What if infantry can fortify and not tanks, and the fortify bonus is a lot more than 25%?
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Suggested EXISTING rule edits to improve realism or gameplay.
- Thread starter Mojotronica
- Start date
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
That is a BRILLIANT idea mrtn!
It's historically correct for both the reasons you give....
....in the Middle Ages everybody (except for a few small places like Venice & Genoa) WAS a monarchy. As for the Romans, well, they may have called themselves a 'Republic', but under the emperors they were more like a despotic monarchy, as the people had no say whatsoever.
Plus, as you mentioned, this would also slow down the the tech race to something a bit more realistic.
(Mind you, I did have a laugh at your screen shot.
The sight of Democracy coming after the invention of the toilet....
Perhaps Sanitation should come after Democracy, and give us all somewhere to put politician's promises.
)To Steph,
"Only allowing foot troops to fortify": ANOTHER brilliant idea!
Of course, some people will say that tanks can be fortified by placing them in a hull-down position in a tank pit, and some mounted troops like Knights and ACW Cavalry could dismount and take up defensive positions behind walls & hedges....
...but I think that is a small sacrifice to pay for giving the old Civ3 combat system a good kick in the right direction.
This would also help to differentiate between units with the same defence values but different roles on the battlefield.
(Knights and Pikemen both have a defence of 3, so some people use Knights all the time and rarely build Pikemen.
But if Pikemen can increase their defence factor by fortifying, while Knights cannot.....
)It's a shame that the sentry command fails to work if you remove the ability to fortify.
If you can't fortify them, and sentry dosen't work, then the poor old space bar is going to recieve a bashing.
While we are on this subject, could someone please explain to me how on earth you can fortify chariots and elephants?
Yes, charioteers could dismount I suppose, but then they wouldn't be much good, and their defence should go down, not up....but ELEPHANTS?!
What do you do....put an elephant in a trench so that only the trunk is showing?
Attachments
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Tech Tree Turmoil
-------------------
As I have spammed several times in the past, there are some glaring historical anomalies in the Civ3 tech tree.
Here are some of them (yet again!):-
Pikemen came AFTER Knights, not before them!
Medieval Pikemen were historically used about the same time as Longbows (which only the English used in reality), some 200 hundred years after Knights, and were introduced because feudal foot soldiers got fed up with being trampled!
So I like to make Chivalry a prerequisite for Invention instead of Feudalism, and put Pikemen and Crossbowmen with the English only Longbowmen (this makes sure that Knights come first).
There are now several excellent player created units available to put into the Feudalism slot, which I like to call Feudal Levies.
This looks far better from an historical point of view.
Cannons came BEFORE Musketmen, not after!
There is some evidence that early Cannons (called Bombards) were present at Crecy in 1346, and Henry V certainly used them in the siege of Harfleur before going to fight the battle of Agincourt in 1415. And of course the Ottoman Turks used them to break down the Walls of Constantinople in 1453.
All this was over a hundred years before the Spanish used Arquebusiers (which is what the Civ3 figure looks like) at the battle of Pavia in 1525!
Cannons should come with Gunpowder....or maybe leave them where they are and add a new unit called a Bombard in the Gunpowder slot.
Either way, Musketmen should come later, with say Chemistry.
(If the above looks petty....well maybe it is.
But Im sure that people would complain if missiles became available just 35 years earlier, before monoplanes and tanks! )
The Death Of The Immortals (!)
--------------------------------
Most of you already know my feelings about the Immortals being far too powerful in Civ3 than they ever were in reality. But as this is a thread about ideas for more realism, I thought that I would include it here.
First, the Immortals were formed in 530BC, and disappeared in 479BC after being destroyed in the battle of Plataea by the Spartan & Athenian Hoplites.
So they only existed for some 50 years, or just two Civ3 turns!
Second, there were just 10,000 of them, no more, no less, which means that they only make up some 5% of the total Persian army.
Lastly, they were never reformed after 479BC because the Persians hired mercenary Hoplites instead, because these were better (Alexander the Great never met them for example).
Having huge stacks of these running about for hundreds of years is about as realistic as the Americans, English and French building Samurai!
A more detailed description can be found in post 9 of this thread .
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37256&pagenumber=1
Keeping Up With The Latest Fashions: Animations That Change With Time
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, Settlers & Workers change their appearance in different eras.
