The best strategy for rams and towers

[Victoria]

Autocracy doesn't amplify any strength.

Yeah my bad, should slow down my replies, tx.

 

[Turrdy]

To help clear it up and make it easy to follow they should use the keyword system that Warhammer 40k recently brought in.

So a unit like Swordsmen could be <INFANTRY> <MELEE> while Horsemen might have <CAVALRY> <MELEE> (and you can have as many as needed).
Then a Tower could easily say any <INFANTRY> unit will benefit... and obviously other rules would use other keywords.

So when you want to know if it works with X you look up X's profile and see if it has the <INFANTRY> keyword. It just helps get rid of the grey area.

pretty sure that's how it works already. Probably just a minor bug, like putting || (logical OR) instead of && (logical AND) when defining the types the Tower boosts. I mean it's a pretty huge difference if it says <INFANTRY>||<MELEE> instead of <INFANTRY>&&<MELEE>

 

[MooFreaky]

pretty sure that's how it works already. Probably just a minor bug, like putting || (logical OR) instead of && (logical AND) when defining the types the Tower boosts. I mean it's a pretty huge difference if it says <INFANTRY>||<MELEE> instead of <INFANTRY>&&<MELEE>

I meant in the description of how it works rather than the code itself. So you don't get the problems like Victoria described where it is unclear which units get which benefits from numerous rules.

 

[Karmah]

I meant in the description of how it works rather than the code itself. So you don't get the problems like Victoria described where it is unclear which units get which benefits from numerous rules.

Yeah I agree seems to me that the problem is deeper than simply a miscommunication of the used ontology of units. The data model at the heart the software is either ill-defined or badly used functionally.

 

[Olleus]

By far the simplest way of avoiding the double meaning of 'melee' is to rename the warrior/swords/ect... combat type to "shock". It also describes what they do pretty well.

But I agree, the most infuriating thing about Civ6 (after the AI) is the inability to find out what things actually do. I can't help but feel like I'm playing in the dark.

 

[UWHabs]

By far the simplest way of avoiding the double meaning of 'melee' is to rename the warrior/swords/ect... combat type to "shock". It also describes what they do pretty well.

But I agree, the most infuriating thing about Civ6 (after the AI) is the inability to find out what things actually do. I can't help but feel like I'm playing in the dark.

Yeah, they really need to fix up the definitions. It should be:
There are 2 types of combat, melee and ranged.
Unit types are in various classes: shock, anti-cav, light cav, heavy cav, bombard, and ??? (however you want to describe the archer line of units)

That way, it would be clear which bonuses refer to the type of combat (melee vs ranged), and which apply to the type of unit (warrior vs spearman, archer vs catapult).

 

[masda_gib]

By far the simplest way of avoiding the double meaning of 'melee' is to rename the warrior/swords/ect... combat type to "shock". It also describes what they do pretty well.

Yes, this. When an effect says "for melee units" you never know is it all melee units or just the warrior line? This same wording for "type of attack" and "promotion line" infuriates me. 8)

 

[shaglio]

I sometimes like to nullify the city's range attack and pillage around it with impunity before taking it, especially if I'm going to give it back in a peace deal.

That's a good point. I sometimes forget that the Walls grant the city attack.

I guess my new checklist will be:
A) If I plan to capture and keep city, bring a Siege Tower
B) If I plan to capture and return city, bring a Battering Ram
C) If I just plan on harassing until the AI makes peace, bring a Battering Ram
D) Or, why not just bring both so I won't have to worry?

 

[Victoria]

That's a good point. I sometimes forget that the Walls grant the city attack.

I guess my new checklist will be:
A) If I plan to capture and keep city, bring a Siege Tower
B) If I plan to capture and return city, bring a Battering Ram
C) If I just plan on harassing until the AI makes peace, bring a Battering Ram
D) Or, why not just bring both so I won't have to worry?

I'll bring a ram, I'm a kiwi.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

That's a good point. I sometimes forget that the Walls grant the city attack.

I guess my new checklist will be:
A) If I plan to capture and keep city, bring a Siege Tower
B) If I plan to capture and return city, bring a Battering Ram
C) If I just plan on harassing until the AI makes peace, bring a Battering Ram
D) Or, why not just bring both so I won't have to worry?

Build whatever you can build and bring whatever you have nearby.