Simply too imbalanced, spoilers include

UknowsI

Nybygger
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
146
Location
Korea
I've read the other's complains about balance too, and this game simple need everything re-done when it comes to combat.

Deleting your colonists to get rebel sentiments was just one "bug", but there is simply no way to not exploit this game. If you try to defend your cities they will fall right away, but if you defend from outside the city, 1 soldier and 2 cannons is enough to beat any army no matter how big it is. The AI wont attack a well defended unit and you can therefore simply stand on a defencive spot outside the city and let the cannons kill everything.

The way the game is build, combat is all about promotions. With the right promotions, you'll have >99% chance of winning every battle except against heavily fortified cities (where cannons will bring down the defence anyway). It seems like there has been no playtesting what-so-ever, and the different difficulties doesn't really make any difference at all. This game really doesn't desurve having "Civilization" in it's name, since there is very little which can resemble strategy.

But instead of picking at the problems, can we try to look for solutions? I could force myself not to exploit the game, but when picking the right promotions and taking advantage of the terrain is all that is needed, I think it's too much too ask. What can take this a little step further is to remove the REF's insane attack bonus and instead give it some way to defend it's cities. But this is really just a hot-fix to the problem. The real problems are the promotions. They are much too strong and there is no way the AI can stop a well promoted army. Simply removing the promotions would be the easiest fix, but some might feel like this is removing some of the fun of the game. Any better suggestions?
 
dunno Things like powerful Promotions are generally a good idea - u can overcome larger and stronger armies by using "the right" unit (promotion) to counter the unit u r fighting.
But like the game s actual state and the too big attack bonus on ciites from art and canons there s just 1 tactic left which is no good.
Simply removing art attacking bonus and canons to 50% and all d be fine imo.
- in combat system -
 
Not really.
100% cannon attack bonus is necessity when taking out native villaes. Especially those on hills, with natives specialized in "village" defense and hill fighting.

The only reason why cannons seem overpowered in WoI is because king troops receive no defensive bonuses, not even in cities.
No 25% from fortify, no 50-100% from fort, etc...
 
You can try changing the following Flag (Boolean Attribute) for the King's troops in file "CIV4UnitInfos.xml" from 1 to 0 :

<bNoDefensiveBonus>1</bNoDefensiveBonus>​

I didn't try it so far but the name of the flag seems like what you are looking for ...
 
The thing with the missing terrain bonuses isn't well thought-through. I like the idea that you're supposed to fight a guerilla war in the swamps, forests and so on (which is basically what happened in reality). You're not supposed to be able to hold onto your coastal cities, the REF should be too strong for that. Instead you should tackle opposing armies that don't know the land, which you can use to your advantage. On the other hand you probably shouldn't be able to beat the regular troops in a direct fight on open ground.

In my opinion it'd be best if the REF troops were stronger than yours (say 5 vs 4), Dragoons as strong as normal soldiers. Artillery should be reduced to 3 or its attack bonus lowered. All revolutionary troops should then get a good terrain bonus in woods and hills, as well as the charge promotion (think of ambushes) to kill or occasionally capture artillery. Actually I'd go even further and use a support system (similar to the first two civs) where each soldier is attached to a settlement and consume 1 food per turn (say 20-30 food free gratis for the king), 2 if moving or fighting. If a unit isn't well-provisioned, it'd starve and be damaged each turn, eventually killing it.
When losing a settlement there should also be an option for the colonists to flee the settlement which would push them to some place one or two tiles away, ready to be resupplied.
 
The thing with the missing terrain bonuses isn't well thought-through. I like the idea that you're supposed to fight a guerilla war in the swamps, forests and so on (which is basically what happened in reality). You're not supposed to be able to hold onto your coastal cities, the REF should be too strong for that. Instead you should tackle opposing armies that don't know the land, which you can use to your advantage. On the other hand you probably shouldn't be able to beat the regular troops in a direct fight on open ground.

In my opinion it'd be best if the REF troops were stronger than yours (say 5 vs 4), Dragoons as strong as normal soldiers. Artillery should be reduced to 3 or its attack bonus lowered. All revolutionary troops should then get a good terrain bonus in woods and hills, as well as the charge promotion (think of ambushes) to kill or occasionally capture artillery. Actually I'd go even further and use a support system (similar to the first two civs) where each soldier is attached to a settlement and consume 1 food per turn (say 20-30 food free gratis for the king), 2 if moving or fighting. If a unit isn't well-provisioned, it'd starve and be damaged each turn, eventually killing it.
When losing a settlement there should also be an option for the colonists to flee the settlement which would push them to some place one or two tiles away, ready to be resupplied.