Well, so can other units. Their name wont change, nor will their stats, but they can be made to look different with the passing of time.
If Spearmen were renamed as say City Militia, then perhaps there would be less people whinging about them defeating Modern Armor if in the Modern Times they looked like civilians with automatic weapons and Molotov cocktails in their hands.
Here is a thread explaining how this can be done....
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45968
ZOC Is For ME
--------------
Zones of Control in Civ3 is very limited in its effects compared to its function in Civ2.
All it does is SOMETIMES (i.e. never when you want it to) cause a single hit-point loss on an enemy unit that tries to move pass it (only about 25% of the time I find).
Still, limited as it is, the question is .what units should have the ZOC ability? (all units in Fortresses have it automatically, as should Coastal Fortresses against ships).
There seems to be two schools of thought:-
(1) Give it to all fast moving light mounted units, but not heavies like Elephants & Knights.
(This represents mounted troops cutting down stragglers & foragers from an enemy column as it marches passed, with no risk to themselves)
(2) Give it to all long range missile troops and skirmishers such as javelinmen/slingers/archers/light infantry.
(This represents skirmishers pelting a passing enemy column at no risk to themselves, as the column is too busy marching to shoot back)
Personally, I prefer method number 2, as it gives a special unit ability to an important historical troop type: skirmishers.
This helps to create combined-arms formations, where each specialized unit .foot, mounted and skirmisher .has a particular role to play on the battlefield.
(Ill outline my ideas about skirmishers in a later post)
A Colossal Number of Colosseums
------------------------------------
(This is only a silly little suggestion, but I thought Id mention it anyway)
How many Colosseums were built in reality?....er....one, in Rome.
How many cities have Stadiums, especially SPORTS Stadiums?....er....thousands!
So change the name of the Colosseum to Stadium, because it looks really odd having a working gladiatorial arena in the middle of a modern democratic city!
(Anyway, in Britain football stadiums ARE sometimes like gladiatorial arenas! )
-------------------
As I have spammed several times in the past, there are some glaring historical anomalies in the Civ3 tech tree.
Here are some of them (yet again!):-
Pikemen came AFTER Knights, not before them!
Medieval Pikemen were historically used about the same time as Longbows (which only the English used in reality), some 200 hundred years after Knights, and were introduced because feudal foot soldiers got fed up with being trampled!
So I like to make Chivalry a prerequisite for Invention instead of Feudalism, and put Pikemen and Crossbowmen with the English only Longbowmen (this makes sure that Knights come first).
There are now several excellent player created units available to put into the Feudalism slot, which I like to call Feudal Levies.
This looks far better from an historical point of view.
Cannons came BEFORE Musketmen, not after!
There is some evidence that early Cannons (called Bombards) were present at Crecy in 1346, and Henry V certainly used them in the siege of Harfleur before going to fight the battle of Agincourt in 1415. And of course the Ottoman Turks used them to break down the Walls of Constantinople in 1453.
All this was over a hundred years before the Spanish used Arquebusiers (which is what the Civ3 figure looks like) at the battle of Pavia in 1525!
Cannons should come with Gunpowder....or maybe leave them where they are and add a new unit called a Bombard in the Gunpowder slot.
Either way, Musketmen should come later, with say Chemistry.
(If the above looks petty....well maybe it is.
But Im sure that people would complain if missiles became available just 35 years earlier, before monoplanes and tanks!
)The Death Of The Immortals (!)
--------------------------------
Most of you already know my feelings about the Immortals being far too powerful in Civ3 than they ever were in reality. But as this is a thread about ideas for more realism, I thought that I would include it here.
First, the Immortals were formed in 530BC, and disappeared in 479BC after being destroyed in the battle of Plataea by the Spartan & Athenian Hoplites.
So they only existed for some 50 years, or just two Civ3 turns!
Second, there were just 10,000 of them, no more, no less, which means that they only make up some 5% of the total Persian army.
Lastly, they were never reformed after 479BC because the Persians hired mercenary Hoplites instead, because these were better (Alexander the Great never met them for example).
Having huge stacks of these running about for hundreds of years is about as realistic as the Americans, English and French building Samurai!
A more detailed description can be found in post 9 of this thread .
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37256&pagenumber=1
Keeping Up With The Latest Fashions: Animations That Change With Time
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, Settlers & Workers change their appearance in different eras.
