DESIGN: Unit Values

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

Please, never use this kind of solutions. As far as I am concerned, war in Civ4 is so long that it becomes boring. I have modded my Civ4 files so that all the units can use ennemy roads and railroads.

I certainly wouldn't like to see Civ4 rails/roads idea in CtP2.

CtP2 is still too easy to attack, than to defend though. Mostly because units are too fast in general, but also because you can only have 12 units defending a tile/city/location/whatever, which makes it pretty easy to calculate what you need to conquer that tile/city/location/whatever.

The only thing i can think of at the moment, is making movement of all units much closer to each other. Of course the Knight would still move faster than a Pikemen, but a 2 to 1 difference is better than 4 to 1.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by J Bytheway

Are you sure? I seem to recall reading in the CTP1 manual that they're deliberately given move 1 to be slow, even over roads, etc..

Now that you mention it, i recall a thread where fixing that was discussed, before the sourcecode.

In SAP2 Dale (?) just gave it 10 moves, i guess as a compromise, or he didnt know its use in CtP1.

It should certainly work the way it did in CtP1 though.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by LemurMadness
Im just quotting someone, I just can't remmember who

Someone mentioned that the build cost of the Samurai was higher than a Hoplite + Archer.

So you mean lowering the production cost. Well this might be an idea, but thats if we leave it at Iron Working, and it clashes with Archers+Hoplites.

I didn't meant the Warrior as an attacking unit, I meant the Samurai. The Warrior is an early multipropose unit before Archers, Hoplites and Samurais come avaliable, and can be used as early scouting before Mounted Archers.

Technically its positioned as an attacker in the game. But i wouldnt class it as an attacker either, as its no better than an Archer.

This still leaves a gap for the Legion, which comes to the reason to move Samurai in the first place...

I still don't get why the Samurai needs to be moved to Feudalism when you have an attacking unit in Medieval ages, the Knight. Maybe I am missing something...

The Knight is a flanker, and Samurai is purely an attacker. Theres a difference in game. That puts an attacker, defender, flanker and ranged in medieval. The only thing the ancient era is missing from those four types is a flanker, but it seems we're leaving that.

Then theres the realism arguement, Samurai isn't an ancient age unit. Although realism isnt everything, its just another point to think about.

Nope, it's movement is one on all terrains. Even on Maglevs. That's why the problem: the Leviathan is way too expensive, and it doesn't moves fast enought to effectivelly protect your cities. I don't remmember exactly the build cost of a Leviathan, but im very sure it's higher than a Fusion Tank, that's why I proposed another defensive unit, cheaper than the Fusion Tank but faster moving than the Leviathan, and removing the Hover Infantry as the Machine Gunner's upgrade (or maybe we could use the Hover Infantry as a defensive one? or equally defensive as offensive?).

Youre right, its even more unique than i remember.

Hover Infantry as a defensive unit doesnt sound too bad.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by HuangShang

I still don't like the idea of starting with a line of defense units then the flankers come in (knights to tanks) and we have the removal of the defense units. I can't really argue it is wrong or broken, but for the reasons I stated I think more maintaining an attacker and a defender throughout the game would be more fun.

I would prefer to have an attacker, defender, flanker and ranged in each era, but there seems to be a lot of gaps to fill.

Machine gunner, historically, should be slightly more defensive simply because it is harder for them to run around the battle, but perhaps making machine gunner the next defense unit (even switched techs with marines) is much too fast. I really think there needs to be another defense unit after infantryman though, because there is definitely a difference between attackers and defenders, so I would think a defensive hover infantry and a still very viable marine/paratrooper attacker (because of transport rules) would be good, but I haven't got to war walkers in any recent games, so I honestly have no idea what they do.

We seem to be saying Hover Infantry as a defensive unit, then perhaps we should reverse its attack (80) and defence (50), and reassign it a defender?

[LemurMadness]

Well, something seems out of place, IMHO... Feudalism an advance that enables too much units. We should make some of the new units in other separate advances, for some diversity and strategy planning.

I see flanking units as attackers -- if every era would need a flanking and a non-flanking attackers, then there would be the need to get one for the ancient age (flanker), one for the modern age (attacker -- in case the machine gunner goes as a defensive unit), one for diamond age (attacker -- in case the hover infantry goes as a defensive unit). The Hoplite-Pikemen-MachineGunner-HoverInfantry upgrade line should be defense-only.

