Design: Combat

[Maquiladora]

What I'd like to see, is the ballista acting as a separate unit. Have it attack the first row before your units engage.

But shouldn't it engage in combat throughout the battle? And that's basically the effect it gives, with an attack bonus to all front line units. I see what you're saying though, to make it less abstract, and just make more sense.

[EPW]

My opinion is the fortified and fort defence bonuses should be removed. But the terrain bonus should stay, except it should add to attack rather than defence.

I don't think the attacker should have any bonuses, but this is a good compromise.

Also, I think the changes you have made should be the default combat option, with the old rules being an option.

[Maquiladora]

I don't think the attacker should have any bonuses, but this is a good compromise.

Yeah, it works pretty well IMO. A defensive army has a big advantage now, so it's no longer easy to attack. Even pikemen can fairly damage a stack of cavalry now.

BTW I decided to remove the building attack bonus for the attacking army. If you're coming out of the city to fight then you should lose those bonuses.

Also, I think the changes you have made should be the default combat option, with the old rules being an option.

Perhaps, see what Martin says first, if he sees this.

[EPW]

But shouldn't it engage in combat throughout the battle? And that's basically the effect it gives, with an attack bonus to all front line units. I see what you're saying though, to make it less abstract, and just make more sense.

I know, its rather a big change. It would be cool if there was a ballista tower behind the units firing though.

[EPW]

BTW I decided to remove the building attack bonus for the attacking army. If you're coming out of the city to fight then you should lose those bonuses.

Just to clarify: You mean when the defensive army counterattacks right? The attacker never gets the bonuses I hope.

[EPW]

BTW I decided to remove the building attack bonus for the attacking army. If you're coming out of the city to fight then you should lose those bonuses.

Also, does the defending army keep all of its bonuses when counterattacking?

[Maquiladora]

I know, its rather a big change. It would be cool if there was a ballista tower behind the units firing though.

It's definitely possible, why don't you do it? You also have to find a free image of a ballista tower, flak tower, and battlement too.

BTW I decided to remove the building attack bonus for the attacking army. If you're coming out of the city to fight then you should lose those bonuses.

Just to clarify: You mean when the defensive army counterattacks right? The attacker never gets the bonuses I hope.

No, I mean when an army moves out of a city to attack another army next to it's city. All the attacking building bonuses are removed, but they were actually added before IIRC.

Also, does the defending army keep all of its bonuses when counterattacking?

When a defending unit counter-attacks it gets all it's defence+defence bonuses to use as attack (actual "attack" figure is ignored), against the attacking unit's "defence" figure (which is very low, as it loses all defence bonuses when it started the battle).

Also if the defending unit is inside a city, all attacking building's will be added to the defence+defence bonuses when it counter-attacks.

Hope that is all clear.

[EPW]

I suppose another way to do it would be to take out the defensive counterattack all together. The defender would still get all his defense value + bonuses and the attacker would always use his attack value (and I would definitely take away the terrain bonus in this case). It would still give the edge to the defender in an otherwise equal battle. Battle animations for both sides would trigger at the same time so the defensive guys aren't frozen. Whoops, ctp1 on the brain

[Maquiladora]

I suppose another way to do it would be to take out the defensive counterattack all together. The defender would still get all his defense value + bonuses and the attacker would always use his attack value (and I would definitely take away the terrain bonus in this case).

Without a counterattack how will the attacker lose?

Actually the first version I made had the front line attackers losing HP if they missed the defender, which is a similar thing. I just thought it best to keep the same format of the battle, I don't want to create an even bigger job for myself.

[EPW]

Hmmm, I guess I don't completely understand how combat works. Do the attackers and defenders attack once per unit animation? I was thinking it was:
attackers attack, show animation
defenders attack, show animation
etc.
and I assumed the defenders could damage the attackers.

Actually the first version I made had the front line attackers losing HP if they missed the defender, which is a similar thing. I just thought it best to keep the same format of the battle, I don't want to create an even bigger job for myself.

To me, this is more intuitive than the current system.

[Maquiladora]

Hmmm, I guess I don't completely understand how combat works. Do the attackers and defenders attack once per unit animation? I was thinking it was:
attackers attack, show animation
defenders attack, show animation
etc.
and I assumed the defenders could damage the attackers.

Attacking army = att1
Defending army = def1
---

Ranged of att1 attack front line of def1
Ranged of def1 attack front line of att1

Chance of hitting is ranged / (ranged + defence of front line unit)
---

Front line of att1 attack front line of def1
Front line of def1 attack front line of att1 (using defence using new system)

For att1 chance of hitting def1 is attack / (attack + defence of def1).
For def1 chance of hitting att1 is defence of def1 / (defence of def1 + defence of att1).
---

Hitpoint damage on a successful hit is firepower of attacking unit / armour of defender.
---

... and on it goes from the beginning again, unless someone died or retreated or whatever.

To me, this is more intuitive than the current system.

I was copying what I saw in CtP1, although it may not have worked that way.

The new system works essentially the same way anyway. You just have more control over elements of the battle, not just attackers chance of hitting, and the damage done.

[Maquiladora]

These three attackers were charging down/range attacking from a mountain and won, with 3hp of a catapult left. I think the additional firepower of the catapult and samurai did it though. They were doing -2 hp on a successful hit, and the hoplites only 1. The samurai was a veteran too, so seems about right to me.

Perhaps if the hoplites were flanking though...

[EPW]

Thankyou, I remember reading that a long time ago in the strategy guide.

Hmm, I guess the only thing I disagree on is that the attackers use their defensive value
when the defenders counterattack them. If the defenders get to use their defensive stat while attacking I think the attackers should get to use their attack stat when defending. Of course, to help out the defenders, you could take away the attackers terrain bonus too.

[EPW]

These three attackers were charging down/range attacking from a mountain and won, with 3hp of a catapult left. I think the additional firepower of the catapult and samurai did it though. They were doing -2 hp on a successful hit, and the hoplites only 1. The samurai was a veteran too, so seems about right to me.

Perhaps if the hoplites were flanking though...

A perfect example of why you should take away that +100% terrain bonus.

[Maquiladora]

A perfect example of why you should take away that +100% terrain bonus.

Hmm, I agree it's a little bit strong. Consider that the archer and catapult had 20 attack, and the veteran samurai 50 (from 20) (it would have been 60 had it been elite too)