Well, so can other units. Their name wont change, nor will their stats, but they can be made to look different with the passing of time.
If Spearmen were renamed as say City Militia, then perhaps there would be less people whinging about them defeating Modern Armor if in the Modern Times they looked like civilians with automatic weapons and Molotov cocktails in their hands.
Here is a thread explaining how this can be done....
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45968
ZOC Is For ME
--------------
Zones of Control in Civ3 is very limited in its effects compared to its function in Civ2.
All it does is SOMETIMES (i.e. never when you want it to) cause a single hit-point loss on an enemy unit that tries to move pass it (only about 25% of the time I find).
Still, limited as it is, the question is .what units should have the ZOC ability? (all units in Fortresses have it automatically, as should Coastal Fortresses against ships).
There seems to be two schools of thought:-
(1) Give it to all fast moving light mounted units, but not heavies like Elephants & Knights.
(This represents mounted troops cutting down stragglers & foragers from an enemy column as it marches passed, with no risk to themselves)
(2) Give it to all long range missile troops and skirmishers such as javelinmen/slingers/archers/light infantry.
(This represents skirmishers pelting a passing enemy column at no risk to themselves, as the column is too busy marching to shoot back)
Personally, I prefer method number 2, as it gives a special unit ability to an important historical troop type: skirmishers.
This helps to create combined-arms formations, where each specialized unit .foot, mounted and skirmisher .has a particular role to play on the battlefield.
(Ill outline my ideas about skirmishers in a later post)
A Colossal Number of Colosseums
------------------------------------
(This is only a silly little suggestion, but I thought Id mention it anyway)
How many Colosseums were built in reality?....er....one, in Rome.
How many cities have Stadiums, especially SPORTS Stadiums?....er....thousands!
So change the name of the Colosseum to Stadium, because it looks really odd having a working gladiatorial arena in the middle of a modern democratic city!
(Anyway, in Britain football stadiums ARE sometimes like gladiatorial arenas!
)
pdescobar
Moo, baby. Moo.
Just thought I'd point out that I took my posts in that thread and one of zulu's and added a bit more detail into an actual tutorial on the subject which may be a bit clearer: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47486
Don't forget there is a bonus for hill, and a small one in plain.
So here is how it will work in my mod (figure are there just for illustration, the real stats will probably be different).
keys :
HP: hit point for standard unit
B: Bombardment (strength/range/rate of fire)
ADM : attack/defense/movement
W = wheeled
F = can fortify
Ancient/medieval
Swordman : ADM 3/2/1, 3 HP, F
Spearman : ADM 2/3/1, 3 HP, F
Archer : ADM 1/1/1, 2 HP, B 3/0/2 (support unit, can fire at coming unit, but weak), F
Horseman : ADM 4/1/2, 2 HP. Good attack, but poor defense, W
Horse archer : ADM 1/1/2, 2 HP, B 3/0/2, ZOC. Not good at attacking, but can harass, W
Catapult : ADM 0/0/1, 1 HP, B 6/1/1. W.
Pikeman : ADM 2/4/1, 3 HP, F
Knight : ADM 6/4/2, 2 HP, W. Good offense and defense (armor), but less HP ("elite class" unit).
The cavalry has a good attack, but low defense, except for armored knights. Only infantry can fortify : cavalry can defeat infantry in plain, but it's harder if the ennemy is fortified.
Renaissance/Imperialism
Harquebuse: ADM: 1/1/1, 2 HP, B 4/0/1, F. Weak unit, unable to melee, simply provide firing support (easily defeated if not protected by pikes)
Pikes: ADM: 2/5/1, 4 HP. F
Musketer: ADM: 4/3/1, 4 HP, B 5/0/1, F. With the introduction of the baionet, Musketer can defend better.
Fusillier: ADM: 5/4/1, 4 HP, B 6/0/1, F.
Grenadiers: ADM: 8/3/1, 3 HP. Very good at attack, bu not defensive bombardment. Ideal to break ennemy lines and assault cities
Light infantry: ADM: 2/2/1, 2 HP, B 4/0/2, F, ZOC. Not very powerful, but ZOC and ROF helps protecting the army
Rifleman: ADM: 8/6/1, 4 HP, F. No more defensive bombardment (due to general improvment of range)
Hussar: ADM: 5/2/3, 2 HP, W, ZOC, Blitz. Very mobile with ZOC and possibiltity to blitz (pursuite, flanking manoeuver), but not so powerful
Dragoon: ADM: 6/2/2, 2 HP, W, ZOC, B 4/0/1. Can support fire support to cavalry.
