Things I'd like to change

[Krill]

And if you think that's bad, you ought to have a look at my chemistry textbooks. Now that is verbose.

[wodan11]

Sorry... after just one year of honors Chem at the college of Engineering at Virginia Tech, I mentally have never been the same. I can't even look at the cover of a Chem book anymore. And that was years ago.

Wodan

[The Priest]

Interesting Krill,

I've never really had this problem myself - cats seem to do their job fine.

Yes, if your opponent has a good number of HA then spears in the stack are a must. But they work, because unlike collateral damage flank attacks only happen if they win the combat, so they have to have a lot of HA to have enough winning against spears to really make a mess of the cats. If they have that large an army, then I would say you need to be meeting them in the field, not while you are bringing up your seige weapons.

I don't think it would work to prevent cats being killed by flanking attacks. Because a key if not the key use of cats is bombardment and that isn't affected by the strngth of the unit - one iwth just 0.1 strength left reduces the defensive value of the city just as much. Thus if the HA couldn't kill the cats, the cats ability to do their job wouldn't be affected at all. (Also, i think that the amount of collateral damage done is also unaffected by the strength of the attacking cat, which would add to the case.)

[Krill]

If an attacking stack has 1 spear for every HA that will be encountered, and has to build cats on top of that, the cost of attacking has been increased to much higher levels than the cost of defending, and there in lies the problem.

But reconsider the order of attacking with units if you are defedning a city; collateral with barrages cats to damage teh spears in the stack so that HA can get odds on the spears, then kill with the HA. The whole problem in the system (and always has been) is that being able to collateral damage catapults breaks the entire system.

I agree that the current method of calculating bombardment doesn't make it easy to balance and that some method of tying it to the health of the catapult would be wise (along with collateral damage, but then things get a hell of a lot more complicated).

I just hope that CiV doesn't use this method of implemntation of siege and just uses something better. What that could be, well, someone had better justify their paycheck.

[TriMiro]

Siege has been a major factor of war in pretty much any age. I would like to see blockading a city with land units similar to sea blockade. Force the defenders to come out. Would be interesting, but maybe hard to balance.

Currently catapults work fine, unless I have a tech advantage, I do not attack without several of those in my stack. A +60% defense bonus is huge and it would cost too many casualties if it is not brought down.

Bombardment was overpower in Civ III, it is not realistic to take a city without any casualties.

[Supr49er]

Wiglaf, that's a hilarious avatar. Oh, wait .....

[chequita guevara]

Cats were nerfed? Huh. Funny how I haven't noticed that.

[snoopy369]

Cats were definitely nerfed

[Hauptman]

Re: Things I'd like to change

Originally posted by Theben
1. Why are spearmen only available with copper/iron? Didn't people make spears w/o metal? Why are Skirmishers "archers" when they look like (and are as strong as) spearmen?

It's not the weapon that makes them spearmen, it's the tactics and armor. Warriors used spears not clubs, for thousands of years. Skirmishers are javelin users, hit harder than a bow but shorter range.

2. Change the chariot/horse bonus to +25% on flat terrain. Make sure it doesn't work on hills or forest. This could alter with certain UUs. Camel Archers, FE, could be +50% in desert.

Nice idea.

[Shalkai]

I have to say I think cats are OK in the their toned-down BtS guise. Things might have been tilted a little too far towards the defense, but it's still pretty good. I think it's a good idea for both the player, and the AI, to need to have a good balanced attack force, instead of a big stack of cat/treb/cannon blasting holy h*** out of whatever they lumber up to.

Of course, I do more defending than attacking in the classical era, so I won't claim to be an expert. When I do attack, I don't really see the AI using lots of HA and Cat in his cities for defense, though. Frankly, I'd be happy if he did - neither unit gets terrain or fortification bonus. If my attackers are in any kind of defensive terrain, I certainly don't need one spearman per HA to keep my cats safe. Even in the flats, I wouldn't bother with more than 2 spear/3 HA at most. Most of the defending city's cats attacking me will die - hurting, but not killing, my army. A couple of HAs coming in will usually lose. One might win - again, hurting but not killing my cats. Now, my army can quietly sit there, lick its wounds, and bombard down the remaining defenders. Unless my army is so weak it has no right to be there in the first place, I'll win in the long run, just be delayed a few turns.

I'd much rather face a defender force of 3 LB, 2 Axe, 2 HA, and 2 Cat than 7 LB and 2 Axe. Even better, if the defending force is 2 LB, 2 Cat, and 5HA...yeah, my cats might be toast, but so is that city. But I really never see stuff like that, and my cats hardly ever get flanked.

I've always had a Med1 Spear with my stacks for ages, so I'm only adding another unit or two to protect my stacks these day. Toss in one more spear, and maybe an anti-siege HA, and my SoD is good for regular battles.

I do see Krill's point - Cats are certainly weak, and capturing cities with walls, or worse castles, is slow. But I really don't mind. Cats are cheap (heck, I view them as disposable since my RNG never lets a cat live more than two attacks ) , and siege warfare *should* be slow, IMO. All in all, I think it works pretty well.

[Lancer]

Theben these are all excellent, well thought out ideas. Who did them for you?

[Colonâ„¢]

I want Civ2 but with better AI, no more city-bribing and no more losing-an-entire-stack-because-one-unit-is-defeated.

[johnmcd]

I agree on the 'more small tech bonuses' idea. Either for first discovery or for all holders.

I'd like to see some more dead end techs too. Things which give you a great unit or additional advantage if you have it but isn't a requirement for any follow on technology so there is a real decision to be made about whether you take it or leave it. Right now, you end up with all techs sooner or later.

I treat Horse Riding a bit like that just now, I never bother to research it. Eventually I'll get it as a make weight in some tech trade but it's pointless in my games.

[guermantes]

But I really never see stuff like that, and my cats hardly ever get flanked.

Indeed. I see your points Krill but my experience is to the contrary. My cats usually serve their purpose when I am on the offense and not many get flanked. Perhaps that's because I don't play MP?

[Ming]

Originally posted by guermantes
Indeed. I see your points Krill but my experience is to the contrary. My cats usually serve their purpose when I am on the offense and not many get flanked. Perhaps that's because I don't play MP?

I really depends on whether the AI has the units needed to do some flanking. If they are already built when you attack, I've had big stacks of cats taken out.

But if they weren't prepared for war, they then start building them. If you strike fast enough, you are right, not many end up getting flanked. But if it's an extended war, the chances go up big time as they crank the units out.