Patch v152 out

[GodSpawn]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In that case the old way makes more sense. They just made it worse.

I think gameplay is more important than logic. In which case, they just made it better, not worse! Applying "sense" to the rules of this game is an excercise in pointless pedantry. I mean, some of my units are hundreds of years old. Surely they should die of old age? See - pointless pedantry!

[LionHart]

Created a set of low-res movies for machines without dynamic texture support (this is a separate download)

Anyone know where??

[Chronus9]

I have some questions regarding the firepower issue.

My understanding of combat is that several rounds of fighting occur per battle before a victor emerges (a battle being defined as one unit entering the space of an enemy unit with the result of one of the units getting destroyed). The term "strength" used below is simply the numeric attack value of the unit (i.e. Archer being 3, etc.). The all cap words are the responses I'm looking for.

(A)
Prior to this patch, does the strength of wounded units decrease DURING the battle such that they attack the next round with a lower strength, or is this decrease of strength DEFERRED until after the battle? Or am I OFF BASE here?

(B)
My understanding of patch 1.52 is that the strength of the unit is never decreased throughout the life of the unit, regardless of injury . . . CORRECT?

(C)
Assuming that the answer to A is "during" and the answer to B is "correct", then the new combat system should significantly reduce the "spearman defeats tank" syndrome . . . RIGHT?

I don't know why this strikes my interest, since I am not bothered by the combat system, but I am curious what others report on this.

[swat-spas2]

(A) No. Only into the next combat was it affected. You can look at the combat odds in the log. Its deferred to the next battle.

B.. The strength meaning the attack/defend power?, no its now constant The strength meaning HPs, yes, it withers downward

C. Actually the answer to A should be no, but even then, yes, it should severely reduce the spearman-tank issue.

The "issue" as it were related to the HPs and Firepower being both linked to the strength of a unit going into battle. This has the effect of SEVERELY penalizing damaged units. A damaged unit not only hit weakly but also had fewer HPs than it would appear, since the HPs are reported as a fraction of total strength. The result was often death even when the odds makers would have you believe it was even odds (50% damaged gunship vs a full strength knight for example).

The principle reason I can see for the changing this is that it should help the AI in both attacking cities (since their tank wouldn't have to heal necessarily), and in holding their own since we seige them to death if necessary. It does help us hold cities now and then, but a damaged unit is still a weaker target than a full strength one.

[ghen]

(C)
Assuming that the answer to A is "during" and the answer to B is "correct", then the new combat system should significantly reduce the "spearman defeats tank" syndrome . . . RIGHT?

I don't know why this strikes my interest, since I am not bothered by the combat system, but I am curious what others report on this.

The old system had 2 effective numbers. Strength and HP. They are the same at the beginning of the battle.

When you battle an opponent, your HP goes down but Strength does not. Once the battle is complete, the Strength is updated with the new value of equal to the HP.

For (B) I also assume the answer is Correct.. That would basically make the Strength never update with the new number of HP, effectively seperating those into two destinct numbers which completely defeats the purpose of simplifying combat IMO.

Cities have always been harder to take than previous civ games, and now this makes it that much worse.. So instead of bringing 4 archers to take a 2 archer city, you now have to bring about 6... Wars against similar teched opponents will be a complete waste before cats, and make siege weapons neccessary and definitely overpowered.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by TheSarge

No, changing AGP apeture size has no effect on PCIe x16 cards. Go over to the Civ4 Help section for more help.

Thanks, Sarge. Not that I have a problem, just wanted to check in case I get one...

[swat-spas2]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


In that case the old way makes more sense. They just made it worse.

The old way makes more sense in real life yes, but in gameplay terms, a damaged unit was just an obstacle to be pushed around. The AI, particularily barbs, will attack with weakened units frequently enough that this seems like a good idea. They also lose alot more on the defensive for the reason that human players attack ALOT, which is where I would think this change would help improve the challenge factor on the IAS. A damaged unit is still vulnerable; it takes fewer hits to take down, but it retains some potential striking power to slow down your followup assault waves. Since there are supposed to be fewer units and such, this change allows the AI to try to preserve some of them from time to time to get a promotion, or at least forces you to bring more units.