Cuirassier: ADM: 7/4/2, 2 HP, W. No ZOC nor firing, but good offense, and good defense (armored).
Cavalry: ADM: 8/3/3, 3 HP. ZOC, W. No armor, so defense a bit lower than cuirassier, but better offense, and mobile.
Canon: ADM: 0/0/1, 1 HP. B 10/1/1, W. High bombardment strength.
The cavalry cannot defend easily, but is more mobile. It is necessary to protect it with infantry for defense. Early firing infantry needs to be protected by pikes, until baionnet, square formation and other increase seriously the defense.
Infantry is still good at offense, and specialized units like grenadiers are necessary to take fortified position, with a good artillery preparation (or losses may be very high).
Modern
Infantry: 10/8/1, 4 HP, ZOC, F. No more defensive bombardment.
Machine gun: 1/4/1 , 1 HP, B 8/0/3, ZOC, F. Good ROF, medium strength, but week if left unprotected. Support unit.
AT infantry: 1/1/1, 1 HP, B 12/0/1, F, and lethal land bombardment. Unit not very useful against infantry, but bombardment strength high enought to damage attacking armor, and it kill actually kill it!
Armor: 15/12/3, 3 HP, B 10/0/1, ZOC, Blitz, W. Good defense (armored), so difficult to destroy without bombing or another armor. But cannot fortify, so weaker than fortified infantry.
Enginneer: 20/8/1, 2 HP, F. Very good offense to take fortified position, but not so good at defense (because it's a small size unit).
Commando: 8/6/2, 1 HP, F, ZOC, B 6/1/1, invisible, hidden nationality, precision bombing. Not very powerfull, but can try hit and run tactics, sabotage. Weaker than standard infantry if caught if conventional battle.
Artillery: ADM 0/0/1, 1 HP, B 15/2/1, W. High range and
bombing strength. Necessary to break fortified position.
Mortar: ADM 1/4/1, 1 HP, B 8/1/2. The only artillery unit that is not wheeled, and thus can support infantry in jungle/forest.
The armor are better than infantry, but cannot fortified and are wheeled. So infantry is still the best option to defend.
General remarks
Note that the HP varries to represent the size of the unit, not its actual strength.
So commando have only 1 HP because they are small sized unit. Same as knights with 2 HP. But the knights have a good attack / defense because of the armor, to compensate.
For terrain, the minimum cost will be 2. However, several units will ignore the cost of certain terrain (cavalry will ignore plain and grassland, camel will ignore desert, alpine troops hill and mountains, etc).
Forest, jungle and mountains will be impassable to wheeled units (so cavalry, tanks, and artillery cannot go there, only infantry).
I'm not sure I will make moutain impassable, as it may be difficult to make helicopter then, and I want to make alpine troops, that will ignore the cost of mountains.
If I could, I would make moutains impassable to all units but this to, but I don't see how I could to it.
I almost forgot something. The cost. The shield cost should be lower than it is in civ III (4 turns to build a knight? That means 100 years!). My goal is basically to have the units, except settlers, buildable in one turn (for a normally developped city), except for tanks, planes, small ships (they will need 2 turns), and bigger ships (3 turns).
However, every units will cost population:
- For infantry / cavalry : 1 point if the unit has 1 HP, 2 if it has 2 HP, 3 if it has 3 or 4 HP.
- For chariot / armor : usually 2 points
- For planes and ships : 1 point.
The upkeep cost will also be a lot higher.
So this means you will be able to build your army rather fast, but:
- It will take a big toll on your population
- It will be very expensive to maintain.
So, how to solve it?
First, build your army to the limit of free maintenance for protection. When you need to attack, build fast a new army, fight short wars, and when the war is over, go back to the cities, and... join it! Every unit will have the join city command, to represent demobilization.
I also plan to use munits :
- For ancient infantry : 2 figures for 1 HP units, 3-4 figures for 2 HP units, 5-6 figures for 3 or 4 HP units.
- For modern infantry : 2 figures for 1 HP units, 3 figures for 2 or 3 HP units, 4 figures for 3 or 4 HP units.
