New Scenario--The Italian Wars

[battosai]

Originally posted by Exile
What we would expect, that ground units could NOT attack the air unit-helicopter-fortress, isn't the case. No matter where they were, ground units seem to be able to attack a "0" range air unit.

The bombardment-air units did NOT receive any kind of bonus that I could detect attacking the heli/fortresses.

I didn't test

1.) giving the fortress any other range

2.) roles. Just put the role of the fortress on "defend."

3.) slots. There might be hope here. Weird, hardwired slots are often the answer to questions like these.

2.) The role of the bombardment units has to be "air dominance". I hope it's so called in the English version.

Then it should work. I've spend some hours of testing it, as posted already elsewhere.

[Exile]

thanks Cyr. Most of the problems you've pointed out have been fixed in the most updated versions.

Still testing this one. Satisfied with numbers and abilities now.

I thinking about the tech tree and how to use some of the trade techs to manipulate income levels. The paradigm will likely stay at four.

I need to know if anyone has seen the Saracen cities produce ships of any kind?

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Exile
thanks Cyr. Most of the problems you've pointed out have been fixed in the most updated versions.

I knew I wasn't exactly fast...

Out of curisoity: what was the problem with the italian Timber?

I need to know if anyone has seen the Saracen cities produce ships of any kind?

I haven't seen any!

[Exile]

There were events that were written wrong and didn't fire properly. I'll look into the Italian (renamed now the Milanese) timber problem.

The problem I'm wrestling with now is how to deal with the artillery problem. The early guns were very good at knocking down curtain walls, but as time went by, and defenses became more sophisticated, specialized siege artillery appeared. The two types, heavy field guns and siege mortars, differentiated as time went by. I'm at a loss as to how to represent this. If I make the heavy guns powerful enough to eliminate units fortified in cities (which has been accomplished and must be done), then how do I make the siege artillery more effective without giving it higher numbers? Siege artillery MUST be practically useless in the field, so it must have low numbers. The bombardment units can be carried by advanced ships in the scenario, and they should not be strong enough to eliminate a typical combat unit, but only damage it. If the heavy guns don't have the ignoreswalls ability, they won't be able to take cities, so this eliminates the obvious solution of giving that ability only to the siege guns. Bott, I tested it again and must be doing something wrong, because; any unit can attack the fortress, even if it's outside a city. I ask again, does the 0 range for air units make them vulnerable to ground attack? They are not air units in the sense that bombers are? The only solution I can come up with now is to eliminate the siege guns. Hate to do this Gareth, such a nice graphic. I'm open to suggestions.

[Boco]

Originally posted by Exile
I ask again, does the 0 range for air units make them vulnerable to ground attack? They are not air units in the sense that bombers are?

I thought it did; I thought they weren't. When I have a chance, I'll check.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Exile
There were events that were written wrong and didn't fire properly. I'll look into the Italian (renamed now the Milanese) timber problem.

The problem I'm wrestling with now is how to deal with the artillery problem. The early guns were very good at knocking down curtain walls, but as time went by, and defenses became more sophisticated, specialized siege artillery appeared. The two types, heavy field guns and siege mortars, differentiated as time went by. I'm at a loss as to how to represent this. If I make the heavy guns powerful enough to eliminate units fortified in cities (which has been accomplished and must be done), then how do I make the siege artillery more effective without giving it higher numbers? Siege artillery MUST be practically useless in the field, so it must have low numbers. The bombardment units can be carried by advanced ships in the scenario, and they should not be strong enough to eliminate a typical combat unit, but only damage it. If the heavy guns don't have the ignoreswalls ability, they won't be able to take cities, so this eliminates the obvious solution of giving that ability only to the siege guns. Bott, I tested it again and must be doing something wrong, because; any unit can attack the fortress, even if it's outside a city. I ask again, does the 0 range for air units make them vulnerable to ground attack? They are not air units in the sense that bombers are? The only solution I can come up with now is to eliminate the siege guns. Hate to do this Gareth, such a nice graphic. I'm open to suggestions.

Units with a '0' range are automatically helicopter units and can be attacked by units of any domain. A non-helicopter air unit defending in a city only defends with its defense factor if it's a fighter defending against bombers. Otherwise, it defends worth '1'. So air units make poor fortress units.

The most common solution is to have the the siege guns have a lower attack strength and movement than the field guns, but give the 'ignore city walls' flag. In Roman Civil Wars, I also gave the siege towers the 'destroyed after attacking' flag, and made them as expensive as possible. This forces the human player to preserve them for attacking cities containing fortress units.

In playtesting, I adjusted the factors of fortress (ground) units so that it took about 4 siege tower units to kill one, and regular ground units had no chance of success.

[battosai]

Siege artillery (especially mortars) can be made slower and less cheap than field artillery + setting down offense stats + plus givin icw (if not air)) + giving the fighter role (not the flag).