Oh, man! I think the REF is overpowered as it is. As for historicity, you are thinking about the American War for Independence; but the Latin American revolutionaries managed to hold on to quite a few important coastal cities. Buenos Aires was an important centre throughout their struggle for independence. And this game isn't just about Britain's colonies in the New World.

Anyway, to my knowledge the British never managed to capture all the coastal cities either.
 
Öjevind Lång;7318160 said:
Oh, man! I think the REF is overpowered as it is. As for historicity, you are thinking about the American War for Independence; but the Latin American revolutionaries managed to hold on to quite a few important coastal cities. Buenos Aires was an important centre throughout their struggle for independence. And this game isn't just about Britain's colonies in the New World.

Anyway, to my knowledge the British never managed to capture all the coastal cities either.

True, but then again when the Southern and Central American colonies fought their wars of independence, Spain was in pretty bad shape what with Napoleon installing a new dynasty, etc.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to hold on to any coastal cities: If artillery is reduced in power, it won't be able to crush your dug-in defenders as well anymore. I don't think you should be in a state to hold your own if the REF is really determined, though - and you should definitely lose most of your less important coastal cities.

Besides, I don't think the REF is that hard right now. They can only send MOW*4 of units at a time which you can usually crush with a somewhat experienced army, even if you're not exploiting things.
 
True, but then again when the Southern and Central American colonies fought their wars of independence, Spain was in pretty bad shape what with Napoleon installing a new dynasty, etc.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to hold on to any coastal cities: If artillery is reduced in power, it won't be able to crush your dug-in defenders as well anymore. I don't think you should be in a state to hold your own if the REF is really determined, though - and you should definitely lose most of your less important coastal cities.

Besides, I don't think the REF is that hard right now. They can only send MOW*4 of units at a time which you can usually crush with a somewhat experienced army, even if you're not exploiting things.

So you think it might be a good idea to have several cities so as to use as decoys for the REF?
 
Öjevind Lång;7318238 said:
So you think it might be a good idea to have several cities so as to use as decoys for the REF?

Yep, if they divert their forces you can take on smaller armies one at a time. If not, you can use a scorched earth strategy by expelling all colonists from the city leaving them almost no gain. When their main stack is gone you can take it back (I don't think any buildings are destroyed like the cultural ones in civ, so this is not a problem here)
 
Yep, if they divert their forces you can take on smaller armies one at a time. If not, you can use a scorched earth strategy by expelling all colonists from the city leaving them almost no gain. When their main stack is gone you can take it back (I don't think any buildings are destroyed like the cultural ones in civ, so this is not a problem here)

Cool. OK, I'll use my chief city as decoy, leaving some soldiers and cannon inside it (and on a hill beside it) to take out as many as possible of them before they capture it.

A trick I learned from the AI and eman to use was John Adams simply keeping a lot of colonists parked in his cities so as not to alarm the king by the size of his army. When the time for declaring independence came, he obviously meant to arm them all after declaring, so the king couldn't increase his REF in response to it.

I take it that the size of your army also worries the king, as well as the number of bells? Every time I get a new miliyary unit, he seems to respond by adding one himself.
 
Only the bells, that's the whole problem with the main exploit people found.
 
Only the bells, that's the whole problem with the main exploit people found.

In the original game, the king simply added to his troops over time, whatever you did or didn't do. So an early revolution was definitely desirable, but you didn't have to be afraid of generating liberty bells. The way the bells are tied to the size of the king's troops in Col II is simply insane. Stupid.
 
HISTORICLY seen the games balance is GREAT.

Sea blockade, strong open ground fights, no city defense (people inside being against u dont help u holding cities!), strong artilerie which doesnt help "in the woods".
And specialised rebel troops being great in crosscountry fight and finally just purly outnumbering REF forces.

Whats maybe not so great is that u can build own cavalerie too cheap and that it s really strong.

Overall you should not attack game because u r abusing it.
When playing the game "as it s supposed" only problem is the REF scalling with bells only and espacially the early growth problem if u produce some bells
 
HISTORICLY seen the games balance is GREAT.