- For cavalry: 2 figures for 1 HP units, 3 figures for others
- For tanks, planes : 2 figures
- For ship : 1 figure
So here is how it will work in my mod (figure are there just for illustration, the real stats will probably be different).
keys :
HP: hit point for standard unit
B: Bombardment (strength/range/rate of fire)
ADM : attack/defense/movement
W = wheeled
F = can fortify
Ancient/medieval
Swordman : ADM 3/2/1, 3 HP, F
Spearman : ADM 2/3/1, 3 HP, F
Archer : ADM 1/1/1, 2 HP, B 3/0/2 (support unit, can fire at coming unit, but weak), F
Horseman : ADM 4/1/2, 2 HP. Good attack, but poor defense, W
Horse archer : ADM 1/1/2, 2 HP, B 3/0/2, ZOC. Not good at attacking, but can harass, W
Catapult : ADM 0/0/1, 1 HP, B 6/1/1. W.
Pikeman : ADM 2/4/1, 3 HP, F
Knight : ADM 6/4/2, 2 HP, W. Good offense and defense (armor), but less HP ("elite class" unit).
The cavalry has a good attack, but low defense, except for armored knights. Only infantry can fortify : cavalry can defeat infantry in plain, but it's harder if the ennemy is fortified.
Renaissance/Imperialism
Harquebuse: ADM: 1/1/1, 2 HP, B 4/0/1, F. Weak unit, unable to melee, simply provide firing support (easily defeated if not protected by pikes)
Pikes: ADM: 2/5/1, 4 HP. F
Musketer: ADM: 4/3/1, 4 HP, B 5/0/1, F. With the introduction of the baionet, Musketer can defend better.
Fusillier: ADM: 5/4/1, 4 HP, B 6/0/1, F.
Grenadiers: ADM: 8/3/1, 3 HP. Very good at attack, bu not defensive bombardment. Ideal to break ennemy lines and assault cities
Light infantry: ADM: 2/2/1, 2 HP, B 4/0/2, F, ZOC. Not very powerful, but ZOC and ROF helps protecting the army
Rifleman: ADM: 8/6/1, 4 HP, F. No more defensive bombardment (due to general improvment of range)
Hussar: ADM: 5/2/3, 2 HP, W, ZOC, Blitz. Very mobile with ZOC and possibiltity to blitz (pursuite, flanking manoeuver), but not so powerful
Dragoon: ADM: 6/2/2, 2 HP, W, ZOC, B 4/0/1. Can support fire support to cavalry.
Cuirassier: ADM: 7/4/2, 2 HP, W. No ZOC nor firing, but good offense, and good defense (armored).
Cavalry: ADM: 8/3/3, 3 HP. ZOC, W. No armor, so defense a bit lower than cuirassier, but better offense, and mobile.
Canon: ADM: 0/0/1, 1 HP. B 10/1/1, W. High bombardment strength.
The cavalry cannot defend easily, but is more mobile. It is necessary to protect it with infantry for defense. Early firing infantry needs to be protected by pikes, until baionnet, square formation and other increase seriously the defense.
Infantry is still good at offense, and specialized units like grenadiers are necessary to take fortified position, with a good artillery preparation (or losses may be very high).
Modern
Infantry: 10/8/1, 4 HP, ZOC, F. No more defensive bombardment.
Machine gun: 1/4/1 , 1 HP, B 8/0/3, ZOC, F. Good ROF, medium strength, but week if left unprotected. Support unit.
AT infantry: 1/1/1, 1 HP, B 12/0/1, F, and lethal land bombardment. Unit not very useful against infantry, but bombardment strength high enought to damage attacking armor, and it kill actually kill it!
Armor: 15/12/3, 3 HP, B 10/0/1, ZOC, Blitz, W. Good defense (armored), so difficult to destroy without bombing or another armor. But cannot fortify, so weaker than fortified infantry.
Enginneer: 20/8/1, 2 HP, F. Very good offense to take fortified position, but not so good at defense (because it's a small size unit).
Commando: 8/6/2, 1 HP, F, ZOC, B 6/1/1, invisible, hidden nationality, precision bombing. Not very powerfull, but can try hit and run tactics, sabotage. Weaker than standard infantry if caught if conventional battle.