I think I get what you guys are thinking, about making new units and 4 types of them: flankers, defenders, attackers and ranged; and the flankers are weaker offensivelly than the attackers. Im ok with it (Althought I still preffer keeping it in 3).

~~~ Lemur

EDIT: Please restore old war walker's unit graphic!

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by LemurMadness
Well, something seems out of place, IMHO... Feudalism an advance that enables too much units. We should make some of the new units in other separate advances, for some diversity and strategy planning.

That does seem a bit out of place. 3 new units seems too much for one advance, if we compare to the rest of the tech tree anyway.

Ideally we would move Samurai to an advance that itself requires Iron Working. Unfortunately the only earliest advances that require Iron Working are Cannon Making, Printing Press or Modern Metallurgy. Those all seem too late though.

I would probably then put the Samurai at Bureaucracy (civil servant), and make Iron Working a prerequisite (instead of Feudalism) for Bureaucracy. This way, you can go a new form of government and the Samurai, or you go for the more aggressive Knight and Pikemen.

I see flanking units as attackers -- if every era would need a flanking and a non-flanking attackers, then there would be the need to get one for the ancient age (flanker), one for the modern age (attacker -- in case the machine gunner goes as a defensive unit), one for diamond age (attacker -- in case the hover infantry goes as a defensive unit). The Hoplite-Pikemen-MachineGunner-HoverInfantry upgrade line should be defense-only.

I think I get what you guys are thinking, about making new units and 4 types of them: flankers, defenders, attackers and ranged; and the flankers are weaker offensivelly than the attackers. Im ok with it (Althought I still preffer keeping it in 3).

Well we only use what we can all agree on. Ive just thrown the idea out to see what you think.

EDIT: Please restore old war walker's unit graphic!

The old WW does look better. The CtP2 WW looks like a weak spider ripping off War of the Worlds.

[Tellius]

Hi,

CtP2 is still too easy to attack, than to defend though

Don't forget about using ZOC. Playing AOM has learned me to use cheap units next to a road to block movement along that road. It slows the enemy down a lot, giving you time to respond and get reinforcements there. I don't know whether the AI uses it enough, because I am on the defensive more than on the offensive in higher difficulty games.

Tellius

[HuangShang]

I found the AI in the September playtest made some very nice zoc moves on me, but they are not using it to defend territory

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Tellius
Hi,

Don't forget about using ZOC. Playing AOM has learned me to use cheap units next to a road to block movement along that road. It slows the enemy down a lot, giving you time to respond and get reinforcements there. I don't know whether the AI uses it enough, because I am on the defensive more than on the offensive in higher difficulty games.

Tellius

When I said that about being easier to attack, I was mostly referring to the human exploiting that.

Another factor in easier attacking is very weak terrain defence bonuses. Theyre far too low for how the combat system works. As all units use defence and attack in combat, whether theyre defending or not, so a defence bonus is worth much less. Whereas in civ2 a defending unit only used its defence, so if it had a 50% defence bonus, it would show in the result.

Then theres armour, it totally eliminates the chance of a civ defending itself with greater numbers v greater strength. Add to that you can only have 12 units per tile, and youve got no chance if your enemy gets a small lead on an important advance. Plus the totally imbalanced costs/strength of units adds to that.

Tanks make mincemeat of Machine Gunners. It wouldnt be so bad if i could build enough M. Gunners to kill one Tank, at the same price as one Tank. But i cant even build two M. Gunners (cost 1200 each) to one Tank (cost 2000 each).

If youve ever played Advance Wars, they have a good system of units. If you dont have enough for a Tank (7000), you can build 2 Mech Infantry (they do big damage to Tanks, cost 3000 each) for less. Of course the Tank can move faster (as it should), but the game always allows the poorer opponent a viable defence strategy.

I think a similar idea was intended with the Pikemen (very cheap, slow, counter mounted units) against Knights in CtP2, but Knights are just too fast it doesnt work. A more viable counter would have Knights at 2 moves (not 4), and Pikemen at 1. The (poorer) defender has better access to his own roads, has a viable counter unit, and closer support with new units coming from his cities. All giving him time (if he plays well) to fightback against the stronger opponent.

