1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Industrial and Modern Tech Trees are Utterly Broken

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Peng Qi, Sep 13, 2013.

  1. fyar

    fyar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    343
    CraigMak, I agree that it's realistic now, but it's not realistic during the era in question. Bombers did not play a huge role in deciding the Great War. And as has been mentioned, gameplay-wise it's less fun when the proper strategy is to spam a single unit that has no counter. I honestly think the GWB needs to go completely, both for historical and gameplay reasons.
     
  2. rexman07

    rexman07 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    96
    I remember when Beyond the Sword introduced Airships and we had the same problem. Those death blimps would beat down upon your troops and flee before you could capture the city. There was no counter at all.

    I guess oil is supposed to limit Great War Bombers, but in practice it's not enough of a limit?

    One or both of these nerfs would suffice:
    A Great War Bomber should probably do a bit less damage and take a bit more damage (and maybe even get shot down) when attacking non-AA units.
    There should be a limit to how many air units can operate out of a city in one turn.
     
  3. Peng Qi

    Peng Qi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Irrelevant.
    ...OK, now imagine if all they brought were bombers. :rolleyes:
     
  4. MarshalN

    MarshalN Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    366
    You are thinking of ww2, in ww1 (the Great War) bombers were just planes carrying a few small bombs. If they changed the way wars were fought we wouldn't have had four years of static trench warfare.
     
  5. Olleus

    Olleus Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    For what it's worth, I've found a solution that works quite well in my games.

    I've merged the AA gun and anti tank gun into a "battery" unit with low strength and bonuses against both planes and tanks. Still unlocked at ballistics, but I've reworked the tech tree so that flight requires dynamite. Now you have a counter that the AI is quite fond of building and is far less situation (also helps them deal with tanks, which they used to be terrible at).

    I'm also thinking of increasing the intercept probability of triplanes from a paltry 50% (which is ****e) to a more reasonable 80%. Maybe also lowering the strength of GWB a little.
     
  6. fyar

    fyar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    343
    To be honest, I didn't even know that Triplanes have <100% chance of interception. (Shows how often I build them.) What's the probability for Fighters and Jet Fighters?
     
  7. Gort

    Gort Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,518
    I always thought it might be best to just have air warfare abstracted. Like, bombers you build disappear into your "air force", which gives you an "air support" modifier, which is reduced if the enemy has more/better fighters than you do. And you wouldn't get it if your unit was fighting away from a place that could give you air support, such as a city or aircraft carrier.

    So you wouldn't actually see bombers and such on the map, they'd be more in the background. Maybe when your units fought you'd get a little animation of bombers and fighters doing their thing.

    If they stick with the current system (which they will), they really need to re-do the animations and controls for air units. The only thing worse than being attacked by a stack of bombers is rebasing them and ordering them to attack ONE AT A TIME. If you're going to break the rules of one-unit-per-tile, you need to bring back stack attack and stack movement.
     
  8. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,174
    Location:
    STL
    There should be a limit of planes per city, but 3 is a little too low in my opinion. Since it's extremely difficult to take cities before flight, and even tougher before artillery, if you want to wage war, you often have to wait until flight. I think making it too difficult to capture cities before flight by limiting cities to 3 planes would make the game too peaceful and not all that interesting.

    I'm all for balancing the game, but going too extreme is not the solution. I don't like making war an even less desirable option to the game than it is, and overly nerfing flight would do that.
     
  9. Olleus

    Olleus Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    Fighters are 100%, haven't checked jet fighters but I assume the same?

    And cities are not that difficult to capture before flight, or even artillery. Just requires planning and sometimes, a little sarcrifice. But considering that healing units is free, having a small attrition cost by losing units seems fair enough.
     
  10. Chemical Toilet

    Chemical Toilet Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2013
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I don't believe I used the phrase "long before".

    AT guns are usually less powerful and much smaller then standard field artillery. I may be wrong, but Artillery in WWI usually sat miles behind the front lines, they very rarely had guns just right behind the trench. So while you're right that they're both cannons, they play very different roles and are deployed in different ways.

    It's safe to say that Anti Tank guns probably weren't used to any sort of reliable extent, especially considering how late tanks came into the war and how rarely they appeared.

    But flak wasn't used too often in WWI either. Planes were shot down with machine guns and rifles.
     
  11. Silverman6083

    Silverman6083 History-Lover

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    669
    Location:
    Earth
    Ok here is what really upsets me. Flight and Combustion are on the same line. Really? I don't need COMBUSTION for Flight? Do I have freaking gas-powered triplanes?
     
  12. Breadsmith

    Breadsmith Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2013
    Messages:
    76
    Is this any worse than my Ironclads that don't need iron? What are they clad in? Hopes and dreams? Maybe I cover them in all this bloody citrus nobody wants because they banned it?
     
  13. apotheoser

    apotheoser Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    336
    really, frigates should require citrus! to keep from getting scurvy! (instead of iron)(lol), and ironclads should require iron and coal.

    favorite thing about the complete screw-up that is the modern tech era: you can have radar without radio. wut.
     
  14. seasnake

    seasnake Conquistador

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,872
    Location:
    California, United States
    If you have certain resources you should have bonuses: Citrus should give your frigate more movement, iron should help build wonders like Cristo Redentor and Eiffel Tower, etc.
     
  15. apotheoser

    apotheoser Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    336
    Well, Cristo Redentor is built out of soapstone and some concrete.

    It is interesting that Marble gives +15% to ancient/classical wonders but that it's the only luxury resource with a bonus like that.

    Salt should give a small growth % across the empire, Citrus should increase ship movement before the Modern era, Bananas should... wait, this is getting kind of silly...
     
  16. Olleus

    Olleus Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    Well a lot of resources have a "secondary" bonus as it is.

    Wine and incense give huge amounts of faith/culture with the right pantheon or monasteries.
    Elephants give happiness with a circus.
    Salt gives such a ridiculously good yield as it is, its already OP.
    Gold and silver are further improved with the right pantheon or mints.
    And so on...
     
  17. Peng Qi

    Peng Qi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Irrelevant.
    No, I did.
     
  18. funkymunky

    funkymunky Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    I always thought great war bombers was a stretch, historically speaking. I can't recall WWI to have had 'bombers', per say. It was more famous for the triplane fighters, which were actually designed to take down zeppelins. Now, if Civ 5 were to replace the GWB with zepplins, giving them the ability to drop bombs that are far weaker than the current GWB, but also give them a large view radius to help artillery fire, I think that would be better historically and in gameplay balance terms.
     
  19. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    Simply eliminating GWB (bombers first with flight) might be the best (keep fighters.. they can perform strikes and have the 6 range vision)

    [although replacing them with weaker zepplins might be good/ more fun]
     
  20. apotheoser

    apotheoser Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    336
    Yeah, GWB are pretty ridiculous. I hadn't had a war-mongering game where I needed to use them until recently but I was shocked at how effective they were. After that it was nothing but GWB and ships until X-COM.

    One really underrated them about them is how easy it is to re-base them across the planet for your next war, while getting your land forces back in order and shipped across might take a dozen turns.
     

Share This Page