Artillery: ADM 0/0/1, 1 HP, B 15/2/1, W. High range and
bombing strength. Necessary to break fortified position.
Mortar: ADM 1/4/1, 1 HP, B 8/1/2. The only artillery unit that is not wheeled, and thus can support infantry in jungle/forest.
The armor are better than infantry, but cannot fortified and are wheeled. So infantry is still the best option to defend.
General remarks
Note that the HP varries to represent the size of the unit, not its actual strength.
So commando have only 1 HP because they are small sized unit. Same as knights with 2 HP. But the knights have a good attack / defense because of the armor, to compensate.
For terrain, the minimum cost will be 2. However, several units will ignore the cost of certain terrain (cavalry will ignore plain and grassland, camel will ignore desert, alpine troops hill and mountains, etc).
Forest, jungle and mountains will be impassable to wheeled units (so cavalry, tanks, and artillery cannot go there, only infantry).
I'm not sure I will make moutain impassable, as it may be difficult to make helicopter then, and I want to make alpine troops, that will ignore the cost of mountains.
If I could, I would make moutains impassable to all units but this to, but I don't see how I could to it.
I almost forgot something. The cost. The shield cost should be lower than it is in civ III (4 turns to build a knight? That means 100 years!). My goal is basically to have the units, except settlers, buildable in one turn (for a normally developped city), except for tanks, planes, small ships (they will need 2 turns), and bigger ships (3 turns).
However, every units will cost population:
- For infantry / cavalry : 1 point if the unit has 1 HP, 2 if it has 2 HP, 3 if it has 3 or 4 HP.
- For chariot / armor : usually 2 points
- For planes and ships : 1 point.
The upkeep cost will also be a lot higher.
So this means you will be able to build your army rather fast, but:
- It will take a big toll on your population
- It will be very expensive to maintain.
So, how to solve it?
First, build your army to the limit of free maintenance for protection. When you need to attack, build fast a new army, fight short wars, and when the war is over, go back to the cities, and... join it! Every unit will have the join city command, to represent demobilization.
I also plan to use munits :
- For ancient infantry : 2 figures for 1 HP units, 3-4 figures for 2 HP units, 5-6 figures for 3 or 4 HP units.
- For modern infantry : 2 figures for 1 HP units, 3 figures for 2 or 3 HP units, 4 figures for 3 or 4 HP units.
- For cavalry: 2 figures for 1 HP units, 3 figures for others
- For tanks, planes : 2 figures
- For ship : 1 figure
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
I don't think spearmen should be able to bombard, they weren't using them as javelin's. Pikemen same way, I don't think they should have bombard either. Archers had ranges of 100+ meters/yards, a typical pike was maybe 6 or 7 meters/yards at MOST.
I know these are sample stats, but your Arqubeus is useless...the Pikeman has attack and defense, and same bombard stats.
AI won't use defensive bombard units the way they are meant to be used (its been playtested for ACW).
I know these are sample stats, but your Arqubeus is useless...the Pikeman has attack and defense, and same bombard stats.
AI won't use defensive bombard units the way they are meant to be used (its been playtested for ACW).
The bombardment for spearmen and pikemen is just a trick to give them a kind of "first strike" capabilities to damage cavalry before it can get in contact.
Harquebuse appears at the same time as pikes. So they are a bit different : they provide defensive fire, when pikes do not. And Harquebuse are better than archer. Beside, they cost 2 population, when pikes cost 3.
Perhaps I could completly remove the bombardment for the spearman / pikes, this way the archer/harquebuse would be more interesting?
alpha wolf 64
Byte me
how does the AI react? Thats always the hardest part of changes is that the AI just is too hardcoded in what units it builds.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
Pikeman : ADM 2/4/1, 3 HP, B 4/0/1 (longer pike), F
Harquebuse: ADM: 1/1/1, 2 HP, B 4/0/1, F. Weak unit, unable to melee, simply provide firing support (easily defeated if not protected by pikes)
Please explain how Harquebuse provide defensive fire that Pikeman don't? I see the Harquebuse as MUCH weaker than the Pikeman, and I know I'd never build one (and neither would the AI).
I wasn't disputing that Harquebuse were better than Archers, I was just citing an example of range (Harquebuses I believe were accurate to a few hundred meters/yards).
I think eliminating Spearmen/Pikeman bombard would be good, yes. Their ability to fortify (while Cavalry cannot) should give them an advantage.
