Vel Contemplates Mod-Making.....

[gaikokujin]

Dissent (not Dissident): Making the game harder to beat by toning down your strategy is the whole idea behind the proposal to put in either more expensive variants of the resource-dependent units, or by creating a weaker, non resource-dependent version of an era unit. I think these are very good ideas. Consider this:

1) Weaker or resourceless civs would have more staying power (and that could be you);

2) This would strengthen Builder approaches: You would have the _option_ (always a good thing) to not engage in the resource competition, settling for fewer or slightly weaker units (a defensive posture). Which would also eliminate the tiresome (because, inevitable, predictable) chore of pouring rush money to build culture improvements into otherwise useless corruption maxxed out cities, just to control far away resources

Pyrodrew: Yes, oasies and bananas - why did they take these out?

Stockmarkets/Supermarkets/Refridgeration/Superhighways, on the other hand, tended to be "super" unbalancing, as the AI doesn't build them all. This is a problem generic to many late game improvements, which might explain the relative barreness of the later tech tree (hint, hint).

[David Weldon]

The best way to remedy this is to increase the strength of bombardment IMO.

Actually, if you increase HP and break bombardment, then you need to increase bombard rate of fire to fix it, not just bombard strength. The problem you run into next is that with increased RoF, bombard units can do much more damage to terrain and cities than they previously could.

If you want to fix "obsolete" units, definitely just add firepower back, by multiplying all desired units by some fixed number (say, 10). This would lead to relative A/D numbers that don't change at all w/respect to "new" units, but it would make "obsolete" units _extremely_ easy to defeat with newer units.

Ex:
Pikeman: 1/3/1
Infantry: 60/100/1
Tank: 160/80/1

If a tank attacks infantry, it still has a 16/10 chance of winning each round, just like before. If it attacks a Pikeman, however, it just crushes it. When Dan said in a chat that Firepower was a usless complication, he was absolutely correct. The same _exact_ function can be accomplished in this manner. (I may have made a mistake on the A/D of units 'cause I'm working from memory, sorry if I goofed).

Of course this does nothing to differentiate experience levels, that's a whole different ballgame...

[Venger]

Originally posted by Zurai001
I'll weigh into this again: Changing unit hitpoints breaks bombardment.

No no no! First, until ships can be sunk and ground units potentially destroyed, bombardment is already broken...

BUT, when you double HP, you simply need to double the ROF value. This works, trust me, I play with it. It's actually very cool, artillery can do between 1 - 4 HP of damage, instead of just 1 - 2. This absoltutely preserves the balance of the game.

Note: do NOT change the bombardment strength, I believe this number is used to determine the chance of success, doubling this WILL break the system.

I recommend that if you plan on altering combat, work with the attack/defense/bombardment values ONLY. Hitpoints have an extreme impact on the combat system, and some elements of that are unchangeable through the editor.

Please try these changes, you'll see it works as advertised. Adding HP gets rid of a lot of freak results (galley sinks Ironclad, swordsmen kill tanks, etc...). This won't be fixed nearly as well by monkeying with A/D points. PLUS, it's a central change that is easy to implement - change the A/D and you'll change them for most of the units in the game...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by David Weldon

Actually, if you increase HP and break bombardment, then you need to increase bombard rate of fire to fix it, not just bombard strength.

DO NOT INCREASE BOMBARD STRENGTH. This is used to determine the chance of successful bombardment against a target, and that SHOULDN'T change. The only change you want is to double ROF to allow double damage on a successful bombardment, to account for the doubled HP. That's it.

The problem you run into next is that with increased RoF, bombard units can do much more damage to terrain and cities than they previously could.

??? Are you sure about that? If a bombard unit scores a hit, it destroys the target, not damage. It's a 0/100 setup, a hit destroys the target, period. Changing the bombard strength is what will increase the amount of destruction.

When Dan said in a chat that Firepower was a usless complication, he was absolutely correct.

AIIGGHH! Why can't people get this? Dave, the best way to see the effect of firepower and why it ISN'T superfluous is to use this example:

Unit 1 : 10/10/10 (A/D/HP) with 1 Firepower
Unit 2 : 1/1/10 (A/D/HP) with 10 Firepower

You would concur that these are evenly matched, yes?

If these two units fight, you will NEVER have a damaged unit 1. Ever. Why? Because it is either never touched or totally destroyed. Firepower influences the damage curve ESPECIALLY in limited round combat.

The same _exact_ function can be accomplished in this manner.

Nope, see above...the above units are balanced, whereas your adjusted units simply never lose. Firepower is an easy to implement trait that would only enhance the game combat flavor. It is a heavy stick that can subtly change how a unit works when used properly.

Venger

[arthurdent]

It seems that the consensus is that the Pyramids, Sun Tzu's and Hoover Dam are too powerful, why not turn that on it's head SMAC style and make a certain tech give the same effect as the wonder. There were several techs in SMAC gave you buildings in every city, this would effectivly cancel the bonus from the offending wonders.

