Solver's unofficial BtS 3.17 patch
- Thread starter Solver
- Start date
Roland Johansen
Deity
I also vote for removing the collateral damage promotions from tanks and modern armours. I've used all of the promotions available to tanks in my various games but always found the collateral damage promotions the weirdest promotions for tanks. I just don't see them as units that inflict an area type of damage like artillery, bombers or battleships do.
I also don't think it would hurt gameplay when this promotion line was removed from tanks and modern armor. It would mean that for land based collateral damage, you'd need artillery and mobile artillery. That means that WW2 type warfare is a bit slower than modern warfare if you use artillery instead of bombers and that is also a nice variation in warfare and fairly realistic. Fast moving artillery like units weren't typical in WW2. Tough targets thus take a little more time to conquer with the WW2 type units compared to modern units which is ok.
I also don't think it would hurt gameplay when this promotion line was removed from tanks and modern armor. It would mean that for land based collateral damage, you'd need artillery and mobile artillery. That means that WW2 type warfare is a bit slower than modern warfare if you use artillery instead of bombers and that is also a nice variation in warfare and fairly realistic. Fast moving artillery like units weren't typical in WW2. Tough targets thus take a little more time to conquer with the WW2 type units compared to modern units which is ok.
Tanks without barrage are a game-killer for me (though admittedly the 1st option, enabling them insignificant amounts of collateral damage is not much better). It means I'll have to rely on the slow artillery for collateral until much later in the game. Mobile artillery is really a companion to modern armor, not tanks. Anti-tank units were enough of a nerf for tanks 
Oranges, you can try to get Mobile Artillery faster so that you can still can use it with Tanks. Another option is to use Bombers, those can certainly be around in time for Tanks (or before) and do massive collateral.
DanF5771
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,194
Nooo please don't remove it -- there should be a better and rather easy way to fix this. Just like Krikkitone suggested in the "Is Barrage broken" thread and what my XML-trick tried to mimic:
1. Let iCollateralStrength be the baseCombatStr of the attacker (28 for tanks), so iStrengthFactor and thus the initial iCollateralDamage is dependent on the strength ratio of attacker vs defender (and not always 3 as it is now).
2. Let iModifier start from collateralDamage() (so from 0 for tanks, 100 for siege, 50 for battleships) and change according to getExtraCollateralDamage().
3. IMHO further consideration of the defender's protection from collateral damage (bunkers for air strikes, Drill II-IV always) should not be applied in an additive way as it is implemented now, but rather as a scaling factor. Currently a Battleship should not be able to scratch (collaterally) a Drill IV Destroyer as 50%-60%<0.
4. If the consensus should be that Barrage on tanks is overpowered one could introduce another downscaling for UNITCOMBAT_ARMOR.
1. Let iCollateralStrength be the baseCombatStr of the attacker (28 for tanks), so iStrengthFactor and thus the initial iCollateralDamage is dependent on the strength ratio of attacker vs defender (and not always 3 as it is now).
2. Let iModifier start from collateralDamage() (so from 0 for tanks, 100 for siege, 50 for battleships) and change according to getExtraCollateralDamage().
3. IMHO further consideration of the defender's protection from collateral damage (bunkers for air strikes, Drill II-IV always) should not be applied in an additive way as it is implemented now, but rather as a scaling factor. Currently a Battleship should not be able to scratch (collaterally) a Drill IV Destroyer as 50%-60%<0.
4. If the consensus should be that Barrage on tanks is overpowered one could introduce another downscaling for UNITCOMBAT_ARMOR.
DrJambo
Crash-test dummy
I agree with removing the barrage promotion from armour. It's unnecessary.
I also think the capitulation cap is a little low; perhaps somewhere in between the old value and the one in 3.17 would be ideal? One upside is it does raise some extremely nasty AI empires; the downside obviously being that it's equally easy for the human too.
I also think the capitulation cap is a little low; perhaps somewhere in between the old value and the one in 3.17 would be ideal? One upside is it does raise some extremely nasty AI empires; the downside obviously being that it's equally easy for the human too.
Well add me to the chorus that thinks Barrage should simply be removed from the Armored line. They're powerful enough and that will force the player into a more combined arms approach. As it stood, Tanks were becoming like the Howitzers of Civ 2.
