The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
But knights are as good on defense as pikemen anyway. Pikemen are cheap defense and that is their niche.
That is not accurate from an historical perspective. Pikes were specifically designed to stop the charge of Heavy Cavalry (Knights), which was dominating the battlefield of the Middle Ages. Due to their special training, Pike units cannot be flanked.
The basic concept (in a turn based strategy game) is that the attacker has the battlefield initiative. Archers are not good when outflanked, especially by mounted units, so they can be overrun by Horsemen (the Horsemen can cross the field of battle before the Archers can attack). On the otherhand, Archers are good against slowly advancing ground troops (as the attackers advance, the Archer gets the first hit). Finally, Horsemen are stopped by foot soldiers (due to their ability to prepare the battlefield to repulse the attack).
(The historical exception were Knights, which like other mounted units, could outrun Archers; and due to their armor could outflank and outfight Foot, often shattering any defensive line with their ferocious attack. Fast and strong, they were also excellent as pillaging units. Checked by the advent of Pike, the Reign of Knights ended with the dissemination of Gunpowder technology.)
Civ3 uses a simple, but elegant, game mechanic suitable for a turn-based game. As usual, combined-arms work best.
AI is pretty stupid to send out crowds of longbowmen without defensive protection. It's so easy to pick these guys off before they reach a city.
When longbowmen are available, I tend to just keep using horsemen or mounted warriors (assuming I can't build knights) because they are faster, even though they don't attack as well. If a city seige fails, at least mounteds can get a few squares away in retreat.
Living to fight again can be more important than attacking firepower.
Originally posted by bobbo008
"Horse beat Archers
Archers beat Foot
Foot beat Horse"
exactly, there should be bonuses and not set points
IIRC Pikemen had a 50% bonus when defending against horse units in CIV 2, I would like to know why that bonus was removed in CIV 3. (Of course, in CIV 3 this should apply to horse and knight units only)
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
Originally posted by SuperSlinky
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.
Ah, but I intend to make spearmen 1/3 and set the fortify bonus to zero. Archers will still be safer with spearmen in the mix.
This means you will have to change every defensive units values to balance, but you still will have super units such as MA.
I'm going to rub some stakes on my face and pour beer on my chest while I listen Guns'nRoses welcome to the jungle and watch porno. Lesbian porno. Supercitzen Pekka
This means you will have to change every defensive units values to balance, but you still will have super units such as MA.
Yes, that is the plan. But there aren't really that many defensive units. There are spearmen, pikemen, musketmen, reflemen, marines, paratroopers, infantry, and mech infantry, plus the special forces unit I made from the guerrilla unit supplied with PTW. The rest are attack units and will have equal A/D. I agree that MA is a super unit and the only really good defense against it is MI, whose defense I will boost to the 24-27 range. With city combat bonuses even MA will have to take some casualties to dislodge them. But that really isn't any different than the stock game. The big difference will be that you won't be able to sucker punch a MA unit with a cheaper unit (tank for example) just because the MA is on defense.
The basic concept (in a turn based strategy game) is that the attacker has the battlefield initiative. Archers are not good when outflanked, especially by mounted units, so they can be overrun by Horsemen (the Horsemen can cross the field of battle before the Archers can attack). On the otherhand, Archers are good against slowly advancing ground troops (as the attackers advance, the Archer gets the first hit). Finally, Horsemen are stopped by foot soldiers (due to their ability to prepare the battlefield to repulse the attack).
Civ3 uses a simple, but elegant, game mechanic suitable for a turn-based game. As usual, combined-arms work best.
That's a good explanation for the stock system, but I just think that, overall, the equal A/D idea makes more sense. Part of the problem is the utter simplicity of the combat engine. If there was a variable for surprize or otherwise general unpreparedness, or differing combat values depending on what particular units were fighting, I for one would welcome them. But the game designers have stuck with a bare-bones system since Civ I and I can't really blame them. A lot of people would probably be turned off by a system with a steep learning curve and Civ is accessible to anyone with a little practice.
The problem with such a simple system is that experienced players begin to see some very serious shortcomings after a while. For example, why are pikemen still the best defenders of their time behind city walls? Their formations and horse stopping abilities wouldn't help much in that case. I would think that behind city walls, bowmen and a more general purpose type of unit like swordsmen would be best. And knights wouldn't be much use attacking city walls or bowmen on rooftops. I just think that equal A/D fixes more than it breaks given the simplicity of the system. As I see it, the advantages of equal A/D are mainly:
1) It reduces micromanagement by a huge amount by freeing the player from worrying about whether he will be the attacker or defender when an enemy is nearby.
2) Obviously, it eliminates the disproportionate advantage of offensive units attacking an identical enemy unit. This equality seems much more appealing to me than assuming that the defender is always somehow caught with their pants down. Actual gameplay won't be affected by a huge amount because one or the other unit is still going to win in the same amount of time. The odds just won't be heavily weighted toward one or the other.
3) It gives a big boost to the AI because it is always going to lose to a sharp human player in the micromanagement department described in #1. It may seem that combined arms suffers with equal A/D, but defending units will still be better defenders for the human player who wants to bring them along on their offensives, and this is another area where the AI can't compete with a human brain.
"A lot of people would probably be turned off by a system with a steep learning curve and Civ is accessible to anyone with a little practice."
I don't think so...Civ3 isn't exactly a plug-and-play kind of game. Or maybe they could have tried to include an option so you could have it either way?
"For example, why are pikemen still the best defenders of their time behind city walls? Their formations and horse stopping abilities wouldn't help much in that case. I would think that behind city walls, bowmen and a more general purpose type of unit like swordsmen would be best"
If behind walls, Pikeman really couldn't do anything but try and hold a door shut
And you're right, changing it would bring about a whole bunch of questions and problems, which is probably why they kept the current system
I use Posturepedic mattresses for a lifetime of temporary relief.
After reading all threads I reached that solution:
1.Equal A/D for offensive units will overpower them. For example if you attack a MArmor with MArmor I think attackers have more chance because attacks can have a surprise effect.(For colonization players, you know that ambush bonus). Armor's power is in their firepower and MOBILIZATION so within the time required for MA on defence to act, attackers will crush defenders if they are lucky.Moreover if defenders are lucky to repulse first wave they may counter attack and that counter-attack power is hidden in the defence rate of MA-(16). So MA is an ideal offensive unit for balanced A/D
2.As for units like longbowman, I think they must be balanced. For example a longbowman with 4.2.1 is a good idea. I have other ideas for longbowman in fact, for example they can be artillery units with a defence rate and if their defenders(possibly a pikeman) are attacked, like catapults of cannon they can bombard enemy, decreasing their power.
3.When we balance offensive units A/D values then I think terrain bonuses should be decreased in grasslands, plains(to zero) to make these offensive units more vulnerable to counter attack except hills and mountains. Also removing fortify option from attackers is a good idea but fortify bonus should be +1/2 as in civ1 to present defensive power of defensive units because we have just decreased some terrain bonuses.
Tweet
Comment