Dave

[BanastreTa]

Originally posted by Venger


??? Are you sure about that? If a bombard unit scores a hit, it destroys the target, not damage. It's a 0/100 setup, a hit destroys the target, period. Changing the bombard strength is what will increase the amount of destruction.

Venger

I'm not sure the bombard number is that simple. What about when units are the targets? I agree that the bombard figure obviously has no sort of "damage" factor when it comes to destroying buildings or improvements, but shouldn't it affect how many hitpoints a targeted unit loses?

[David Weldon]

Venger:
First, bombard on terrain. Higher RoF=more likely to hit within a single round, no? More likely to hit=guaranteed destruction, no? All of a sudden, 5 artillery is enough to decimate everything as far as you can shoot, using one per square instead of needing to shoot multiple times at each square.

I agree that increasing bombard strength would have a similar effect, but I'm not sure what can be done. Perhaps the bombard defense of tiles/improvements can be increased somehow?

Next, Firepower. While I applaud your conviction, and sympathize with your exasperation, I don't see your point:

Unit 1: A=10/D=10/HP=10 FP=1
Unit 2: 1/1/10 FP=10.

My alteration would be to ignore FP and simply multiply A/D by 10 (in this case). This leads to Unit 2:10/10/10. Seems self-evident that these are as equally matched as they were with FP.

As for the argument about never seeing a damaged unit 1, I think that's a _negative_ aspect of FP, not a positive one.

OK, so I see from your example that it's not completely equivalent, but I don't see why it isn't even better than the FP solution.

[Venger]

Originally posted by David Weldon
Venger:
First, bombard on terrain. Higher RoF=more likely to hit within a single round, no?

I don't believe so - I believe the bombard factor determines a successful hit.

More likely to hit=guaranteed destruction, no?

Yes, but ROF determines damage after a hit, not if a hit occurs.

All of a sudden, 5 artillery is enough to decimate everything as far as you can shoot, using one per square instead of needing to shoot multiple times at each square.

I haven't noticed any increase in successful terrain destruction by bombard units. I am fairly sure the bombardment strength controls the to hit chance.

Unit 1: A=10/D=10/HP=10 FP=1
Unit 2: 1/1/10 FP=10.

My alteration would be to ignore FP and simply multiply A/D by 10 (in this case). This leads to Unit 2:10/10/10. Seems self-evident that these are as equally matched as they were with FP.

But to say it will give you the same results is INCORRECT, which is my point. Firepower and having higher attack number is NOT one in the same.

As for the argument about never seeing a damaged unit 1, I think that's a _negative_ aspect of FP, not a positive one.

I chose the outlier value to demonstrate the in practive difference. However, some units you would expect to cause massive damage or miss entirely (this is why cruise missiles in Civ2 had that damage pattern - little damage or alot, most of the time).

OK, so I see from your example that it's not completely equivalent, but I don't see why it isn't even better than the FP solution.

First, your changes and mine are NOT mutually exclusive.

Again, firepower changes the damage curve, A/D changes the likely outcome curve. As your A/D numbers get out of hand, you'll remove any chance from combat. With both tools you get a refined advantage.

Venger

[Badtz Maru]

I've done a few things to smooth out the transitions between ages when it comes to units.

First is that I made swordsmen upgrade to knights. This makes sense to me - they are both offensive melee units. This allows you to make use of all those warriors you have left over from the ancient era right up to cavalry.

Second change I've made, I've done differently on two systems - on my wife's install, I made cavalry upgrade to armor. Both fall into the niche of 'fast offensive unit'. There is a drawback, though - you will have a LOT of tanks right after getting the tech for them, which seems unbalancing. My wife likes to play on Chieftan and doesn't care if the challenge is low (she wants to dominate! ) so it doesn't bother her, but I tried something different in my version. I changed the helicopter to an Attack Helicopter. It is now a land unit with a move of 3 that treats all terrain as roads. It's not as strong as tanks, but has a decent defense (it's maneuverability and use of terrain makes up for it's lack of armor). It also has a low-moderate bombard ability, about like what jet fighters have (BTW, I gave tanks a weak bombard ability as well). I haven't got to use them enough yet to see how balanced they are (I didn't get a chance to play until after I got the patch and I reverted to default rules to give them another chance). Attack choppers are a modern equivalent of cavalry.

Third change I made, to address the lack of a decent offensive substitute to cavalry is beef up the offense of riflemen and infantry a bit (giving the second a smallish bombard ability, to simulate mortar and other light artillery modern infantry will use) and flagging them as both offensive and defensive units in the way AI uses them. This makes for wars that more closely imitate reality - the AI will send large groups of riflemen marching into my territory along with their cavalry. Since their attack is still not as good as their defense they die a lot, but if you look at the Civil War you will see that attacking with masses of riflemen gets very bloody. This also tricks the AI into using combined arms strategies more - just as I will acompany cavalry with riflemen and infantry, so will the AI (of course the AI DOES attack with the footmen more than I do, but he does seem to know to use his better offensive units first). Anyway, when modifying units I can't stress enough that you should look into changing the AI behavior.