I played a game with 3.17 where I kicked Louis until he had lossed his capital city and I had pushed him off of our main continent. he had another 5-7 cities on islands...he didn't capitulate.
In the same game I tore into tokoguwa and his vassal, Lincoln, I got along very well with lincon but Toku hated me. WHen i attacked i took a couple of Lincon cities and he broke off from Toku and was ready to capitulate to me. I kept on wading into toku and eventually he gave in with about 7 cites left.
I was a little surprised a that Louis did not ccapitulate.
I think this topic needs to be given some time for observation.
I personally don't see why it was changed from 3.13. I was already having some civs capitulate after taking only two cities so I don't really understand why it has to be even easier. Maybe tone down some of the more stubborn leaders, but for the most part I think it was fine the way it was.
Bombers are normally top priority for me if on the offensive, but they were also nerfed by the endlessly intercepting fighters and the limit on the number of aircraft in a single city
All my favorite units are becoming less useful. I'll stop patching 
What happens when a fighter intercepts a bomber? The bomber does no damage to the city?? But if that's the case, then the fighter usually gets injured too, right? Besides, bombers have higher strength, and stealth fighters can avoid interception. So I don't see the big problem.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
I was thinking if barrage promotions by multiplying and with tanks they multiply by zero, then the only way to fix it would be to create another form of the barrage promotion that adds instead of multiplies collateral damage and have only armour use it.
If tanks are overpowered or too easily fit any role then their barrage should probably be removed although it does seem like something they should have. I'd prefer they be better balanced while still having barrage available, but just removing barrage is a far easier way to balance rather than fiddling with power, cost or other numbers.
If tanks are overpowered or too easily fit any role then their barrage should probably be removed although it does seem like something they should have. I'd prefer they be better balanced while still having barrage available, but just removing barrage is a far easier way to balance rather than fiddling with power, cost or other numbers.
I do use Tanks a lot... which is part of why I want to remove Barrage from themWill make me pay more attention to other units.
Hi
I am not trying to be difficult here but I dont understand the logic in something like that. Tanks being barrage capable doesnt FORCE anyone to go that direction. If the game is more fun for them to use different units or diff promotions they still could even if barage does work.
So having the option of barage working for tanks like it did pre 3.17 just means those who used that option still can and those who prefer to play a different way are also free to do so.
So it isnt really an argument that one doesnt like the idea of playing certain way since NOTHING is stopping them from doing so, it is closer to say they prefer a certain style and dont like the idea of OTHERS being able to play a different way so want the option of choosing taken away.
And like I said before taking barage away from tanks will nothing to encourage the use of mobile artillery. Since in game time terms, once you get tanks mobile artillery is still DECADES away.
Bombers and ships cant go everywhere so wanting a fast landbased collateral dam unit for late game wars would now mean putting off wars for dozens or even (on marathon at least) hundreds of turns and even then game will be 90% over which I think is HUGE impact on gamestyle.
A greater impact than the impact barrage tanks had before warrants.
I mean it isnt like tanks were so overpowered that people were complaining how tanks with barrage were just ruining game play. Other units are still necessay and helpful. And it's not like hall of fame games or something is being dominated by strategy of people who wait to go to war till industrialism is teched and then use ONLY tanks (with baraage or otherwise). Or that barrage tanks were allowing people who otherwise wouldnt be able to get higher than dan quayle on settler beat diety with no problem.
I really dont think tanks with barrage have never been game breakers, they have just been an available option to choose if that is what someone prefers.
So really it is just a matter of taste. And if player A prefers not to use barrage on armor for whatever reason in thier games but person B does enjoy barrage tanks in their games having the option to do so or not allows both to play the way they enjoy and I dont see how forcing player B to play like A makes the game more fun for B. Nor do I see how allowing player B the option to use barrage if they so chose makes the game any less fun for A.
I am not saying there are NO arguments for taking away barage from tanks I am just saying I dont see how saying having that option means someone CANT not choose it if thats what they prefer to play is a valid one since nothing is stopping them from going another direction if they so choose.
Kaytie
Sorry oranges, those changes to air combat are also my doingI still think those were really needed.
