the whole spearman tank thingy

[WackenOpenAir]

i think most people just like more predictable outcomes of a battle.

So do i.

Also, in my oppinion should for example the chance that normal warrior in hills or fortified loses to a conscript attacking warrior be pretty darn small. Unlike it is now.

In order to decrease the chances of extreme outcomes, i would prefer ALL hitpoints to be doubled. (4-6-8-10 for conscript to elite)

[vmxa1]

I would agree many would prefer it be more predictable. This could be done in several ways. The designers wanted to provide for obsolete unis to have a changes, so we have this system.

Conscript vs Regular is not big problem as it is just two equal A/D units where one has an additonal HP.

[Tall Stranger]

If I'm not mistaken, the change you propose can easily be implemented in the editor. People who are really bugged by this incredibly rare event can simply modify their game.

They should understand, however, that they will also find these changes working against them in some cases. I would think, for example, that archer/horseman attacks against spears will be more difficult. That 10-25% fortification for spearmen will have a greater impact with each unit having a higher number of hit points.

[Rasputin]

i have never played with the editor and so must look into this a bit more....

but the basic principles of ancient versus modern units has been debated till the cows come home

[DaveV]

If you double the hitpoints, I think you would also have to double the rate of fire of all bombarding units to keep things in balance...

[Dain]

Altering it dramatically will have an adverse effect if you are missing a particular resource and could make it impossible to acquire it by force if you can not make units that are much better.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
If I'm not mistaken, the change you propose can easily be implemented in the editor. People who are really bugged by this incredibly rare event can simply modify their game.

The problem for me is:
I don't have the patience to learn where every unit appears in the tech tree so I can modify all their values. Every unit.
If a game requires that much effort for me to enjoy it, whats the point of even playing?

[mr Rura]

the problem is that doubling the amount of hitpoint will cause a fact that for example a 4-unit armies built by elite elephants [which have +1 hitpoint] would have 48 hitpoints...

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
The problem for me is:
I don't have the patience to learn where every unit appears in the tech tree so I can modify all their values. Every unit.
If a game requires that much effort for me to enjoy it, whats the point of even playing?

So, rather than spend (at most) a half hour of your time customizing the game to your liking, you would rather spend even more time trying to impose your preferences on everyone else?

Gee, aren't we lucky.

[David Murray]

Grr!

I've been playing an Emperor game, and it was a complete slog because I was attacking the Aztecs, who had a massive army but no saltpeter, and my cavalry were routinely getting slaughtered by PIKEMEN! Sometimes even on open ground, but especially so defended in cities and metropolises. I had to call everything off after only taking a handful of cities and will have to wait until tanks now because they have infantry.

So I guess it's true - you don't need an up to date army to fend off an attacking horde of 50-odd cavalry. You just need a shitload of men with pikes.

[Dain]

Originally posted by David Murray
Grr!

I've been playing an Emperor game, and it was a complete slog because I was attacking the Aztecs, who had a massive army but no saltpeter, and my cavalry were routinely getting slaughtered by PIKEMEN! Sometimes even on open ground, but especially so defended in cities and metropolises. I had to call everything off after only taking a handful of cities and will have to wait until tanks now because they have infantry.

So I guess it's true - you don't need an up to date army to fend off an attacking horde of 50-odd cavalry. You just need a shitload of men with pikes.

The only real difference you need to get accustom to is the higher the difficulty level the more units the AI will have compared to you (per city). It is the sheer volume which they use to try and make the game competitive as they can maintain a larger force and pay less maintenance, etc.

If you try using say 1 cannon for every 3 or 4 cavalry you will find you have a much easier time of destroying hordes of pikemen.

The AI is very stupid and predictable, it makes it pretty easy to overcome.

Just remember to use balanced forces. If you spread your forces all over the place it is much easier for the AI to pick off damaged units. I keep my forces in large units. I have a bunch of defensive units (so my offensive units are not defending), I have bombardment units (for offense and defense) and then the large bulk are offensive units.

Works for me.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by David Murray
Grr!