I've made a lot of other changes, but these are the ones that seem to effect warfare the most. Maybe someone can use my ideas.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by David Weldon/Venger
First, bombard on terrain. Higher RoF=more likely to hit within a single round, no?

I don't believe so - I believe the bombard factor determines a successful hit.

Hmmm, looks like we need to test this, to see which exactly determines the chance a bombardment hit actually does damage to a terrain tile.

If only one determines the chance to hit, then we will be able to double hitpoints, and double the bombardment attribute that doesnt affect its chance to hit. Then the "crazy" combat rounds where spearmen defeat tanks will become much more rare, as they should be

As to what else will help fix the combat system, bombardment and planes should be able to sink ships. If a warrior entering an enemy city can sink dozens of battleships and carriers, why cant a state-of-the-art bomber, artillery unit, or rocket launcher sink ships?? Its just wrong to see wooden ships hit by rockets, and still be there after the rocket has hit. Its like dropping a nuke on a warrior, only to have him stand there and wave back to you

Speaking of nukes, they should destroy small cities. Any way to make them do this?? I was thinking like under size 6 would automatically be wiped off the face of the earth, while cities larger would be halved as currently happens. This change would help make nukes a weapon to be feared.

btw: Thanks Vel for starting this

[David Weldon]

Originally posted by Venger
Yes, but ROF determines damage after a hit, not if a hit occurs.

I haven't noticed any increase in successful terrain destruction by bombard units. I am fairly sure the bombardment strength controls the to hit chance.

The reason I believe this is the case is that I have used Artillery (RoF=2) against a defender, and only done 1 point of damage. At other times I do 2 points of damage. This tells me that RoF is exactly that: a separate attack is made for each point of RoF, and the result of each one is separately determined according to bombard strength (i.e. one "roll" per RoF point). This is a guess, and it's certainly possible that the real system is different than this.

It could easily be tested by jacking RoF up to 100, and then see if you ever "miss" a tile improvement. I don't think you'll destroy all things within a city even with an absurd RoF because there seems to be some code that forces the artillery to first pick a target (single improvement, unit, or population) and then determine it's effect on that one target (using all of it's RoF on that same target).

But to say it will give you the same results is INCORRECT, which is my point. Firepower and having higher attack number is NOT one in the same.

I agree again, just as I did in the post you quoted.

First, your changes and mine are NOT mutually exclusive.

Again, firepower changes the damage curve, A/D changes the likely outcome curve. As your A/D numbers get out of hand, you'll remove any chance from combat. With both tools you get a refined advantage.

You're right about the non-exclusivity, but we have to deal with the cold hard fact that we can't mod FP into the game right now. We can mod A/D values to operate 99% equivalently to FP. The only thing we can't do is create "all or nothing" units, and while that's definitely a drawback I don't think it's such a big deal that it should stop us from fixing what we can.

I totally disagree that A/D numbers will get "out of hand" or "remove any chance" from combat. It can be shown statistically that the % likelihood of each unit winning is exactly the same with or without FP, as long as the A/D numbers are changed appropriately (there may be some rounding issues if fractional A/D numbers are required, but that's a different problem). What will be different (as pointed out already) is the HP of the survivor. It should also be pointed out that in most "normal" cases, the remaining HPs won't even be very different, there are only a few extreme cases where this effect would be pronounced.

I think, however, that the purpose here is not to reproduce FirePower, but rather to create more "realistic" combat results with modern vs. obsolete units. To this end I don't see why it matters if the remaining HPs are different.

To conclude: The win/loss results that were obtained in CivII via the FP mechanic can be exactly reproduced in CivIII via modification of A/D values. The HPs of the victor will be slightly different if this approach is used, but who said that the FP system was perfect in the first place? The bombard % chance of success against tiles and cities will get wierd if bombard defense can't be altered in some way.

[Thresh1642]

Badtz,

What bombard numbers did you give the Tanks and Infantry?

And, have you played with your Mod post patch to see how it works?

[Slax]

Thread a little long to read it all, so I hope this isn't repeat.

Due to the lack of rivers, I think it would be a nice addition to have a Wonder that allows irrigation from the city that produces it (without rivers and before electricity). Call it "The Great Well" or something (I suppose that might be confusing, eh?). Maybe there is a real well to name it after.

I'm not sure if this modification is possible in the game, though.

[gachnar]

Originally posted by Slax
I'm not sure if this modification is possible in the game, though.

Not really, no.

But if it was, we could have it decrease population by 1 every 20 turns (which also cant be done) until you build The Great Timmy Rescue, which would require a new stategic resource: Collies and a new Wonder: The Uber-Translator.

Seriously, there are some good ideas here, but many of them are simply not possible yet.

Hey Firaxians... Any new stuff for the editor soon?

[Slax]

Oh, and of course, a spy satellite unit. Large sight range and speed, impervious to attack. Perhaps with short lifespan. Requires Rocketry + other techs?