Sea blockade, strong open ground fights, no city defense (people inside being against u dont help u holding cities!), strong artilerie which doesnt help "in the woods".
And specialised rebel troops being great in crosscountry fight and finally just purly outnumbering REF forces.

Whats maybe not so great is that u can build own cavalerie too cheap and that it s really strong.

Overall you should not attack game because u r abusing it.
When playing the game "as it s supposed" only problem is the REF scalling with bells only and espacially the early growth problem if u produce some bells

I shouldn't attack the game because I "abuse" it when I play to win it in the way it practically dictates that I do? You mean I should deliberately use a less efficient strategy? And what would that be, anyway? I'm supposed to abandon my coastal cities - isn't that a very limited way to play? And I have to do that because that's hwo the Continetal Army went about it? If it's the way I'm "meant" to play, then I'll permanently leave the game disc in the closet, which is where I just put it. because ain its present form, it swiftly becomes boring.

I don't care if the game is "great" historically, and anway, that is only true of the American War of Independence. If that's what it's all about, the game should be renamed "Sid Meier's Revolution! 1776".
 
Does anyone know if a patch is planned, or better yet expected anytime soon?

I love the first Col & am really looking forward to this, but just like Civ and Warlords and BTS, I am waiting until the first patch before I even bother to play it. Thank you all for the play testing you are dong for people like me, who are hoping to have an enjoyable experience first time we play this, instead of squandering the joy with frustration at the bugs and poorly thought out play balance :hatsoff:
 
Overall you should not attack game because u r abusing it.
When playing the game "as it s supposed" only problem is the REF scalling with bells only and espacially the early growth problem if u produce some bells

I don't really think you can talk about "abusing" or "exploiting" the game if the things you are "abusing" are primary game features... I mean we're not talking about small oversights but about excruciatingly bad design choices.

Öjevind Lång;7321986 said:
I shouldn't attack the game because I "abuse" it when I play to win it in the way it practically dictates that I do? You mean I should deliberately use a less efficient strategy? And what would that be, anyway? I'm supposed to abandon my coastal cities - isn't that a very limited way to play? And I have to do that because that's hwo the Continetal Army went about it? If it's the way I'm "meant" to play, then I'll permanently leave the game disc in the closet, which is where I just put it. because ain its present form, it swiftly becomes boring.

I don't care if the game is "great" historically, and anway, that is only true of the American War of Independence. If that's what it's all about, the game should be renamed "Sid Meier's Revolution! 1776".

Did you ever try your hands at mods? You might want to keep an eye on the Creation and Customization forum, I guess there will be some good mods addressing many of these issues fairly soon.
 
Did you ever try your hands at mods? You might want to keep an eye on the Creation and Customization forum, I guess there will be some good mods addressing many of these issues fairly soon.

I sincerely hope so. What really annoys me most of all is that if they hadn't been lazy and careless, this could have been a great game.

I've never played a mod before, but this could be the time when that changes.
 
Öjevind Lång;7321258 said:
In the original game, the king simply added to his troops over time, whatever you did or didn't do. So an early revolution was definitely desirable, but you didn't have to be afraid of generating liberty bells. The way the bells are tied to the size of the king's troops in Col II is simply insane. Stupid.

Exactly. There are many glaring issues with this game but this is the real killer. Once you figure this one thing out the whole game is hopelessly trivialized. I've played one game since figuring this out and have had no interest since. I went from facing an REF with 200/80/80/75 to 20/6/6/6. No challenge at all.

Another issue is it's so easy to just casually take over every competing civ's major cities it's ridiculous. Make a couple dragoons, one soldier and a cannon or two and you own the new world. Pathetic.

I'm really surprised at how half-assed this game is which is in total contrast to the high quality of Civ 4 and its expansions. I hope they'll make some effort to patch this disgrace. Otherwise I'll just hope the modders can come up with something. I think there's plenty of potential but it was just not given much work.
 
I'm really surprised at how half-assed this game is which is in total contrast to the high quality of Civ 4 and its expansions. I hope they'll make some effort to patch this disgrace. Otherwise I'll just hope the modders can come up with something. I think there's plenty of potential but it was just not given much work.

That was pretty much the feeling I had. The game concept definitely has a lot of potential but many design and implementation decisions are simply bad. And I really wonder how some of those issues didn't come up during testing... they probably only tested for crashes, not for gameplay.
 
On a brigth side, game never crash! I am really apriciate that, becaus esome game companies still produce product that crashh all the time.
 
Top Bottom