artillery exploit

[player1]

Actually, attack bonus of colonial Cannon is fine.
Without it, some trenched Armed Braves would be impossible to take out.

The only reason why they seem too great against King forces is because King forces have no defensive bonuses, so Fort itself is useless for his troops. Balance wise, maybe some combat bonus when inside city is all that King forces could need (to compensate for lack of fortification bonuses).

[Ijuin]

How about giving all REF troops the Minuteman I promotion (+20% Settlement defense) and reducing the REF Artillery anti-Settlement bonus to 100% (to match the colonial Cannon)?

[alh_p]

Originally posted by AdamWright
Agreed with Aerion. Some of the design descisions are eminently...well, at the best, "Not well thought through".

How the heck does it make any sense that I'm better off abandoning my colonies to sit in fields, because if I leave armies in a fortress, they're less useful than when they're having a picnic. Then, when the king's walked through the door, I can turn around and say "Hah! Sucker! Didn't you know this is an *anti-fortress*, whereby you're now actually weaker than you were before!".

How's it make sense that you're best off entirely avoiding the key portion of the game (founding fathers and liberty) until the endgame, when suddenly, you're previous sedate populous all get a political bent overnight and turn into statesmen, recruiting two dozen founding fathers in 30 turns? Why even have cultural borders in the game - if your borders are expanding, then you're on the path to a loss.

How's it make sense that the king constantly asks for huge sums of money, but there's no penalty for refusing him? Seriously, that just smacks of an unfinished feature.

How's it make sense that, rather than improving over time, your universities actually become worthless?

I can understand some of these things in the name of "balance". But it seems that, under this guise, decisions have been made that are not only odd, they're downright baffling. It renders the game a sequence of "gotchas" and secret clandestine forum gathered knowledge, rather than strategy.

I hope this can be fixed in a patch, I really do

amen

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by player1
Actually, attack bonus of colonial Cannon is fine.
Without it, some trenched Armed Braves would be impossible to take out.

The only reason why they seem too great against King forces is because King forces have no defensive bonuses, so Fort itself is useless for his troops. Balance wise, maybe some combat bonus when inside city is all that King forces could need (to compensate for lack of fortification bonuses).

Hmm, I think I would agree with this.

The other option, though, might make more sense.

Change the REF's orders upon taking a city to razing it ...

[Aerion]

Originally posted by player1
Well, the thing is that fortifications provide nothing to Kings army, since all his troops are incapable of receiving defensive bonuses.

That's why attacking with Cannon to take them back looks like overkill.


But, I do understand why it was done. The big problem in original colonization was that in case you lose city with big fortification it was pretty much impossible to take it back.

A well defended fortress is supposed to be hard to take. If you make the mistake of leaving a fortress so lightly defended that you lose it, you deserve to have a hard time taking it back.

[Aerion]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Hmm, I think I would agree with this.

The other option, though, might make more sense.

Change the REF's orders upon taking a city to razing it ...

That doesn't make any sense either.

[snoopy369]

It makes sense from a gameplay perspective, not a realism perspective

[wodan11]

Originally posted by player1
The big problem in original colonization was that in case you lose city with big fortification it was pretty much impossible to take it back.

Bombardment should permanently reduce walls and fortifications. The current implementation is silly: walls magically being rebuilt after a besieger conquers the city.

[snoopy369]

This is Col, not a war game ... it's not focused on realistic combat mechanics Civ4 after all isn't much more complex, and it's much more of a war game.

[wodan11]

At some point, "unrealistic combat mechanics" becomes counter-intuitive to player expectations, which makes the game harder to play and enjoy.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Hmm, I think I would agree with this.

The other option, though, might make more sense.

Change the REF's orders upon taking a city to razing it ...

I think that is absolutely ridiculous. It is also annoying to see Dale saying on another thread that taxes have to be really high to represent a real repression and a wish to break free from the king, and here you are, saying that it's ok to commit mass murder in the name of the king, and no word of good sense about fortresses doing what they should, and to provide a massive defensive bonus. Dude, I thought you were joking at this post, but you then say "it makes sense from a gameplay perspective, not a realism perspective"? What the...? Why?

But I still believe that the REF should not have any sort of defensive bonuses.

As for the REF artillery bonus, 100% doesn't look all that bad either, although what you guys are proposing is quite a substancial difference. If I got my math right, 4*100%=16 while 4*150%=24.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Zealot


I think that is absolutely ridiculous. It is also annoying to see Dale saying on another thread that taxes have to be really high to represent a real repression and a wish to break free from the king, and here you are, saying that it's ok to commit mass murder in the name of the king, and no word of good sense about fortresses doing what they should, and to provide a massive defensive bonus. Dude, I thought you were joking at this post, but you then say "it makes sense from a gameplay perspective, not a realism perspective"? What the...? Why?

But I still believe that the REF should not have any sort of defensive bonuses.

As for the REF artillery bonus, 100% doesn't look all that bad either, although what you guys are proposing is quite a substancial difference. If I got my math right, 4*100%=16 while 4*150%=24.

If you're going to use what I say to argue badly, at least get what I say correct.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Dale


If you're going to use what I say to argue badly, at least get what I say correct.

Do apologise for that. Where did I get it wrong?

[Dale]

I didn't say have to be really high, I was talking about how the rising taxes increase your want to have the DoI.

[Becephalus73]

Can someone please explain to me the logic of the REF NOT getting defensive bonuses? This makes no sense to me. If it makes them stronger just reduce there size, but why remove interest and subtlety from the battle? They weren't retarded, and mostly beat the crap out of the colonials in the US WoI.