[Fidel]

good, good patch.
still, under this patch i got 'walking around the globe in opposite direction only to arrive to the adjecent square bug' for the first time.
firepower change makes for interesting tactical change.
however, playing on normal terra (prince), i noticed again that the AI does not 'know' that on terra it should think about researching astronomy perhaps before some other stuff. so they go to diff tech branch (ALL of them) and although they are slightly ahead in tech, none of them has astronomy. mind you, i did not actually rush to astronomy, so it is not like my tech advances are in the form of 'spike'.
dunno if that can be corrected.

[swat-spas2]

Originally posted by ghen


Cities have always been harder to take than previous civ games, and now this makes it that much worse.. So instead of bringing 4 archers to take a 2 archer city, you now have to bring about 6... Wars against similar teched opponents will be a complete waste before cats, and make siege weapons neccessary and definitely overpowered.

Why are you attacking with archers?.. swordsman and axes!
Siege weapons are necessary, they always have been historically needed to take a defended city-state. They are overpowered though, since the AI doesn't use them enough.

I'm not saying I support the change completely, its simpler in the sense that its the same way its always been in civ2-3, but it removes the ease of combat that one could make just looking at the odds. I believe the combat thread was arriving at a more complex solution anyway, scaling the hitting power based on the actual and current strength (which would be perhaps most realistic, but horribly complicated comparitively)

[ghen]

Originally posted by swat-spas2


Why are you attacking with archers?.. swordsman and axes!
Siege weapons are necessary, they always have been historically needed to take a defended city-state. They are overpowered though, since the AI doesn't use them enough.

I'm not saying I support the change completely, its simpler in the sense that its the same way its always been in civ2-3, but it removes the ease of combat that one could make just looking at the odds. I believe the combat thread was arriving at a more complex solution anyway, scaling the hitting power based on the actual and current strength (which would be perhaps most realistic, but horribly complicated comparitively)

Um, maybe because noone has bronzeworking yet. I wanted to make a simple example of my statement.. And yes, I have played games with no settlers so attacking with archers on another civ's second city is extremely viable for expansion.

Of course the combat is more complex, but that requires lots and lots of math to come up with an answer similar to mine anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GodSpawn
I think gameplay is more important than logic. In which case, they just made it better, not worse!

I disagree. A weakened unit by nature simply does not fight as well as an undamaged one.

Originally posted by GodSpawn
Applying "sense" to the rules of this game is an excercise in pointless pedantry. I mean, some of my units are hundreds of years old. Surely they should die of old age? See - pointless pedantry!

Look, it's a unit. A military unit doesn't die, because you can replace the personel.

[Urban Ranger]

I am sorry to say that the patch doesn't help at all with the game freezing up on my machine. It fact, this problem has been getting worse.

I can play a game from scratch on an unpatched copy for hours. For version 1.09 I can do the same thing with the help of Hark's unofficial patch. For version 1.52 a fresh game crashes at 3600BC The "mem-saver" option does nothing for me. Even Hark's patch helps very little now.

Down with this rubbish

[Hot Mustard]

Bug found: When I try to load a 1.09 "Initial" save game from the Quick load folder, it loads the game but then hangs forever on a blackened map with the interface showing and a dialog that has "showDawnofMan" in it.

So much for wanting to replay an old game from the very start with the changes.

[joncnunn]

I know what you mean; it almost would have been faster to drive to the closet St Louis Bread Company, download this patch from their wireless network and drive back than to download from the neighbors open wireless network.

Originally posted by Thoth
That's an impressive looking patch, though 45 megs is going to take awhile to download on my dialup connection.

Thanks to the Firaxis team.

[joncnunn]

That happened to me this morning. I think too many other people in the middle of downloading the patch.

By the 5th time, enough other people were done so it was able to start.

This download issue will probably go away entirely tomorrow.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
schizo?

edit 1: for the record: on the download screen it said:
downloaded 0 / -1

edit 2: 5th try works