look here
"It's not about the XP, it's about the experience!"
"You see that civ you beat up, yup, thats me!" - I said it!
Logic Problems
"You see that civ you beat up, yup, thats me!" - I said it!
Logic Problems
|
Patch 1.52 is out!!!
|
|
Hi,
some totally useless, unasked-for comments... Quote:- Improved city attack AIOoooh, love to see this... I like it that they not only tweak tech and unit costs and such, but also actually improve on the AI.  Quote:- AI stays at war longerWhat exactly does that mean? If it means it has to be hurt more before he is willing to make peace, than I won't like it - you have to hurt the AI a lot already, at least on higher levels. If it means a longer period where they refuse to talk, I don't see the necessity. So I hope it means the AI will try harder achieving its war goals... Quote:- Combat info now shows odds of successWhat, the real odds?  I'm curious...Quote:- WBS's now contain unit damageWhat's WBS?  Quote:- Praetorians: 40->45 hammers Quote:- Forests give 0.5 healthWas that done to encourage people to leave more forests standing? The problem is that in 80% of my games, happiness is a problem, not health, so I will still chop away happily most forests. In fact, I can chop even more! Now I have to leave only two (or four) forests per city, instead of three (or five). If they want to strengthen forests, they should make lumbermills better. Or lower the basic health bonus for cities. Quote:- Firepower in combat now based on max strengthWhat does that mean? Does it mean a unit will do the same amount of damage, regardless if wounded or not? (Would be a HUGE change!) -Kylearan
There are two kinds of fools. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better." - John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider
Kylearan Wrote:Does it mean a unit will do the same amount of damage, regardless if wounded or not? (Would be a HUGE change!) It -is- a huge change, back toward a more linear, dice-ruled combat model, laying some smack down on all forms of bombardment and any faction fighting with less than state of the art units. You can thank all the Longbow-v-Gunship complainers. Whether this shift is for the best, I don't know yet. It only affects wounded units. (Heh, "only"!) To describe me as enthusiastic about it would not be accurate. I'll give a fair tryout before reaching a firm opinion, though.- Sirian
Fortune favors the bold.
I --HOPE-- they tested it enough to think that it is a balanced change but personally I liked the fact that obsolete units were still viable for clean up duty when the main battle was waged.
An idea that I think might have been a decent change would be to allow the "damage" to be based on Max Strength but then affect "chance to hit" with weakened units makeing it harder for them to do their damage. If I understand the pre-152 combat system, as you get weaker your damage is lowered but your chance to hit remains the same. I could be wrong on that last line. Anyway. I am a bit concerned with the combat type changes in the patch.
"It's not about the XP, it's about the experience!"
"You see that civ you beat up, yup, thats me!" - I said it! Logic Problems Sirian Wrote:It -is- a huge change, back toward a more linear, dice-ruled combat model, laying some smack down on all forms of bombardment and any faction fighting with less than state of the art units.I was just getting good with the old method.  After attacking with siege to injure all units, I could easily clean up with my healthy units...does this change that (to giving the wounded their full attack again)?
Hi,
Sirian Wrote:You can thank all the Longbow-v-Gunship complainers.Ah yes, I see - now even a wounded longbow can take out a Gunship.  All joking aside, I liked the old system where you could overwhelm more advanced units by sheer numbers, and I liked how they had reduced combat randomness while still preserving some of it - I thought it had been balanced very nicely. Also, the new system seems to strengthen the defender even more, which is not the best of ideas IMHO. But I will try not to be unfair, not having played with the new patch at all. Let's see how it works out. -Kylearan
There are two kinds of fools. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better." - John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider
Kylearan Wrote:... But I will try not to be unfair, not having played with the new patch at all. ... Here, here. I second this.
"It's not about the XP, it's about the experience!"
"You see that civ you beat up, yup, thats me!" - I said it! Logic Problems Sirian Wrote:It -is- a huge change, back toward a more linear, dice-ruled combat model, laying some smack down on all forms of bombardment and any faction fighting with less than state of the art units. I agree; this will probably be known as the single largest change from this patch. (Haven't tried it yet, due to locking myself out of my place until this evening.  )On one hand, combat strength of a unit did decay with wounds^3 -- as I understand the model, a wounded unit would die sooner (as in Civ3, but not Civ1), do less damage (changed by this patch), and have more damage, proportionally, dealt to it by enemies (unknown as of this patch). Thus, a 2/4 unit was substantially weaker than a 2/2 unit -- it had the same damage characteristics of a 2/2 unit, but died twice as fast. If this change affected only damage dealt, and not damage received, a 2/4 unit would now, roughly, be as powerful as a 2/2 unit. (It would do more damage, but it would also take more damage and die sooner). Already, this is an enormous balance change, and one that will need careful discussion. If this change also affects damage received, then a 2/4 unit is much more powerful than a 2/2 unit -- returning exactly to Civ3 combat mechanics with finer-grained hit points. If this is the case, then I will add my name (for what it's worth) in opposition to the change. Not only does it oversimplify combat and render horde tactics ineffective against a tech lead, but it also greatly reduces the effectiveness of combined (direct/bombardment) arms. Nonleathal bombardment is fine and dandy, but it's pretty useless when it doesn't even reduce combat efficacy. If the change is really Door #3, then unless initial play experience shows me to be Completely Wrong and Stupid (possible), I strongly advocate the Civ community develop a mod to replace the combat damage calculation with the original. Since, in theory, we're eventually supposed to be able to get our hands on the game's DLLs, we might be able to do this even if the damage/firepower calculation is not exposed in Python code. I would also advocate that RBCiv take the lead in adopting such a mod as an "official" mod, required for play in RBCiv games.
As a further note on the combat system:
One strength-decaying factor is simply not enough. Consider a Civ3-like combat model, where a unit's damage characteristics are dependent on solely its maximum strength. Unit A has strength 10. Unit B has strength 1. If I remember the Civ4 (current) combat system correctly, this would give unit B a 1/11 chance to hit for 1 damage, and Unit A a 10/11 chance to hit for 10 damage. On average, then, Unit A take 1/11 damage to kill Unit B; after a single combat, Unit A would be at stregth (109/110). Thus, if damage chacteristics did -not- change with wounded strength, it would take 110 Unit B's to kill a single Unit A. Now, imagine this applied to a Civ1 combat system, where every unit has 1 hitpoint exactly -- the first time a Unit B hits, it kills a Unit A. Now, it would take 11 Unit B's, on average, to kill a Unit A. (Note, Civ4 doesn't apply damage in whole-strength-point increments, obviously. But carrying through the fraction in 1/11 is a decent enough approximation for conceptual purposes. Offer void where prohibited, etc.) Think about this. When both damage and hit points are proportional to a unit's strength, the unit's true power is proportional to strength squared. A strength 5 axemen wouldn't be slightly less than twice as strong as a strength 3 archer -- it would be nearly thrice as strong (25 versus 9). The 1.09 Civ4 system goes even further in restricting wounded unit power, so it would take fewer units to do a 'horde' attack in Civ4 as Civ3/1 (never played Civ2, so I won't talk about it). I, for one, greatly appreciate this (Civ4 v1, not v1.52) change -- it alone is probably the reason that AIs can overwhelm lightly-defended cities, in the face of massive defense bonuses. |
