Should there be Bonii that hit both parties?

[sixs_monkey]

A 'glitch' may be in place (I'm not in a position to check the code) which applies the scout vs animal bonus twice per combat: once to bump the scout's strength and once to lower the animal's.

There might be aspects which are well modeled in this way, where some attribute or battlefield behavior such as 'morale' or superior tactics affects the effective performance on both sides.

If the vs. animals one is such, and is established/maintained as affecting both, then obviously it should be decreased in size. Not so obviously, that decrease may need to be by more than half to retain/re-establish a similar combat odds feeling as before, due to the presence of other factors.

Off the top of my head, I don't recall if there are bonuses that modify an already modified strength or not (not counting metal promotions which I believe /do/ pump up the base strength), but if there are, and if 'tactics' or 'battle mood' do that (which I think they probably would, then they have a higher effective value in many cases than might be supposed.

I'm hoping that someone more clever and/or more well versed with Civ's combat mechanics will jump in here with examples and thoughts.

 

[BeefontheBone]

AAAAAAAARGH! There are approximately 28,457 reports of this already! Methinks Kael might've noticed by now...

 

[Mordi]

My guess is that the team wanted to implement the woodsman and gurilla (sp?) bonuses as offensive, and something went wrong

 

[sixs_monkey]

Yes, I've seen most of them. My point is that it isn't necessarily a Bug, but an opportunity, which I why I spun it out to its own thread.
Take a deep breath, dude, I'm here (and I think most of are) to improve our own and others' gaming experiences, and perhaps this is a small way to do that.

 

[BeefontheBone]

That wasn't an entirely serious response, but I had just finished pointing out the same to someone in another thread immediately beforehand.

FWIW Mordi, that was in place in 016 AFAIK, I expect some adjustment to the code just went wrong.

 

[sixs_monkey]

No one who has 'his friend Jesus' as an avatar is likely to post in a harsh and humorless way.

I see (after some research and memory refreshing) that this has been a deal for a while. Just thought it deserved some examination, but maybe as a beta I should keep my head a bit lower.

 

[BeefontheBone]

Don't worry about it, I'm just easily annoyed by duplicate posts.

 

[BeefontheBone]

Don't worry about it, I'm just easily amused by duplicate posts.

 

[Mordi]

That wasn't an entirely serious response, but I had just finished pointing out the same to someone in another thread immediately beforehand.

FWIW Mordi, that was in place in 016 AFAIK, I expect some adjustment to the code just went wrong.

Really? Well, my bad

 

[Arwon]

Don't worry about it, I'm just easily annoyed by duplicate posts.

Don't worry about it, I'm just easily amused by duplicate posts.

Nice. Very nice.

 

[BeefontheBone]

Yay! I was hoping someone enjoyed that - I giggled at myself as I typed it the other night

 

[sixs_monkey]

Actually, I quite enjoyed it, and it makes up for my apparently being the only person who wants a promotion that buffs and nerfs (both in a small way). I smiled as well, it's just that I've been away.

 

[eerr]

Actually, I quite enjoyed it, and it makes up for my apparently being the only person who wants a promotion that buffs and nerfs (both in a small way). I smiled as well, it's just that I've been away.

are you sure it's just not listed in the combat log wrong?
and you get lucky/(unlucky) sometimes?

 

[sixs_monkey]

-I- haven't looked at the relevant code, though I note that this matter is addressed in a recent patch so I assume it /was/ there for real.

 

[eerr]

-I- haven't looked at the relevant code, though I note that this matter is addressed in a recent patch so I assume it /was/ there for real.

it could be that it was displayed wrong... but calculated right

 

[kenken244]

there are interesting possibilities with instead of increasing your own strength instead lowereing your opponents. its much like a balencing thing, it would be more powerfull against stronger opponents than against weaker so how much you would want to use it is not dependent on the unit its applied tos strength witch can never change but the other units strength. for instance,
say you had 2 strength 10 units and you were trying to defeat a strength 20 unit, one unit has a plus 50% to itself and one unit had a -50% to opponent promotion.
the first unit would increase its strength to 15 but woudl not be as strong as the opponents 20

the second unit would have its strength at 10 but woudl reduce its opponents to 10 as well so its more likely to suceed

 

[eerr]

there are interesting possibilities with instead of increasing your own strength instead lowereing your opponents. its much like a balencing thing, it would be more powerfull against stronger opponents than against weaker so how much you would want to use it is not dependent on the unit its applied tos strength witch can never change but the other units strength. for instance,
say you had 2 strength 10 units and you were trying to defeat a strength 20 unit, one unit has a plus 50% to itself and one unit had a -50% to opponent promotion.
the first unit would increase its strength to 15 but woudl not be as strong as the opponents 20

the second unit would have its strength at 10 but woudl reduce its opponents to 10 as well so its more likely to suceed

alot of ingame promotions already debuff your enemies strength instead of adding to your own(but only % wise) other stuff that would effect base strength is mostly resistence/immune