I really really like though the overall setup of how you're doing these units. In many ways its similar to how I've set up units for ACW.
Alpha wolf 64: The AI will not use them for defensive bombard...they will use them as regular melee if they have attack/defense, otherwise they are practically useless to the AI unless they happen to be in a stack with non-defensive bombard units and get attacked.
The only units in ACW which have defensive bombard are Fortress Gun and Heavy Fortress Gun (both of which are immobile, and the Fortress Guns at the start of the scenario are all placed with at least 1 other immobile unit).
Harquebuse: ADM: 1/1/1, 2 HP, B 4/0/1, F. Weak unit, unable to melee, simply provide firing support (easily defeated if not protected by pikes)
Please explain how Harquebuse provide defensive fire that Pikeman don't? I see the Harquebuse as MUCH weaker than the Pikeman, and I know I'd never build one (and neither would the AI).
I wasn't disputing that Harquebuse were better than Archers, I was just citing an example of range (Harquebuses I believe were accurate to a few hundred meters/yards).
I think eliminating Spearmen/Pikeman bombard would be good, yes. Their ability to fortify (while Cavalry cannot) should give them an advantage.
I really really like though the overall setup of how you're doing these units. In many ways its similar to how I've set up units for ACW.
Alpha wolf 64: The AI will not use them for defensive bombard...they will use them as regular melee if they have attack/defense, otherwise they are practically useless to the AI unless they happen to be in a stack with non-defensive bombard units and get attacked.
The only units in ACW which have defensive bombard are Fortress Gun and Heavy Fortress Gun (both of which are immobile, and the Fortress Guns at the start of the scenario are all placed with at least 1 other immobile unit).
Tanks should be able to bombard.
The tech tree should have many more non-essential technologies that unlock unique units/improvements - allowing each civilisation to appear totally different to each other, without any civilisation falling hopelessly behind in the technology race.
For example, the ability to build frigate should come bundled with an essential tech but Man-O-War should be an off-shoot. Similarly, if you like rifles there should be a cooler rifle available to those who are prepared to spend more time in investigating related technologies... you get my drift?
The tech tree should have many more non-essential technologies that unlock unique units/improvements - allowing each civilisation to appear totally different to each other, without any civilisation falling hopelessly behind in the technology race.
For example, the ability to build frigate should come bundled with an essential tech but Man-O-War should be an off-shoot. Similarly, if you like rifles there should be a cooler rifle available to those who are prepared to spend more time in investigating related technologies... you get my drift?
Combat automatically involves units than can bombard when defending, and AI generally keeps it's artillery inside cities. Therefore, AI has no need to use bombard.
This is really pathetic in modifications where you might want offensive units that can also bombard (i.e. some tanks), where AI simply won't use the bombard feature unless you attack something else occupying the same square as that tank.
alpha wolf 64
Byte me
i tried to give the tanks a bombard range of 1 once, and in the few games that I played, only once did the AI bombard with a tank. It seems that the AI wont even bombard with artillery. I took a city with 3 artillery in it, and even tho it took turns, the AI didnt bombard me once. with the AI 's total lack of artillery knowledge, I'm almost tempted to remove them from the game.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
You're got some excellent ideas in there Steph.
I particularly like the way you have mortars being the only artillery type unit that can enter forests & jungle....very realistic.
And I like the idea of limiting mounted troops (be they on horseback or on armoured vehicles) from being fortified or able to enter difficult terrain such as forests & jungle.
I do have some observations however.
Similar to what Procifica said, I don't think that giving defensive bombardment to Musket units (other than skirmishers) is a good idea.
What happens if they should meet more modern units, such as Riflemen?
How come Musket armed units get a defensive bombardment, but Riflemen, with their longer range, do not?
And I understand what you are trying to achieve by giving various units different hit-points, and this is a good idea .if they were fixed and unalterable.
But hit-points increase as the unit achieves more and more victories.
Would this not turn some of your units, who already have high attack & defence factors, into super-units once they have a few victories under their belt?
Last of all, I think that the idea of making units require population in order to be built has been tried, but there is a danger of the AI reducing all their cities down to one population. And I doubt that the AI will realise that it can add these to a city after a war is over, simulating demobilisation. If anything, the AI would probably cram units into a threatened front line city (already reduced to one population by building units), then add them to the city, leaving hardly anyone left to fight.
pdescobar
Moo, baby. Moo.
