Unit Power.

[Chronus]

here is a stupid question, but for attack/defense values, must the numbers always be whole numbers? or could you say change the value of a warrior to like 1.026-.986-1 and a phalanx to like .964-1.375-1 in the rules.txt?

GOOD GRIEF, will someone please tie this kid up!

Sorry, Korn, I just don't care for the decimal or fraction thing. Using a calculator takes time away from playing the game.

[korn469]

Chronus

hehe i was actually just wondering...because if that is possible then the players could change it in the rules.txt for their own pleasure hehe i'm not actually advocating having a .964-1.375-1 phalanx in the game

[Urban Ranger]

See who's moaning?

Originally posted by ToD.MB
Why don't we all stop moaning about the possible bad points of Civ 3 and actuallty wait until it's released?

So that Firaxis can't fix what we perceive to be problems before they release the game?

Originally posted by ToD.MB
Bewilderingly, the Apolyton forums are about 95% NEGATIVE about forthcoming Civ games. So here's a spot of advice: - if you don't like the Civ games or have a major issue about them: then DON'T BUY THEM.

I've got a better idea. If you don't like what you are reading, don't read.

[Urban Ranger]

korn,

Certainly a huge mob of 1-1-1 warriors can be dangerous to a lone defender of his era. I'm not sure why you bring this up, however, since that seems to have nothing to do with the underpowered chariots in Civ 3.

My contention is that if Firxais thinks that powerful chariots lead to early runaway conquests, they can make the units expensive. Double or even triple the costs.

Also I don't think there's a point to have silly decimal numbers for attributes since these attributes are just highly abstracted.

[korn469]

Urban Ranger

ok my point about warriors is this...i theorize that chariots even the normal 1.1.2 model when combined into an army are going to be dangerous to any single unit...while that might not seem like much to say in the time frame that you are using chariots the number of armies are going to be severly limited

even if you have 7 cities most likely you will only have two natural armies (most likely you'll get your first army on city one then your second army on city five then the third army on city eight) plus whatever other armies you can get from great leaders...since it is going to take longer to get cities because of two pop settlers and one pop workers (that's three population points just to found a new city and build a road from your old city to your new city) you aren't going to have that many city armies...also only players with the military attribute will likely have any great leaders during this period...so armies are a limited resource, not only that armies are a more efficient way to attack than one unit at a time, because an army limits losses...instead of losing five units and then the last unit will win almost undamaged, you might only lose one unit with the rest in the red or yellow, but that is still a significant change because in a few turns your army can be back up to fighting strength...instead of having to rebuild those units

a five unit army of 1.1.2 chariots is immune from attacks by any single unit in their epoch (except maybe a roman legion, but since they have the movement advantage they can retreat) and they can take down any single unit in the open, and only fortified spearmen in a city with city walls can defend against them...and that is 1.1.2 strength...if my results hold up over the long term, a 2.1.2 chariot army would win about 90% of the time against a fortified spearman in fortifications...and the spearman is the best defender in terms of cost in the ancient epoch

so the only way to defend against an army is with an army...but if you keep your army on defense and get contained, then the player who builds more cities can build more armies and can hammer your civ

summary: because of armies, nerfing the chariot was almost required to prevent players from conquering the world in the ancient age...most likely the egyptians and the babylonians will dominate the early game because of quick golden ages and superior fast moving, hard hitting units

additionally if chariots had of been 2.1.2 then an egyptian war chariot would have been 3.1.2 and the egyptian armies would have probably been too powerful

while i cannot prove this yet since i haven't played civ3, to me this seems like the best theory as to why they decreased the power of the chariot from 2.1.2 (using horseman stats because that is the unit it took the place of) to 1.1.2

[Kestrel]

Korn469 asked

for attack/defense values, must the numbers always be whole numbers? or could you say change the value of a warrior to like 1.026-.986-1 and a phalanx to like .964-1.375-1 in the rules.txt?

Unfortunately for Civ3 I don't know. If that were possible it would certainly fix my problem, I don't think it was possible in Civ2 as I understood that an integer was expected. (Not that I've ever tested it in Civ2).

Cheers.

[Nenad]

I was hoping that special units will have same values and it will be cheaper to build (by the nation who owns it, of course).

However, i think that the chariots are too weak in atack. Two for all, and 3 for Egyptians is more realistic.

It looks it's too late now for any change?

[Edward]

originally posted by Chronus
What really caught my attention is the Babalonian bowman having a movement of 2. Will these bowmen be on horses? It didn't appear so in the picture. This jumps at me because in the other civs, foot units always had a movement of 1, while mobile units were 2 or 3. Those are sure mighty fast Babalonians.