Then the AI always uses balanced armies (as it should), which are slow, but strong. While the human knows how to use the stupidly fast units best, grouping fast and slow units separately. The fast units pillage roads and capture small/undefended cities, while the slow heavy armies bombard and bulldoze the stronger units.

Sorry, bit of a ramble there.

I found the AI in the September playtest made some very nice zoc moves on me, but they are not using it to defend territory

Ive seen a few good chokepoint moves aswell, especially settling.

[Tellius]

Hi,

As all units use defence and attack in combat, whether theyre defending or not, so a defence bonus is worth much less.

Didn't know this. I suppose you mean to say, that each time the combat round goes to the defending AI, they all use their attack numbers to attack me and I defend with my defense numbers ánd a defense bonus for the terrain I'm actually attacking??? That is indeed plain wrong. The civ2 method seems a lot better. But changing this will probably be too much of a change, right?

But would taking away the terrain defense bonus for the attacker in the above example be possible and not against the Tamerling rule? It just seems to be such a blatant flaw...

Tellius

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Tellius
Hi,

Didn't know this. I suppose you mean to say, that each time the combat round goes to the defending AI, they all use their attack numbers to attack me and I defend with my defense numbers ánd a defense bonus for the terrain I'm actually attacking??? That is indeed plain wrong. The civ2 method seems a lot better. But changing this will probably be too much of a change, right?

But would taking away the terrain defense bonus for the attacker in the above example be possible and not against the Tamerling rule? It just seems to be such a blatant flaw...

Tellius

No, the player who initiated the attack never gets a defence bonus (AFAIK anyway).

But the defending player only gets to use the defence bonus when its defending in the battle. And because the defending side get to attack and use their attack stat in a CtP2 battle, their defence bonus disappears for half the battle, making it less effective in a battle outcome.

Whereas in civ2, the defending unit only ever uses its defence stat, so it uses the defence bonus all of the time in the battle. Giving it a real bonus.

[Tellius]

Hi,

But the defending player only gets to use the defence bonus when its defending in the battle.

So, one possible solution could be, to also add the 'defense' bonus to the 'attack' values of the defending stack (although that makes explaining this seemingly contradictory solution in the readme quite difficult)?

If many people here agree that the AI's ability to defend against a human player swooping in with just the right stacks to take territory and cities is too weak, such a tweak might find general consensus?

Tellius

[Ekmek]

Originally posted by Maquiladora


I certainly wouldn't like to see Civ4 rails/roads idea in CtP2.

CtP2 is still too easy to attack, than to defend though. Mostly because units are too fast in general, but also because you can only have 12 units defending a tile/city/location/whatever, which makes it pretty easy to calculate what you need to conquer that tile/city/location/whatever.

The only thing i can think of at the moment, is making movement of all units much closer to each other. Of course the Knight would still move faster than a Pikemen, but a 2 to 1 difference is better than 4 to 1.

This is already in.

I added "DeniedToEnemy" as a flag to tileimprovements where the movebonus of the tileimp (road, railroad, whatever you decide) is not available to a player you are at war with.

http://www.ctp2.info/aewiki/index.php?n=Database.DeniedToEnemy

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Tellius
Hi,

So, one possible solution could be, to also add the 'defense' bonus to the 'attack' values of the defending stack (although that makes explaining this seemingly contradictory solution in the readme quite difficult)?

If many people here agree that the AI's ability to defend against a human player swooping in with just the right stacks to take territory and cities is too weak, such a tweak might find general consensus?

Tellius

It would be an improvement certainly and seems a somewhat simple job to implement (i guess!), but it could be even better.

There was discussion a long time ago about overhauling the combat system,

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104846

this is especially needed:

So, when an offensive unit is attacked, it is often vulnerable. Offensive stacks can suffer greatly from sneak attacks, ambushes, etc when they're out in the field but don't have the initiative.

