Question about mounted, gunpowder, siege weapons, melee units

[PrinceMyshkin]

Siege weapons are the cannons and artillery units... At least I get this!

Gunpowder units are armed with muskets.

Mounted units have horses. (Jeez... How did MENSA miss me?)

But now...

Do dragoons count as mounted and gunpowder units at the same time?

So if you fight them, and you have bonuses vs. gunpowder and mounted units will they both add up?

What is a melee unit? Just a plain colonist-unarmed brave?

[wodan11]

Re: Question about mounted, gunpowder, siege weapons, melee units

Originally posted by PrinceMyshkin
Do dragoons count as mounted and gunpowder units at the same time?

They should.

[Dale]

Unfortunately they don't as in the Civ4 engine a unit can only have one unit type. By default this is mounted.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Dale
Unfortunately they don't as in the Civ4 engine a unit can only have one unit type.

That should be fixed. If not now then for CiV.

[jenks]

No i disagree.

e.g.
A pikeman will get +100% vs mounted (understandable). A pikeman would still get that bonus vs a mounted gunman (not likely)

a more balanced, better way around it would be to create a new 'Hybrid' Combat Class, call it DRAGOON, and give it its own bonuses and structure


....


I don't see it as a major problem in civ4Col though as there are so few bonuses applied vs combat classes in game

[wodan11]

Originally posted by jenks
No i disagree.

e.g.
A pikeman will get +100% vs mounted (understandable). A pikeman would still get that bonus vs a mounted gunman (not likely)

a more balanced, better way around it would be to create a new 'Hybrid' Combat Class, call it DRAGOON, and give it its own bonuses and structure


....


I don't see it as a major problem in civ4Col though as there are so few bonuses applied vs combat classes in game

This has nothing to do with balance. It's about making the game intuitive and easy to understand by players. Every thing that is non-intuitive makes the game harder to play and understand, and makes the "learning curve" steeper.

If the designers want a unit classificaton that applies to gun-bearing infantry only, then they should not use a word that in English describes anyone who is carrying a gun. Use some other word.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Yes, it is about understanding the mechanics of this game...

So this gunpowder bonus is pretty much rubbish.

[smak]

Yes, it is about understanding the mechanics of this game...

So this gunpowder bonus is pretty much rubbish.

If by gunpowder bonus you are refering to the founding father bonuses applied specifically to gunpowder units such as grenadier, formation, and ranger i wouldnt go around calling it rubbish.

With a basic soldier fortified next to an enemy city you would have 25% fortify bonus, at least 50% from forest/jungle and possibly 75% with hill also, then a 20% bonus from ranger, and 25% if a dragoon attacks you for a total of 7.35 str vs a dragoons 4 str. If a soldier or cannon attacks you then you have 6.6 str vs his 3 str. And if they dont attack you then you bombard their defenses with a cannon and then attack the city with your grenadier bonus in a zerg wave.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Smak,

I am aware of how strong infantry can be.

What I meant as gunpowder bonus is what you get at Grenadier III, and Canister shot I,II and III. Grenadier III is interesting, but extremely specialized. I almost explicitely go the veterancy route with formation, medics and rush for military FFs for other candies.

Even worse is the +10% against melee units, which one gets at Minuteman III.

[smak]

Grenadier 3 is good, but its just a bonus effect, the primary goal of grenadier 3 is to make attacking cities easier. But you wont see it often as it takes a general to get.

Same goes for min man 3, and i agree that at the point you have min man 3 you really dont need a boost when fighting indians. It would make more sense to have an anti cannon bonus at min man 3 since cannon are what take cities (in vanilla).

As for canister shot, i never get it, since bomb 2-3 and veteran 5-6 is more effective when attacking cities. Canister shot limits you to just fighting soldiers where as those other 2 boost str vs any defender in a city. Besides canister shot 3 gives a total of 30% vs soldiers where veteran 3 gives 30% vs anything. It would make more sense if canister shot gave higher bonuses vs just soldiers in the same way that ranger gives higher bonuses when defending in woods.

But i dont waste my generals on cannon or soldiers that attack cities. Cannon have enough bonus to attack cities and why use a soldier to attack a city when a cannon does it better in the first place with fewer promotions.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well I tend to play only AoD II lately, and the cannon bonun has been removed.

As I said before, I am just trying to understand the mechanics of the game, and where does the gunpoweder bonus apply.