the whole spearman tank thingy

[WackenOpenAir]

i think most people just like more predictable outcomes of a battle.

So do i.

Also, in my oppinion should for example the chance that normal warrior in hills or fortified loses to a conscript attacking warrior be pretty darn small. Unlike it is now.

In order to decrease the chances of extreme outcomes, i would prefer ALL hitpoints to be doubled. (4-6-8-10 for conscript to elite)

[vmxa1]

I would agree many would prefer it be more predictable. This could be done in several ways. The designers wanted to provide for obsolete unis to have a changes, so we have this system.

Conscript vs Regular is not big problem as it is just two equal A/D units where one has an additonal HP.

[Tall Stranger]

If I'm not mistaken, the change you propose can easily be implemented in the editor. People who are really bugged by this incredibly rare event can simply modify their game.

They should understand, however, that they will also find these changes working against them in some cases. I would think, for example, that archer/horseman attacks against spears will be more difficult. That 10-25% fortification for spearmen will have a greater impact with each unit having a higher number of hit points.

[Rasputin]

i have never played with the editor and so must look into this a bit more....

but the basic principles of ancient versus modern units has been debated till the cows come home

[DaveV]

If you double the hitpoints, I think you would also have to double the rate of fire of all bombarding units to keep things in balance...

[Dain]

Altering it dramatically will have an adverse effect if you are missing a particular resource and could make it impossible to acquire it by force if you can not make units that are much better.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
If I'm not mistaken, the change you propose can easily be implemented in the editor. People who are really bugged by this incredibly rare event can simply modify their game.

The problem for me is:
I don't have the patience to learn where every unit appears in the tech tree so I can modify all their values. Every unit.
If a game requires that much effort for me to enjoy it, whats the point of even playing?

[mr Rura]

the problem is that doubling the amount of hitpoint will cause a fact that for example a 4-unit armies built by elite elephants [which have +1 hitpoint] would have 48 hitpoints...

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
The problem for me is:
I don't have the patience to learn where every unit appears in the tech tree so I can modify all their values. Every unit.
If a game requires that much effort for me to enjoy it, whats the point of even playing?

So, rather than spend (at most) a half hour of your time customizing the game to your liking, you would rather spend even more time trying to impose your preferences on everyone else?

Gee, aren't we lucky.

[David Murray]

Grr!

I've been playing an Emperor game, and it was a complete slog because I was attacking the Aztecs, who had a massive army but no saltpeter, and my cavalry were routinely getting slaughtered by PIKEMEN! Sometimes even on open ground, but especially so defended in cities and metropolises. I had to call everything off after only taking a handful of cities and will have to wait until tanks now because they have infantry.

So I guess it's true - you don't need an up to date army to fend off an attacking horde of 50-odd cavalry. You just need a ****load of men with pikes.

[Dain]

Originally posted by David Murray
Grr!

I've been playing an Emperor game, and it was a complete slog because I was attacking the Aztecs, who had a massive army but no saltpeter, and my cavalry were routinely getting slaughtered by PIKEMEN! Sometimes even on open ground, but especially so defended in cities and metropolises. I had to call everything off after only taking a handful of cities and will have to wait until tanks now because they have infantry.

So I guess it's true - you don't need an up to date army to fend off an attacking horde of 50-odd cavalry. You just need a ****load of men with pikes.

The only real difference you need to get accustom to is the higher the difficulty level the more units the AI will have compared to you (per city). It is the sheer volume which they use to try and make the game competitive as they can maintain a larger force and pay less maintenance, etc.

If you try using say 1 cannon for every 3 or 4 cavalry you will find you have a much easier time of destroying hordes of pikemen.

The AI is very stupid and predictable, it makes it pretty easy to overcome.

Just remember to use balanced forces. If you spread your forces all over the place it is much easier for the AI to pick off damaged units. I keep my forces in large units. I have a bunch of defensive units (so my offensive units are not defending), I have bombardment units (for offense and defense) and then the large bulk are offensive units.

Works for me.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by David Murray
Grr!

I've been playing an Emperor game, and it was a complete slog because I was attacking the Aztecs, who had a massive army but no saltpeter, and my cavalry were routinely getting slaughtered by PIKEMEN! Sometimes even on open ground, but especially so defended in cities and metropolises. I had to call everything off after only taking a handful of cities and will have to wait until tanks now because they have infantry.

So I guess it's true - you don't need an up to date army to fend off an attacking horde of 50-odd cavalry. You just need a ****load of men with pikes.

If you run 10 trials with calvs vs pike where pike only have fort bonus, the calvs win 70%. If you put the pikes in a metro, the clavs win 30%.

You just cannot attack metros with units alone and prosper. You need armies and bombardment or take losses. Even tanks will have trouble, since you can expect to be getting infantry.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger


So, rather than spend (at most) a half hour of your time customizing the game to your liking, you would rather spend even more time trying to impose your preferences on everyone else?

If it's so incredibly easy: You do it for me.
It'll only take (at most) a half hour and you'll shut me up.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
If it's so incredibly easy: You do it for me.
It'll only take (at most) a half hour and you'll shut me up.

Well, Comrade, there are quite a few reasons that I will not do so:

1) Here in the ****ing USA (as you so eloquently put it), we have a basic concept known as supply and demand. (If you are not familiar with it, please research Economics.) At the wage you have offered me to do this work (exactly $0), I choose not to supply you with labor. Were you to substantially increase said offer, I may reconsider, though I doubt you could afford my wage rate.

2) The only payment you actually offer is that you will "shut up." Given that this is a free country and all, I have no way to actually collect on your offer. You can legally withdraw said payment at any time, and I would have no legitimate recourse.

3) I believe in the values of self-reliance, individual initiative and education. Out of a desire to see you become a better, more well-rounded individual, I want you to learn the value of fixing things yourself.

4) In today's modern, lawsuit-happy society, I would be incredibly reluctant to do any work for you, as I have no assurance that, a year from now when your computer crashes, you will not falsely claim that I, through providing you with this mod, somehow caused said crash.

5) It sounds to me as though you are simply too lazy to do this work yourself. I have no desire to reward or encourage this behavior.

[spy14]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


If it's so incredibly easy: You do it for me.
It'll only take (at most) a half hour and you'll shut me up.

That Cav-Pikeman thing is still a lot more believable than Pike-Tank though.