This gives players a good opportunity to play defensively and to stop enemy invasions: by digging in in defensive positions and by counter-attacking invaders when they're exposed. Of course, some measures like effective siege warfare will also need to be present to not make aggressive conquest completely impossible.

Although it seems like such a big task now (with fewer coders around), it might take forever. The coders would have to let us know on that one.

This is already in.

I added "DeniedToEnemy" as a flag to tileimprovements where the movebonus of the tileimp (road, railroad, whatever you decide) is not available to a player you are at war with.

http://www.ctp2.info/aewiki/index.p...e.DeniedToEnemy

I forgot it was already an option. Although i dont think itll make it past the "Tamerlin Test"

[Ekmek]

Originally posted by Maquiladora

Hi,

So, one possible solution could be, to also add the 'defense' bonus to the 'attack' values of the defending stack (although that makes explaining this seemingly contradictory solution in the readme quite difficult)?

If many people here agree that the AI's ability to defend against a human player swooping in with just the right stacks to take territory and cities is too weak, such a tweak might find general consensus?

Tellius

It would be an improvement certainly and seems a somewhat simple job to implement (i guess!), but it could be even better.

There was discussion a long time ago about overhauling the combat system,

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=104846

this is especially needed:

So, when an offensive unit is attacked, it is often vulnerable. Offensive stacks can suffer greatly from sneak attacks, ambushes, etc when they're out in the field but don't have the initiative.

This gives players a good opportunity to play defensively and to stop enemy invasions: by digging in in defensive positions and by counter-attacking invaders when they're exposed. Of course, some measures like effective siege warfare will also need to be present to not make aggressive conquest completely impossible.

Here's the attack code. It should make sense. But I can walk people through it if you're wonding

double UnitData::GetAttack(const UnitRecord *rec, const Unit defender) const
{
	UnitRecord const *	defrec		= defender.GetDBRec();

	if(!(rec->GetCanAttack() & defrec->GetMovementType())) 
	{
		return 0.0;
	}

	double const		baseattack	= rec->GetAttack();
	double				attack		= baseattack;

	if (defrec->GetWoodenShip()) 
    {
		attack += baseattack * rec->GetAttackWoodenShipBonus();
	}

	MapPoint	dpos;
	defender.GetPos(dpos);
    double		cityAttack;
	if ((g_theWorld->GetCell(dpos)->GetCity().m_id != (0)) &&
        rec->GetAttackCityBonus(cityAttack)
       ) 
    {
		attack += baseattack * cityAttack;
	}

    double submarineAttack;
	if (defrec->GetIsSubmarine() &&
        rec->GetAttackBonusSubmarine(submarineAttack)
       ) 
    {
		attack += baseattack * submarineAttack;
	}

	// EMOD
	double	bonus;
	if (defrec->GetIsFoot() && rec->GetFootBonus(bonus))
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}

	if (defrec->GetIsMounted() && rec->GetMountedBonus(bonus)) 
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}

	if (defrec->GetIsSiege() && rec->GetSiegeBonus(bonus)) 
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}

	if (defrec->GetIsWheeled() && rec->GetWheeledBonus(bonus)) 
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}

	if (defrec->GetIsMechanized() && rec->GetMechanizedBonus(bonus)) 
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}

    if (defrec->GetIsSpecialForces() && rec->GetSpecialForcesBonus(bonus)) 
    {
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}

    if (defrec->GetIsHelicopter() && rec->GetHelicopterBonus(bonus)) 
    {
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}

	if (defrec->GetCivilian() && rec->GetCivilianBonus(bonus)) 
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}

	if (defrec->GetIsGuerrilla() && rec->GetGuerrillaBonus(bonus)) 
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}
//EMOD Civ Bonuses July 2, 2006

	if (defender.GetMovementTypeLand() && (g_theCivilisationDB->Get(g_player[m_owner]->m_civilisation->GetCivilisation())->GetOffenseBonusLand(bonus))) 
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}
	if (defender.GetMovementTypeAir() && (g_theCivilisationDB->Get(g_player[m_owner]->m_civilisation->GetCivilisation())->GetOffenseBonusAir(bonus))) 
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}
	if (defender.GetMovementTypeShallowWater() && (g_theCivilisationDB->Get(g_player[m_owner]->m_civilisation->GetCivilisation())->GetOffenseBonusWater(bonus))) 
	{
		attack += baseattack * bonus;
	}
//end EMOD

	return attack;
}