I've been playing an Emperor game, and it was a complete slog because I was attacking the Aztecs, who had a massive army but no saltpeter, and my cavalry were routinely getting slaughtered by PIKEMEN! Sometimes even on open ground, but especially so defended in cities and metropolises. I had to call everything off after only taking a handful of cities and will have to wait until tanks now because they have infantry.

So I guess it's true - you don't need an up to date army to fend off an attacking horde of 50-odd cavalry. You just need a shitload of men with pikes.

If you run 10 trials with calvs vs pike where pike only have fort bonus, the calvs win 70%. If you put the pikes in a metro, the clavs win 30%.

You just cannot attack metros with units alone and prosper. You need armies and bombardment or take losses. Even tanks will have trouble, since you can expect to be getting infantry.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger


So, rather than spend (at most) a half hour of your time customizing the game to your liking, you would rather spend even more time trying to impose your preferences on everyone else?

If it's so incredibly easy: You do it for me.
It'll only take (at most) a half hour and you'll shut me up.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
If it's so incredibly easy: You do it for me.
It'll only take (at most) a half hour and you'll shut me up.

Well, Comrade, there are quite a few reasons that I will not do so:

1) Here in the ****ing USA (as you so eloquently put it), we have a basic concept known as supply and demand. (If you are not familiar with it, please research Economics.) At the wage you have offered me to do this work (exactly $0), I choose not to supply you with labor. Were you to substantially increase said offer, I may reconsider, though I doubt you could afford my wage rate.

2) The only payment you actually offer is that you will "shut up." Given that this is a free country and all, I have no way to actually collect on your offer. You can legally withdraw said payment at any time, and I would have no legitimate recourse.

3) I believe in the values of self-reliance, individual initiative and education. Out of a desire to see you become a better, more well-rounded individual, I want you to learn the value of fixing things yourself.

4) In today's modern, lawsuit-happy society, I would be incredibly reluctant to do any work for you, as I have no assurance that, a year from now when your computer crashes, you will not falsely claim that I, through providing you with this mod, somehow caused said crash.

5) It sounds to me as though you are simply too lazy to do this work yourself. I have no desire to reward or encourage this behavior.

[spy14]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


If it's so incredibly easy: You do it for me.
It'll only take (at most) a half hour and you'll shut me up.

That Cav-Pikeman thing is still a lot more believable than Pike-Tank though.

[Jaybe]

i think most people just like more predictable outcomes of a battle.

I think most people are happier with the perfect (un)predictability as is currently in the game! Surely, on a strategic level they should not be more predictable.
Anyone who thinks that in industrial/modern age that spearmen are toting spears: they are insulting their own intelligence!

BTW, in my own mod, I give Elite units +2 (not +1) HP.

[Nubclear]

Well, Comrade, there are quite a few reasons that I will not do so:

Translation: Perhaps it wouldn't take just a half an hour....
Maybe you should research your claims before actually making them Makes you a bit less likely to trip up

Here in the ****ing USA (as you so eloquently put it),

Not me! South Korea!

http://media.songnlife.com/xfile/****ingUSA.wma

Of course, replacing the asterisks with the word. It's very nice, actually. I especially like the "anthem" at the beginning A nice slap in the face

[Nubclear]

DP

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Murray
Grr!

I've been playing an Emperor game, and it was a complete slog because I was attacking the Aztecs, who had a massive army but no saltpeter, and my cavalry were routinely getting slaughtered by PIKEMEN! Sometimes even on open ground, but especially so defended in cities and metropolises. I had to call everything off after only taking a handful of cities and will have to wait until tanks now because they have infantry.

So I guess it's true - you don't need an up to date army to fend off an attacking horde of 50-odd cavalry. You just need a shitload of men with pikes.

Well, first, quantity has its own quality. It's to be expected that a very large amount of inferior units should be able to beat a somewhat smaller number of superior units. Second, Metropolises give a 100% defense bonus IIRC, so it isn't that strange that you lost a lot of Cavalry.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger


Well, Comrade, there are quite a few reasons that I will not do so:

1) Here in the ****ing USA (as you so eloquently put it), we have a basic concept known as supply and demand. (If you are not familiar with it, please research Economics.) At the wage you have offered me to do this work (exactly $0), I choose not to supply you with labor. Were you to substantially increase said offer, I may reconsider, though I doubt you could afford my wage rate.

