Tweet
I don't know if this has been discussed before (I'm just a settler after all), but has anyone questioned the logic of the large differences in attack and defense values? Now I know that a longbowman probably wouldn't have much armor and as such might, in some cases, fare poorly against a charge by knights. But having such a large difference in A/D values means that two otherwise identical longbowman units will have very different chances of winning, depending if they are attacking or defending. According to the combat calculator page that someone set up, the attacker will win 92% of the time on flat terrain.
That's a huge difference and it doesn't make sense. They should have more or less equal chances of winning and I don't understand why the game designers have clung to this flawed system since Civ I. To my mind, a primarily offensive unit's defense is its offense--meaning that if a cavalry charges another cavalry, you are going to get a cavalry charge in return and equal forces should have an equal chance of winning. This is especially true for air and sea units. Why should one frigate get smoked by another frigate just because it wasn't his turn to move?
Since I have been extensively modifying the game with the editor, I have decided to do away with this system by giving primarily offensive units equal A/D values. For defensive units, I think the stock system applies because there are special weapons, tactics and other inherent properties which can make a unit considerably better in defense than offense. Spearmen and pikemen would use their long weapons and rigid formations for an attacker to impale himself upon, and the incredibly bloody American Civil War and WWI proved that charging riflemen were sitting ducks for other riflemen covered by trenches or fortifications.
One thing that I'm still mulling over is what to do with the fortificacation bonus (not fortress). My original idea was to uncheck the fortify box in the unit properties for offensive units to partially offset the large increase in defensive value caused by equalizing A/D. This makes a lot of sense to me, because if we assume that an offensive unit's defense is its offense, then fortifying such a unit is somewhat of a contradiction. Unfortunately, play testing showed some flaws with this system. For one thing, if you can't fortify, then you also can not go on sentry, an undocumented feature of the game engine (thanks Firaxis). This means that offensive units that you wish to remain stationary have no way of being frozen in place so that you don't have to deal with them every turn. There are also ways to circumvent no fortify flag by using the pop-up menu and choosing fortify all for a group of two or more units. You can do this even if all of the unit types in the group have the fortify box unchecked. And finally, the AI never has a problem fortifying units, even single units of a type with the fortify box unchecked.
I believe what I will do then is set the fortify bonus to zero and increase defensive unit's defense by 50% so that in effect, we assume that they are always fortified at the end of their turn. I know that the normal fortify bonus is 25%, but I think 50% is reasonable and realistic and it makes defensive units more attractive since I made offensive units more powerful in defense. I have also already made changes to the defensive values of cities and terrain. I have given a 25% bonus to units inside towns, but reduced the bonus for a metropolis to 75%. I have removed the defensive bunus for flat terrain types, increased jungle bunus to 50% and I will probably reduce the hill and mountain bunuses to 25% and 50%. But all of this is subject to change if it turns out for example that it is too difficult to take over enemy cities.
The mod is still in progress and contains numerous other changes to many aspects of the game accessible from the editor, some of which were inspired by the AU mod and the Balancer mod. Another basic thing I have tried to do is set the cost of units to be equal to their combat value. Powerful units like tanks are even more powerful with equal A/D, but they become very expensive if you price them according to their ability. I believe I will call this the Equalizer mod and if anyone is interested, I can make it available for others to try out. Many hours of work have went into it so far, although som aspects have not been thoroughly play tested yet.
That's a huge difference and it doesn't make sense. They should have more or less equal chances of winning and I don't understand why the game designers have clung to this flawed system since Civ I. To my mind, a primarily offensive unit's defense is its offense--meaning that if a cavalry charges another cavalry, you are going to get a cavalry charge in return and equal forces should have an equal chance of winning. This is especially true for air and sea units. Why should one frigate get smoked by another frigate just because it wasn't his turn to move?
Since I have been extensively modifying the game with the editor, I have decided to do away with this system by giving primarily offensive units equal A/D values. For defensive units, I think the stock system applies because there are special weapons, tactics and other inherent properties which can make a unit considerably better in defense than offense. Spearmen and pikemen would use their long weapons and rigid formations for an attacker to impale himself upon, and the incredibly bloody American Civil War and WWI proved that charging riflemen were sitting ducks for other riflemen covered by trenches or fortifications.
One thing that I'm still mulling over is what to do with the fortificacation bonus (not fortress). My original idea was to uncheck the fortify box in the unit properties for offensive units to partially offset the large increase in defensive value caused by equalizing A/D. This makes a lot of sense to me, because if we assume that an offensive unit's defense is its offense, then fortifying such a unit is somewhat of a contradiction. Unfortunately, play testing showed some flaws with this system. For one thing, if you can't fortify, then you also can not go on sentry, an undocumented feature of the game engine (thanks Firaxis). This means that offensive units that you wish to remain stationary have no way of being frozen in place so that you don't have to deal with them every turn. There are also ways to circumvent no fortify flag by using the pop-up menu and choosing fortify all for a group of two or more units. You can do this even if all of the unit types in the group have the fortify box unchecked. And finally, the AI never has a problem fortifying units, even single units of a type with the fortify box unchecked.
I believe what I will do then is set the fortify bonus to zero and increase defensive unit's defense by 50% so that in effect, we assume that they are always fortified at the end of their turn. I know that the normal fortify bonus is 25%, but I think 50% is reasonable and realistic and it makes defensive units more attractive since I made offensive units more powerful in defense. I have also already made changes to the defensive values of cities and terrain. I have given a 25% bonus to units inside towns, but reduced the bonus for a metropolis to 75%. I have removed the defensive bunus for flat terrain types, increased jungle bunus to 50% and I will probably reduce the hill and mountain bunuses to 25% and 50%. But all of this is subject to change if it turns out for example that it is too difficult to take over enemy cities.
The mod is still in progress and contains numerous other changes to many aspects of the game accessible from the editor, some of which were inspired by the AU mod and the Balancer mod. Another basic thing I have tried to do is set the cost of units to be equal to their combat value. Powerful units like tanks are even more powerful with equal A/D, but they become very expensive if you price them according to their ability. I believe I will call this the Equalizer mod and if anyone is interested, I can make it available for others to try out. Many hours of work have went into it so far, although som aspects have not been thoroughly play tested yet.
Comment