The way battles are fought

[beorn]

Did I see a thread back a ways discussing a change in the way damage was assessed during battles?

I ask because I think I am seeing more frequent minor damage in battles where the odds are >99.9%.

Personally, I don't like the effect on the game.

First, this has a slowing effect, with a fairly high number of turns waiting around for damage to heal, not really a plus in the fun factor department.

I also am wondering whether this is having an adverse effect on AI civs. I wonder whether they can assess the increased risk in moving into a tile where multiple barbarians can attack in a single turn.

 

[Chip56]

Yes there is "fair combat" but while it increases your chances to survive a single combat you will get more damage on average.

 

[smurven]

This change isn't in the main game, its a mod to the ffh mod. Its called smarter orcs if I recall correctly.

 

[beorn]

Hmm, so you are saying that if I just download .25k and run it, this adjustment in NOT in.

I am surprised, because I am seeing a pretty market tendency for good units to take at least a little damage from weak ones.

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

ask because I think I am seeing more frequent minor damage in battles where the odds are >99.9%.

If this is the case then yupi! This is the only way to kill the big mo-fos like the horsmen or the dragon [if you could attack them due to fear :/ ]

No one should be invincible. Here we do not have a tousand year of modern technology, just axmen and swordsmen with should be close to each other in the terms of killind/dealing dammage. As you can see, bonuses from promotions are doubled, so the emphasis is on 'skill', 'veterancy' and overall specialisation.

 

[beorn]

If this is the case then yupi! This is the only way to kill the big mo-fos like the horsmen or the dragon [if you could attack them due to fear :/ ]

No one should be invincible. Here we do not have a tousand year of modern technology, just axmen and swordsmen with should be close to each other in the terms of killind/dealing dammage. As you can see, bonuses from promotions are doubled, so the emphasis is on 'skill', 'veterancy' and overall specialisation.

I see your point, although I am not so sure that realism is all that overpowering an argument in a world populated with orcs. elves, and magic.

Actually, I am reacting to why the game seems to play more slowly and why so many AI civs keep falling to the barbs by the mid game. In my opinion, these are not positives in terms of fun. However, from the above post, it appears that it is not combat mechanics that made the difference.

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

I did not recall to realism in my post at all Also do not mistake realism from things that can/should happen in a fantasy setting, even when magic is involved.

It is only that in vanilla civ you have pikmen and then they can face tanks. That is a great technological leap for units and a pike woudnt scratch a tanks armour. In FfH there is no revolutionary technological progres, the tiers are leveled. Recently all units were given an additional str point so the diffrence betwen units leveled even more [in the favour of game play I must say]. You have to get use to think diffrent here than in vanilla. Here XP matters, the path that you choise for your units also matters. But there was a latin saying that I do not remember now but it involved Hercules and a mob or something.

Actually, I am reacting to why the game seems to play more slowly and why so many AI civs keep falling to the barbs by the mid game. In my opinion, these are not positives in terms of fun. However, from the above post, it appears that it is not combat mechanics that made the difference.

Here several ppl noticed that also. I mentioned it in at least two threads. One thing is that AI does not know that it needs some buildings to build better units. Second issue is the armaggedon counter rising to fast so the horsmen roll over the world. The aggresivnes of the AI against barbs is also in question.

Oh, and the all eating inflation.

I look forward to shadow