Just felt I should point out that HP can indeed be "fixed and unalterable" if you set the base hp for all 4 experience levels to be the same. In that situation, unit experience upgrades do nothing to the hit point count. While I myself have only done that when running combat tests, HP systems such as Steph's may benefit from it in actual play. Of course that greatly reduces the usefulness of experience levels, but there's still the retreat bonus and the great leader appearance to come out of them so they aren't completely nullified.
I've noticed more than that. Not only will the AI mine Plains forests, but in time will replace all irrigated Plains land with mined Forests, choking population growth. I've managed to get around that by changing the Worker job for that terrain type to "Clear Forest" instead of "Plant Forest" Unfortunately it solves the problem by not allowing me to plant Forests there at all anymore.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
Quote: And I understand what you are trying to achieve by giving various units different hit-points, and this is a good idea
.if they were fixed and unalterable.
But hit-points increase as the unit achieves more and more victories.
Would this not turn some of your units, who already have high attack & defence factors, into super-units once they have a few victories under their belt?
I like the way he's done HP as well. Its very similar to what I've done in ACW, though in ACW there is one major difference. HP in my scenario, represents X amount of men. As a unit gains "experience", its able to recruit more men and the "commander of the unit" so to speak, is able to handle a larger body of troops. Its more abstract in nature, but it is somewhat realistic. So units like Skirmishers, have less HP (they generally were regimental in size, while a base unit in ACW is brigade sized). Ironclads, have more HP to represent that it took more hits to sink or disable one, than a normal wooden ship (like a Frigate). Steph is doing pretty much the same concept, just different representation.
But hit-points increase as the unit achieves more and more victories.
Would this not turn some of your units, who already have high attack & defence factors, into super-units once they have a few victories under their belt?
I like the way he's done HP as well. Its very similar to what I've done in ACW, though in ACW there is one major difference. HP in my scenario, represents X amount of men. As a unit gains "experience", its able to recruit more men and the "commander of the unit" so to speak, is able to handle a larger body of troops. Its more abstract in nature, but it is somewhat realistic. So units like Skirmishers, have less HP (they generally were regimental in size, while a base unit in ACW is brigade sized). Ironclads, have more HP to represent that it took more hits to sink or disable one, than a normal wooden ship (like a Frigate). Steph is doing pretty much the same concept, just different representation.
Well I'd like to take credit for that one but I can't be entirely positive about that.
Another useful addition to this is altering the movement rates for water squares, i.e 1 movement for Coast, 2 for Sea, 3 for Ocean. Then adding the "All Terrain as Roads" flag for later ocean going ships. This is also useful for Ironclads as well. A number of people have complained about how quickly Frigates etc. become obsolete in the game, so adding those changes makes them useful even after the coming of Ironclads.
It's a bit more complex. Defense = capability of a unit to avoid taking damage. HP = capability of a unit to remain on the battlefield when taking damage.
So a small size unit as less HP than a big unit (at the same level of experience). But when the unit gain experience, it gains also HP, not because it has more people, but because it can still fight with more losses.
Ex: Standard infantry = 3000 troops, 3 HP. We can suppose it is "destroyed" when it takes 50% losses. So losing 3 HP means it has taken 1500 casualties, everyone is running (check Kryten munits animations for death : all of them are not dead!). With an increase of experience, it gains a 4 HP. This means the units could take 2000 casualties instead of 1500 before being virtually destroyed.
Specialized infantry now have 2000 troops (2 HP). It is destroyed when 2 HP have been taken (1000 deads). With a 3rd HP, it remains on the battle field after 1500 deads.
Here it's just some "tricks" to try to go around the limitation of the game engine.
I try to design armies relatively to each other for roughly the same era.
This means that I try to give specificities to archer and musket relatively to pikemen. This abilities is defensive bombardment.
When riflemen appears, pikemen should not exists anymore, so it's not necessary to give this kind of bonus to infantry : everybody has the same range. But the bonus is transferred to machine gun and AT infantry : they became the new support unit.
If I remove the bombardment bonus for musket, then why not remove it for archer? What will be the use of archer and harquebuse then? ATTACK troops like in CivIII? What battle has been won by ATTACKING archers ??
Similar threads
