DESIGN/DEBUG: The "Design decision" thread

[MrBaggins]

This thread is intended to point out certain behaviors which might be considered bugs, or just design decisions.

The classic example would be allowing a player to build buildings that you already get through a wonder. The reason you'd allow it (a design decision) is to allow the player to prepare for the wonders obsolescence or destruction, by pre building real replacements.

Anyway... I just thought it would be beneficial to have a thread to put all of these... "did they really mean to do this that way?" questions...

[epeterson]

Thanks MrBaggins!

...Shall this henceforth be known as the 'epeterson stupid questions' thread??

Speaking of such, I noticed that when you open a message popup window and zoom to a city in the 2nd playtest version it automatically changes from the message tab to the city tab. I suppose this is to change the cities build que expeditiously. The only problem I see with this is that you have to go back to the message tab to delete the, (now greyed out), message. Perhaps the message should auto-delete as soon as you zoom to the city and close the popup window??

[drulius]

What's the answer to that one?

Do you get any benefit from building Computer Centers if you've already built the Internet wonder? Or are you just paying maintenance and hedging against the capture of your Internet city?

[tyrantpimp]

Reminds me of a post i made in the playtest thread

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103817&pagenumber=3

But i guess its good to seperate it from that

[Maquiladora]

Why arent there any goody huts on mountains?

Something to do with mounted units?

[Gilgamensch]

Re: DESIGN/DEBUG: The "Design decision" thread

Originally posted by MrBaggins
This thread is intended to point out certain behaviors which might be considered bugs, or just design decisions.

The classic example would be allowing a player to build buildings that you already get through a wonder. The reason you'd allow it (a design decision) is to allow the player to prepare for the wonders obsolescence or destruction, by pre building real replacements.

Anyway... I just thought it would be beneficial to have a thread to put all of these... "did they really mean to do this that way?" questions...

Tyrantpimp had a point there. If you build it, it shall be for free so long the wonder is still valid, meaning existing or not-obselete. Or on the other hand, those building shall be just created once you achieved it. So you build/capture the Wonder and the next round you have the related buildings. And there we could make a 'twist' against Warmongers , if you capture it, you have to wait like 10 turns, before you have the buildings. Might make it worthwhile to build it yourself

This would also get rid of the buildings (you supposingly have) out of the buildqueue.

PS: Forgotten to mention, so long you have the wonder, no maintenance.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by epeterson
Thanks MrBaggins!

...Shall this henceforth be known as the 'epeterson stupid questions' thread??

/me chuckles

No... not at all... theres no such thing as a stupid question*.

Speaking of such, I noticed that when you open a message popup window and zoom to a city in the 2nd playtest version it automatically changes from the message tab to the city tab. I suppose this is to change the cities build que expeditiously. The only problem I see with this is that you have to go back to the message tab to delete the, (now greyed out), message. Perhaps the message should auto-delete as soon as you zoom to the city and close the popup window??

You might not fix anything when you're at the city window, needing to check other things... perhaps it should be closed when you've put something in an empty queue.

---

My reasoning for opening this thread wasn't the wonder buildings issue...

It was a minor issue in the code, thats admittedly pretty rare, but that might occur, especially in scenarios:

In CityData::OffensiveBonus, it calculates a units attack bonus vs a defender, based on city improvements (E.G. ballista towers, flak.) It does this by checking the movement properties of the defending unit. If it has multiple movement types, then its possible for it to get additional bonuses, instead of just the best bonus. I think it should be just the best bonus, for this, admittedly rare, condition. I didn't post it right away, since I didn't think it was necessarily something to worry about.


* other than "Can we make it 3d?" or "Can we make it real-time?"

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Why arent there any goody huts on mountains?

Something to do with mounted units?

Never noticed that myself, but its a very good point.

I think that the reasoning might be that a goody hut can become a city, and the middle of a mountain range might be a very bad place to build a city.

[Gilgamensch]

To say it easy:


Yes and no.

Defensive: the best possible
Offensive: the best possible

but not just the best.

I can't see


Actually rethought my position. Why you think it shall only be the best?

Like a Flak helps against planes.
The ballistic tower against ground units.

The citywall and the force field again against ground. But the Force-field also against planes.

Would it be too much to ask to have it class-depended? (if it isn't done this way)

[MrBaggins]

Due to the fact that the defender is only ONE unit. Why should he have an attacker get both a land AND sea offensive bonus, because he's got multiple movement types?

[Gilgamensch]

I don't know how it is done in the moment, so maybe if you explain it a bit I could understand it better.

Do I understand it correctly that for the attacker are bonuses possible as well?

My suggestion would be:

For the defender:

If the unit is attacking in this round (combatround) a air-unit only the flak shall be applicable. If the defender is attacked by a land-unit city-wall, forcefield and ballistic tower.
Against see-units: city-wall, forcefield and battlements.
Against air: Forcefield and flaktower.

[epeterson]

It is SO funny that you guys brought this up, as I was just thinking about that this morning! (Geez, I need a life!)...

As it stands right now, I don't even build flack towers OR battlements because if someone is going to attack your city they HAVE to have a land unit attacking. So at most, I just install the land attack improvements.

I mean even if planes attack with land units, the land units will be in the front row; so only the CI's that help defend against land units would be applicable. Right?? If the battle turns sour and the attacker finds himself with only air units attacking I guess the flack towers could take over then. But then again, planes can't take a city. The best they can do is empty it.

Which brings me to another problem...I LOVE combined force attacks. (airplanes and land units). Unfortunately you can't combine sea units and marines to attack a city together. Maybe for a good reason because if you think about it, sea units would bombard and then stop when the marines landed. But right now, the game lets you fight cities with your navy. Either way, something has to change. (navies can combine with land units OR navies cannot attack cities...other than bombard of course)

Another annoying thing is that if you have a carrier battle group with planes, you cannot have the planes assist in a battle because as soon as they get in the square with your fleet, (that has a carrier), they land! And when your carrier battlegroup is attacked; all planes should launch to assist in defending the fleet. (Only as many that can launch and not exceed the 12 stack limit though.)

I haven't got this far into my playtest game, so you'll have to excuse me if this issue has already been addressed.

[MrBaggins]

A couple of interesting points... although you should read the current Air Combat Design thread. That addresses most, if not all of any air combat issues in the game.

I'd personally like to have it so that both a defenders defence AND the strength of Counter Bombard be altered by the bonuses from Ballista Towers, Battlements and/or Flak Improvements, where applicable.

[Maquiladora]

Obviously not a bug but im wondering why does disband city option exist if the AI doesnt use it? Does the AI use it in fact, i havent seen it. Its bad when they find a city in a ruin on swampland and they dont disband and move it.

I would like to make disband city ONLY at size 1. A MP i played tonight with Toni, he took 9 of my cities but there was a real possibility of me retaking some of those cities, but all he had to do was starve them down to size 3 and disband. I agree starving and disbanding is fine, but not at size 3.

Another one is the retreat option in SP. Do we think it should be removed altogether? I think it should.

[Maquiladora]

double post