2) The only payment you actually offer is that you will "shut up." Given that this is a free country and all, I have no way to actually collect on your offer. You can legally withdraw said payment at any time, and I would have no legitimate recourse.

3) I believe in the values of self-reliance, individual initiative and education. Out of a desire to see you become a better, more well-rounded individual, I want you to learn the value of fixing things yourself.

4) In today's modern, lawsuit-happy society, I would be incredibly reluctant to do any work for you, as I have no assurance that, a year from now when your computer crashes, you will not falsely claim that I, through providing you with this mod, somehow caused said crash.

5) It sounds to me as though you are simply too lazy to do this work yourself. I have no desire to reward or encourage this behavior.

I think he was being sarcastic

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Translation: Perhaps it wouldn't take just a half an hour....

Actually, it probably would.

[Tall Stranger]

Comrade,

I was quite serious. This is an insanely easy thing to do. Again, if you're too lazy to do it, don't expect me to.

[Catt]

Changing the HPs to 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 from 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 (the original change requested and then debated) should probably take all of 4 or 5 minutes to do with a minimal familiarity with the editor (that 4 or 5 minute estimate includes the time spent launching the editor, saving the scenario, and exiting the editor).

Catt

[Dain]

Originally posted by Catt
Changing the HPs to 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 from 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 (the original change requested and then debated) should probably take all of 4 or 5 minutes to do with a minimal familiarity with the editor (that 4 or 5 minute estimate includes the time spent launching the editor, saving the scenario, and exiting the editor).

Catt

Altering the HP has other adverse effects, like make bombardment units less effective.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dain


Altering the HP has other adverse effects, like make bombardment units less effective.

Altering the HPs has lots of adverse effects, IMHO, not least of which is that the game is "balanced" (if you buy the idea that it is balanced) with a 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 HP regime and altering thha regime means altering the overall balance.

I was only respondig to the concept that such a change in the editor is troublesome or labor-intensive which seems to be in some dispute in this thread.

Catt

[Tall Stranger]

Agreed.

My whole point here was that, if the remote possibility of a spearman beating a tank REALLY bothers you, you can greatly reduce the likelihood by altering the rules of your game through a extremely simple procedure. Just stop demanding that Firaxis "do something" about it. Many of us do NOT feel like this is a big problem.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Jaybe
I think most people are happier with the perfect (un)predictability as is currently in the game! Surely, on a strategic level they should not be more predictable.

IMHO, this is the crux of the matter. Making the battle outcomes more predictable (by instituting the 4-roll method for example) turns the game into a mathematical exercise. If x>y then "I win". Pass me that calculator!

An element of uncertainty requires the use of strategy. Strategy requires the formulation of plans, and back-up plans. If you know exactly how many units of a particular type you need to build to defeat the enemy, you won't build any more because you have no fear of counter-attack leading to capture of your undefended cities.

[Kuciwalker]

If you really want to decrease the probabilities, the thing to do ISN'T to change the combat system but rather to simply modify A/D values. Any improbabilities result not from the combat system but from improper unit stats.

[ErikM]

Well, it's the question of variance.

For instance in HOMM if you attack 10 enemy pikemen with 20 of yours, and with no modifiers applied, you will on average lose 4 pikes, sometimes 3 and sometimes 5. You will never lose 19 though. But I never heard anyone complaining that combat in HOMM is "too predictable". And uncertainty matters too - units are expensive and losing 5 pikes may be more than you are willing to stomach, so maybe it would be better to postpone the attack until you have more decisive superiority.

Nobody is really against an element of uncertainty, but too much uncertainty is generally bad. For an extreme case, if chances of winning a tank/spearmen duel were 50-50, what would be the point of developing better technology at all?

[Kuciwalker]

That's the thing, though - it isn't 50-50. For each round of combat, the Tank has a roughly 8/9 chance of knocking off an HP from the Spearman. If you think that isn't good enough, just up the attack of the Tank.