If you're also behind paras not being able to attack on the same turn when they drop, I'll start making a voodoo doll
Kaytie,
Sure enough, generally having options is good. But in designing a strategy game, what you generally want is to have options that are approximately equally good and viable. To make an extreme example: say you could build Chariots in the Modern Age. It'd be an option, but not something you would ever want to do just because it's useless. Barrage Tanks have the opposite problem. If you want collateral damage, promoting some Tanks with Barrage is just much better than anything else. Artillery is slow and Mobile Artillery is weak in direct combat - so you can promote Tanks with Barrage and use all-Tank armies with air support, whereas one of the goals in Civ4 is to try and encourage the use of combined arms.
For example, that is why the Chariot attack bonus against Axemen was added in Warlords. Before that, Chariots weren't used enough and early armies would consist of exclusively Axemen too often. I feel this is somewhat similar.
And Bombers can go anywhere, almost. The most important thing is to capture the first enemy city. After that, you can send 4 Bombers there and you'll have good air coverage that grows quickly as you capture more cities.
I definitely see your point, though. It's just that after giving it some thought now I believe that removing Barrage from armored units would be better game design, and apparently most agree to that. In any case, if I do it for this update, you can just not use that particular change if you really don't like it
Sure enough, generally having options is good. But in designing a strategy game, what you generally want is to have options that are approximately equally good and viable. To make an extreme example: say you could build Chariots in the Modern Age. It'd be an option, but not something you would ever want to do just because it's useless. Barrage Tanks have the opposite problem. If you want collateral damage, promoting some Tanks with Barrage is just much better than anything else. Artillery is slow and Mobile Artillery is weak in direct combat - so you can promote Tanks with Barrage and use all-Tank armies with air support, whereas one of the goals in Civ4 is to try and encourage the use of combined arms.
For example, that is why the Chariot attack bonus against Axemen was added in Warlords. Before that, Chariots weren't used enough and early armies would consist of exclusively Axemen too often. I feel this is somewhat similar.
And Bombers can go anywhere, almost. The most important thing is to capture the first enemy city. After that, you can send 4 Bombers there and you'll have good air coverage that grows quickly as you capture more cities.
I definitely see your point, though. It's just that after giving it some thought now I believe that removing Barrage from armored units would be better game design, and apparently most agree to that. In any case, if I do it for this update, you can just not use that particular change if you really don't like it
It's too late to change the official patch, Kaytie, so what's the point in arguing when Solver here clearly states here that he doesn't want to go in a different direction than Firaxis and roll the patch backwards?
And just as Solver says, this is also about simplicity. I could name a dozen options that would be hardly beneficial, but still options. I think this is a very good point. For the average player, simplicity matters. To be blunt, let's call it "noob friendly", since he doesn't risk using his promotion on something almost useless. The same goes for the AI I suppose.
I also agree very much to the point of "combined arms". Really, it's about prohibiting the use of only one unit that can do everything on it's own, just like the Howitzer in Civ 2 as some people mention.
And just as Solver says, this is also about simplicity. I could name a dozen options that would be hardly beneficial, but still options. I think this is a very good point. For the average player, simplicity matters. To be blunt, let's call it "noob friendly", since he doesn't risk using his promotion on something almost useless. The same goes for the AI I suppose.
I also agree very much to the point of "combined arms". Really, it's about prohibiting the use of only one unit that can do everything on it's own, just like the Howitzer in Civ 2 as some people mention.
Hey Caboose, it's always a good thing to hear opinions, as long as they're argumented and civilized
On a different notice, could someone try this save? Load it, open the Foreign Advisor and mouseover Huayna Capac's info. Does it say that he's someone's worst enemy or not?
On a different notice, could someone try this save? Load it, open the Foreign Advisor and mouseover Huayna Capac's info. Does it say that he's someone's worst enemy or not?
Balderstrom
Emperor
Can I reraise the point, Guided Missiles have no native "Collateral Damage" value.
What is the point to building a unit that is guaranteed to be destroyed after one use, if all it does is take a couple hp off of one unit?
What is the point to building a unit that is guaranteed to be destroyed after one use, if all it does is take a couple hp off of one unit?