If you put the field arty bombardment (or the lightest ones) units to the slots of nuke + cruise missile you can make a cheaper light artillery battery with the submarine-flag that can only carry these two.

To prevent capturing/destroying of heli-fortresses by land units or field artiller, just increase firepower. The siege arty won't care. Besides, I proved that ground units with the fighter role also take that critical dvantage against copters.

Hope Exile now might stop ignoring me.

[battosai]

Originally posted by techumseh


A non-helicopter air unit defending in a city only defends with its defense factor if it's a fighter defending against bombers. Otherwise, it defends worth '1'. So air units make poor fortress units.

Where did you get that? An air unit in a city defends so as their stats and normal multiplayers say. If an air unit has the fighter flag, it gets a defense multiplier of 4 if defending against a bomber.

[Exile]

This is so confusing . . . .

Ok, if the ROLE is AIR SUPERIORITY, then the unit with that role will have an advantage against HELICOPTER units, meaning AIR units w/0 range. And this is true no matter what the role of the helicopter is, or whether the attacking units w/AIR SUPERIORITY role are ground, sea, or air units.

Is this accurate?

I'll test it.

[Exile]

Bott, I just don't see it happening. My tests aren't too scientific, but still . . . .

fortresses; air unit, def 20, range 0, hp 4, fp 1, in a city.

Hvy cannons; att 9, hp 3, fp 2, fires over walls.

Siege guns; carriers

bombardment ammo; 5 att, 1 range, 1 move, killed after attack, air unit, air superiority role.

The results; the hvy cannons can batter it down, but it might take a few to do it, fewer if they're veterans. But the bombardment seems to get no real advantage at all whether the air superiority role is there or not. Changed the defense of the fort to 10, but that simply made it too easy for the cannons. If I understood the idea, it's that the air superiority role gives a unit a very strong advantage when attacking helicopter air units. I'm not seeing this at all.

I can't increase the bombardment ammo strength--it's set. I was looking for a way to make it super-effective against a specific target unit.

The copter/fortress DOES appear to be defending with its full defense value however. Being an air unit with range of 0 seems to automatically make it a ground unit for all purposes except movement.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by battosai


Where did you get that? An air unit in a city defends so as their stats and normal multiplayers say. If an air unit has the fighter flag, it gets a defense multiplier of 4 if defending against a bomber.

I did an experiment, and I think you are right. Is it naval units than defend against ground units at one?

Exile, I don't think the role has anything to do with the relative combat value. It controls how the AI uses the unit.

The only advantage I can see to using an air unit as a fortress is if it is outside a city and is not a helicopter (endurance of 0). Then it cannot be attacked by any unit that doesn't have the 'can attack air units' flag, which can be given exclusively to siege artillery units. The problem of course is that any air unit with an endurance greater than 0 will eventually run out of gas.

Unless you have a fairly short scenario.

[techumseh]

An important Re-discovery.

If you set an air unit with a 0 movement and a 2 turn endurance, it will not crash after the 2 turns are up. It cannot be attacked by any ground unit unless the unit has the fighter flag.

So, for a permanent fortress outside a city which can only be attacked by siege guns, this is a good solution.

ps. I think this was used by Harlan Thompson in his original 'Mongols' scenario for the mountain units.

[Exile]

Well, a quick rework of the tech tree and the elimination of the siege artillery can solve this little problem . . . .

I just hate to not use one of Gareth's custom made unit graphix.

This really does seem to be the last major problem. There are a few loose ends to tie up. Barb activity primarily.

[battosai]

Oh lord... What are we gonna do ? Okay, I have the final idea: please test with my stats. I give you not only the exact stats of my test objects of which i swear they show up the funcionality of my "discovery" but a quote from my civ-manual. If this does not work, please ban me.

attacker #1 (the siege unit)

36-Pounders, Gun, 1, 1.,0, 50a,0d, 1h,10f, 1,0, 3, Feu, 001000000000000

If a fighter or stealth fighter attacks a heliopter unit, the firepower of the helicopter becomes reduced to one and its defense factor is reduced to 50%.

attacker #2 (the field battle unit)

Mercenary Line,nil, 0, 4.,0, 60a,20d, 4h,5f, 6,0, 1, Amp, 000000001000000

attacker #3

Mercenary Line,nil, 0, 4.,0, 60a,20d, 4h,5f, 6,0, 3, Amp, 000000001000000


The defender:

ModernFortress,nil, 1, 0.,0, 0a,100d,10h,10f, 10,0, 1, CA, 000000000000001


Exile's example was not very attractive as a convincing example, especially cos he set the firepower of the fortress to only one.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Exile
Well, a quick rework of the tech tree and the elimination of the siege artillery can solve this little problem . . . .

I just hate to not use one of Gareth's custom made unit graphix.

This really does seem to be the last major problem. There are a few loose ends to tie up. Barb activity primarily.

Don't sweat it Phenix - make the units fit the scenario rather than scenario fitting the units...