
I suspect I would be OK without ranged attacks for any naval units, with the possible exception of battleships.
In addition, catapults, cannons, etc. can attack enemy naval units foolish enough to end their turns next to an enemy coast. This is something the player can deal with but probably not the AI.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
Units such as catapults can now make ranged attacks, but can not make "direct" attacks. They can still bombard.
I think on balance this makes them stronger than in BTS. Therefore, I think they should cost more to build.
Now, if you are on the attack, usually you should lose very few if any of your catapults, cannons, etc. As your army moves from battle to battle, as long as you are strong enough to survive, there is little need to replace lost catapults, cannons, etc.
I personally think that having the capability to both bombard and do ranged attacks with collateral damage is too much for a unit like the catapult. I have no problem with this for artillery. I think you need to somehow tone down the early units such as the catapult and trebuchet. Perhaps allow one of them to bombard and the other to do ranged attacks, but not both. (I hesitate to get rid of collateral damage since that is in there for a game purpose.)
Land units can launch ranged attacks against naval units near the coast.
I disbelieve a catapult being able to do significant damage to a destroyer, particularly when that destroyer may not have gotten closer than three miles from coast.
Something needs to be done to severely limit or eliminate such damage when it makes little sense.
I disbelieve a catapult being able to do significant damage to a tank.
Again something needs to be done to severely limit or eliminate such damage when it makes little sense.
I think on balance this makes them stronger than in BTS. Therefore, I think they should cost more to build.
Now, if you are on the attack, usually you should lose very few if any of your catapults, cannons, etc. As your army moves from battle to battle, as long as you are strong enough to survive, there is little need to replace lost catapults, cannons, etc.
I personally think that having the capability to both bombard and do ranged attacks with collateral damage is too much for a unit like the catapult. I have no problem with this for artillery. I think you need to somehow tone down the early units such as the catapult and trebuchet. Perhaps allow one of them to bombard and the other to do ranged attacks, but not both. (I hesitate to get rid of collateral damage since that is in there for a game purpose.)
Land units can launch ranged attacks against naval units near the coast.
I disbelieve a catapult being able to do significant damage to a destroyer, particularly when that destroyer may not have gotten closer than three miles from coast.
Something needs to be done to severely limit or eliminate such damage when it makes little sense.
I disbelieve a catapult being able to do significant damage to a tank.
Again something needs to be done to severely limit or eliminate such damage when it makes little sense.
If I can't balance naval range attacks better I'll just remove them (possible exception of the Battleship). At the moment I feel it brings more problems than benefits. The mechanic is already well represented by regular naval attacks and bombardment as you mention.
This would be ideal but so far I've not been able to find a way to implement it.
Yeah there was a Coastal Defense building in Civ3. Unfortunately there's no easy way to make something similar in BTS; buildings such as the Bunker use a specific air defense XML entry that can't be changed to work with attacks from other domains.
Have you seen the AI doing this much? If it's too much of a problem I can fix it easily by giving the appropriate siege units an attack penalty against naval units.
My original plan was to have the Battering Ram and Siege Tower reduce the city defenses (via 'bombard') and have the Catapult and Trebuchet deal collateral damage via ranged attacks. Gunpowder era siege units would be able to do both.
I honestly can't remember now why I gave Catapults and Trebuchets their bombard ability back.
Ultimately I might redesign all the early siege units and a few others too. For example, I would like archers and longbowmen to do collateral damage, and I want to see if it's possible to make Battering Rams and Siege Towers work like Great Generals; instead of being units in their own right they improve the city attack of other units via promotions. Nothing definite decided or implemented yet though.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
Have you seen the AI doing this much? If it's too much of a problem I can fix it easily by giving the appropriate siege units an attack penalty against naval units.
I have not seen the AI using a land unit to range attack a naval unit.
As the human player I have on occasion used this against the AI.
I have not seen the AI using a land unit to range attack a naval unit.
As the human player I have on occasion used this against the AI.
Bumping this topic as I want to work on this for 0.9.2. Once you've played with 0.9.1 a bit I'd be very interested in any feedback or suggestions anyone may have on siege units, naval units, and ranged attacks in general.
Similar threads
