Warlords Patch Suggestions

[Aussie_Lurker]

Rather than merging promotions, I feel that things like Guerilla and Woodsman promotions should effect COMBAT STRENGTH as a whole in those terrains-not merely when they are defending. Also, why not promotions for use in desert and tundra terrains whilst we are at it?
Also, rather than ZoC for forts (which I, in principle, do agree with), give units in a fort a bonus garrison, drill and Medic promotion (which they lose if they ever leave the fort).
There are other things I would like to suggest for a patch, but these two are the most pressing for me. Will have more later !

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

I completely disagree with #2. Have you faced a city on a hill against longbowman from a Protective leader?

Actually, I have. Lots. I've also faced lots of CG longbowmen in cities on hills.

You say you attacked with macemen, (strength 8), let's assume they were CRII (+45% against cities).

Your defender is longbow (strength 6, +25% unit ability city defense), fortified (+25%), on a hill (+25% unit ability, +50% territory).

Even without the longbow having any promotions, your odds are maceman 8 vs. longbow 10.8 (6 + 80%).

Adding in CG I takes this to 8 vs 12 (6 +100%).

Worse, your cats (strength 4), even if CR III (+75%) are 4 vs 9 - worse odds than your macemen.

You also mentioned two waves of sieging - meaning you likely gave the defenders a chance to heal and promote between attacks.

I'd say your tactics were so poor that with or without first strike you would have had trouble. Clearly, that's no position from which to criticise first strike.

EW

 

[Watiggi]

*Imperialisitic: Remove the 100% Great General Emergence and replace it with a -25% xp needed for Great Generals

*Imperialisitic: Remove the settler production bonus and replace it with something more appropriate (all though I do like it).

*Remove Guerilla III. Give Guerilla II a +25% attack when attacking from the hills as well as the current 25% defense. Do the same thing to Woodsmen. Don't merge them.

*Something done about the regularity of the Generals.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Absolutely correct Wattiggi. -25% City Maintainance modifier, OR -50% Anarchy times for city captures, for the Imperialistic trait (to replace settler bonus).

Also agree with you on Guerilla and Woodsman promotions. Also need promotions specific for Tundra and Deserts IMO.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[oopsy poopsy]

-50% anarchy time for captured city is a good idea (an imperialist is out conquering and needs to get the cities in order faster so he can move on to the next one). I agree that the settler bonus is not really an "imperialist" one, although I love having it as a trait. Personally for the GG I don't think I'd make them any stronger, but I'd have more of the show up. In a typical marathon game for me I can probably generate enough points for 3 of them plus fascism for 4. IMO if it was set-up so you could generate a few more and you were allowed say 2 MA's in a city, then you wouldn't need to make them any more powerful. I would also agree that if you attach a GG to a unit, then the leadership upgrade could easily be free, but I'd like to see the mechanics of that since it might be too much.

 

[lobster]

Forts:

Add: longer line of sight, zone of control, protect adjacent tiles from pillaging, units inside heal faster.

Guerilla/woodsman:

I think bonus for attacking FROM hills/woods is a good idea.

Combining them is fine too.

 

[badgerpendous]

I know this is much less weighty, but where are the new resources? Any chance we can get the new resources from the Warlords scenarios added into the main game with a patch?

a.badger

 

[Truronian]

I think -50% anarchy would be a good bonus to add to creative (maybe at the expense of theatres?) to make it a slightly more offensive (/useful) trait.

 

[The Great Apple]

I'm pretty sure they'll be improving first strikes come the next patch. There is a bug in the code causing you to get one less first strike chance then you should (if you have 1 you get 0, 2 -> 1 etc.).

 

[alaskanfred]

please please please include in the patch the ability to play a 24 civ game in any map. please and thanks.

 

[The Great Apple]

You can already. You need to mod it slightly, but it's perfectly possible.

If they were to enable that for all games it would also slow down more games. Increasing the maximum players available increases the amount of work that the game has to do, hence slowing it down. As, as far as I can tell, very few people would use this feature it's probably best just to leave it moddable.

 

[alaskanfred]

I am not a mod'er, but if someone wants to pm me a walkthrough on how I can setup my 24 civ games I would appreciate it and then I wouldn't need it to be part of a patch package. muchas gracias.

 

[kurupti0n]

Another thing I would like is if the UN dealt with wars also like real UN where they can draw up a cease fire type thing and maybe even have their own troops if the civs wanted to give up some of theirs. It wouldbe interesting and I would enjoy it IMO.... any other thoughts?

 

[Hey Joni]

Well, if you're removing the settler bonus for imperialistic, give it to expansive and take out the health bonus. You get a trait that produces settlers and granaries fast - makes sense for expansive more than the health thing does.

 

[bonafide11]

Not to get into the Jaguar debate AGAIN, cause it has been discussed way too many times as it is, but I really find the Jaguars to be a very useful UU. The Aztecs are one of my favorite civs and I have no problem with the Jaguars. Though I do agree they should get the Woodsman I promotion to make them more useful. Why give them a bonus in jungles but not forests? Just give them the Woodsman promotion to make them more comparable to the Gallic warriors...

Bah. Jaguars blow hard. I don't care if they're a little cheaper than traditional swords or require no metal resources. That's only a factor in fairly few games, and there's no reason to use them above city raider axemen anyways. What a crappy unique unit. If they were strength 6 and costed the same as swordsmen while requiring no metal resources and kept their crappy jungle defense (I'd prefer woodsman I, myself), then they'd be a poor unique unit. Still, that's better than a crappy one. I don't want to play a civ that makes a basic unit worse as my unique unit.

 

[Civ4rulesTH]

This has come up in other threads. For vassal states there needs to be a symbol showing they are a vassal next to their name so you don't accidentally declare war on more than you bargained for.

 

[pholkhero]

check the F4 screen ~ you should anyway just to see if your opponent may have a def pact

edit: you can also roll-over their name on the screen adn it will tell you if they are a vassal or have one

 

[Civ4rulesTH]

Yeh i knew that but i mean next to the score it would be helpful to have a few more symbols just to show they may be involved in some kind of defensive pact or vassal agreement.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

My contribution is to request a restructuring of GG emergence on the longer time speeds (as Watiggi briefly mentioned); well marathon because its the only one I play and thus feel qualified to comment on

I've had them emerging on the scale 45,66,90 etc. since about the 3rd day I had the game because with marathon and huge maps, the huge majority of ancient to early medieval combat is sgainst barbs, who don't count.

This has been the same for me and all AIs of course, and I always use aggressive AI settings. The numbers produced I feel to be very well balanced to the afforementioned game settings. The default setting of 90 to start etc., is just too much. Just because the time frame is 3 times as long in no way means 3x the combat. There aren't 3x the number of cities is the main point, but there's a whole seperate thread on this, so I'll shut up now

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

The trade bonus on castles is nice, but the window of opportunity for getting them built and getting any use out of them is too small. Besides which, the leader trait that makes this easier (protective) winds up getting a commerce benefit.

I'd suggest that castles give cities a minimum defense of 20%, after bombardment. They'd still be obsolete quickly, but it would give another reason to build them in the short-term.

EW