Agreed. The Babylonian archer having 2 move, while perhaps good for game balance, is unrealistic. If the Babylonians where known for having their citizens get from place to place by running (which is true for some real-world African tribes) then MAYBE I could see it. As it is now, their movement seems very arbitrary and counter to the implied "military footmen move 1 and military horses move 2" rule.

I love UberKruX's idea that the Babylonian archer should be 2 attack, 2 defense, 1 move.

---

originally posted by Tventano
a few chariots can kill a few warriors without being killed themselves, because chariots have move two and just as in SMAC they can attack and halfway retreat. Attack with the next one and kill the warrior. So even against spearman chariots will be fairly useful as long you have couple of them.

I haven't played SMAC, but it sounds like a 2 move might allow the normal chariot to fare better in battle. Perhaps its 2 movement allows a single (non-army) chariot to retreat if he goes in the red and is fighting a slower 1-move unit. (Better hope there are reinforcements, roads to a city, or good terrain or else that retreating chariot will be toast next turn.) If things work like Tventano's example, then fast moving units (like chariots) have pseudo army advantages when attacking.

[Edward]

 [quote]frrom Civ3 site's Ask the Civ team
Q: In Civ I and Civ II, there was no way for a losing unit to retreat from combat. In Alpha Centauri, on the other hand, a fast unit could retreat after taking damage, but ordinary infantry could not. What do you aim to do as far as this is concerned in Civ III?

A: Good question. Units that have a speed advantage over their opponent will be able to retreat from combat, but you will also be able to launch an "assault", where your units will essentially attack until they win or are killed.

[Alex 14]

Maybee the units are so weak because when they become Veteran they will proberly become stronger, even if it is in Civ 2 style it will work out a bit like this:

Normal Phalanx: 1/2/1
Veteran Phalanx: 1/3/1
Elite Phalanx: 1/4.5/1

Sound ok to me, and if attack was increased also, it could then become:

Normal Knight: 4/3/2
Veteran Knight: 6/4.5/2
Elite Knight: 9/6.75/2

This is quite reasonable, and maybee Firaxis plan to improve unit upgrades to.

[Grumbold]

I'd be surprised if they gained anything except a few hitpoints otherwise the old tank v phalanx syndrome will be back. Firaxis are also very unlikely to play with fractional values.

With luck modmakers like Kestrel will be able to multiply the attack and defence values up by 10 in order to create more flexibility without affecting unit balance.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Firaxisis have "less is acrually more" strategy.

I hope the pull it off.

What happens with terrain modifiers so I guess that attacking might be quite hard,and that a warrior is the only unit that you need anyway.

But a stack of specialist Bablyonian archers (2-1-2)early on in the game winght just win the game for you (especially on a small map)

Attack strenght two you get a great leader and three archers stack, after a few wins they will become elite and than (if elite are 50% up that means that archers will have 3 attack strength). Just move to the first city without city walls and take it... and than move on, noone will be able to containt this force.

If they continue winning you might get more great leaders from them

We need some explanations how does this really work...

[barefootbadass]

Perhaps viewing the 1-1-2 chariots under a different light would be helpful.

People are saying that with army stacking a 3-1-2 chariot would be way too powerful, but maybe the idea is that you shouldn't be able to conquer with a single unit. In an age with 1-1 defenders(and some 1-2 and 1-3 defenders, depending on the civ), the only way you could really ensure that lone mobile units couldn't run over an empire is to make them have comparable power. Then you pretty much have to have an army to conquer defended territories, and, depending on the strength of the defense, it may not always be possible then. When faced with a civ like the greeks with their hoplites, it would be very hard to conquer with ancient armies, and practically impossible if they have city walls.

I think firaxis is paying close attention with the way they balance units to avoid games where you can't defend a city no matter what you do and to avoid situations where borders never change. I think they are balancing things in such a way that stability of borders, the ability to conquer, and the ability to hold ground, depends on what the natural attributes of the civilazation are and on chance circumstances depending on geography, and of course the wiseness of the strategic decisions made by the ruler of the civilization would of course play a role.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by korn469
...a 2.1.2 chariot army would win about 90% of the time against a fortified spearman in fortifications...and the spearman is the best defender in terms of cost in the ancient epoch

so the only way to defend against an army is with an army...but if you keep your army on defense and get contained, then the player who builds more cities can build more armies and can hammer your civ

summary: because of armies, nerfing the chariot was almost required to prevent players from conquering the world in the ancient age...most likely the egyptians and the babylonians will dominate the early game because of quick golden ages and superior fast moving, hard hitting units

Not necessarily. A stack of units can defend against an army, partcularly when fortified and behind walls. It seems that I only need a stack of 3 spearman to defend against an army of 4 chariots. Given that spearman units are cheaper to build, this makes chariots nearly useless.