Make Maq's combat the default option

[Martin Gühmann]

Doesn't the AI match all the values: attack, defence, ranged, bombard and value of the army for each goal? But a different minimum ratio for each depending on the type of goal? Like a special attack requires a ratio of 0 for all of those.

Yes something like this, but it matches the attack values to the defense values of its opponents if it wants to attack, so the attack must be higher then defense.

They will need to be changed a little bit for sure anyway. Old combat requires that attack AND defence are good enough to beat the attack AND defence of a defending army, or at least that's how it should work.

Whereas new combat only needs the attacking army's attack to be better than the defending army's defence (perhaps plus defensive bonuses).

So with that the AI seems to far better with winning battles in the new combat options. But it needs the units first. And it has to build less units for defending cities, so we could reduce the garrison requirements, which would free production for other stuff.

But actually, I would have both in the game the old combat make it easy to conquer, of course this is boring if you are the only one who can conquer, but if you are surrounded by aggressive AIs who conquer you as easily as well then the whole thing looks much different.

I think we should add extra garrison settings for the new conquest option. But I don't know whether we can make it default, since the mods don't have a new combat option garrison settings.

-Martin

[EPW]

So with that the AI seems to far better with winning battles in the new combat options. But it needs the units first. And it has to build less units for defending cities, so we could reduce the garrison requirements, which would free production for other stuff.

From what I've seen the AI does not defend its cities well enough anyways, at least early on.

But actually, I would have both in the game the old combat make it easy to conquer, of course this is boring if you are the only one who can conquer, but if you are surrounded by aggressive AIs who conquer you as easily as well then the whole thing looks much different.

No one disagrees with this, the issue is whether to use the old combat or the new combat as the default option. In my opinion, the new combat option provides far more satisfying gameplay and is more logical than the current system. And I have to wonder if the "old combat" was actually intended to be that way or if it was an oversite by the developers.

I think we should add extra garrison settings for the new conquest option. But I don't know whether we can make it default, since the mods don't have a new combat option garrison settings.

It should be up to the modders to fix that. And besides, the AI's receive so many cheats in the mods are a few extra garrison units going to make a significant difference?

[Martin Gühmann]

From what I've seen the AI does not defend its cities well enough anyways, at least early on.

So cam you build enough units in the early phase of the game to defend your cities well enough for your standards and still build enough settlers for expansion?

No one disagrees with this, the issue is whether to use the old combat or the new combat as the default option. In my opinion, the new combat option provides far more satisfying gameplay and is more logical than the current system. And I have to wonder if the "old combat" was actually intended to be that way or if it was an oversite by the developers.

The as it should be argument is a pretty good one, and I can also see it in the AI code for the force matches.

It should be up to the modders to fix that. And besides, the AI's receive so many cheats in the mods are a few extra garrison units going to make a significant difference?

OK, we don't need to change anything in the mods regarding this.

-Martin

[Tamerlin]

As far as I am concerned I would do it differently.

When a unit is attacking attack I would compute the attacking strength through the following formula :
[(2xAttack rating)+(defense rating)]/3

When a unit is defending I would compute the defensive strength this way :
[(2xdefense rating)+(attack rating)]/3



Anyway, what is the point of making it a default option? Isn't it enough to allow the player to chose either of the options through a window. As long as the options are available and clearly explained (this is where is the main problem in my opinion), why should we make this a default rule? To the risk of unbalancing the game.

I remember CtP1 combat as being very costly for the attacker, to the point that it was sometimes ridiculous.

[Ekmek]

I should of known it would be tamerlin to vote No!

[Tamerlin]

You can bet on it!

This is not because I am no more actively participating to this forum that I am not watching what is going on, downloading the latest AE files... and trying to keep the unfaithtful from changing everything in my beloved CtP2...

[Maquiladora]

As far as I am concerned I would do it differently.

When a unit is attacking attack I would compute the attacking strength through the following formula :
[(2xAttack rating)+(defense rating)]/3

When a unit is defending I would compute the defensive strength this way :
[(2xdefense rating)+(attack rating)]/3

What is the advantage of this? Apparently it modifies actual attack and defence strength depending on the enemy, rather than changing how chance of hit is calculated?

Anyway, what is the point of making it a default option? Isn't it enough to allow the player to chose either of the options through a window. As long as the options are available and clearly explained (this is where is the main problem in my opinion), why should we make this a default rule? To the risk of unbalancing the game.

Well see all the previous posts on why new combat is better than the old.

And the old combat is already badly unbalanced when you can't defend reliably. I'd say we can only improve the balance by using new combat.

I remember CtP1 combat as being very costly for the attacker, to the point that it was sometimes ridiculous.

You only have to compare the unit stats of CtP1 and 2 to see it's not as bad as CtP1 already.

New combat sits somewhere in between CtP1 and 2. It's easy enough to attack and win if you attack with enough strength in the right place, but it's also now easy to defend and win if you're prepared for an attack (something that wasn't possible in old combat CtP2). Now of course siege weapons are more important, when you can't surprise the enemy. As it should be IMO.

[Tamerlin]

HI Maq,

I don't want to say that your combat system is bad or wrong. For now, I don't know as I have not yet tested it. I am convinced it is an improvement if we compare it to the current system. I simply don't see the point in making it a default feature of the game. If the option is clearly explained and proposed I think it is better to let each player decide whether or not he wants this new combat system to be a default feature of his own CtP2 game.

[Maquiladora]

I think it is better to let each player decide whether or not he wants this new combat system

Then why not let them decide if they want to use the old system?

I have yet to see any good argument for keeping the old system as default, except for "well, it's already there". If we thought that way about everything then nothing in the game would improve.

[Tamerlin]

This is only my two cents of an opinion, and as it is a poll, I express myself. Everyone is free, if not encouraged, to think otherwise.

The only thing I would like is a kind of manual or readme clearly explaining all the various options. I mean something more than a small sentence. Though it is often enough I have some trouble to figure out what GoldPerUnitSupport Difficulty adds this * GoldHunger * wages * readiness per unit is really doing.

I think that a small .txt file called README_Options_in_CtP2_ApolEdition (or whatever name you want) should be incorporated in the AE archive, this file should list the various options, the place where they can be selected (at the start of the game or during the game here or here...in the userprofile.txt...) and with a few sentences what each option is doing and why not (a single word would be enough) if an option is coming from the original game or not. For now I have to scroll a 1500 lines text file to find out what each option is supposed to do, and this is not cool... as far as I am concerned.

With such a file I must admit that I wouldn't care a dime (and even less) about whether or not such change or setting should be a default feature.

[Maquiladora]

With such a file I must admit that I wouldn't care a dime (and even less) about whether or not such change or setting should be a default feature.

Well that is good to hear, and I agree there needs to be better explanations of some rules. Perhaps we can create a pop-up of text explaining each rule when you hover the mouse over a button.

[Tamerlin]

Well that is good to hear, and I agree there needs to be better explanations of some rules. Perhaps we can create a pop-up of text explaining each rule when you hover the mouse over a button.

That is an excellent idea!

That would solve the problem for the options one can select at the start of the game. But aren't there some optional rules "hidden" in the userprofile.txt file?

[Ekmek]

Or we could add an AE section to the GL that gives the changes and view it in game.

[Maquiladora]

That is an excellent idea!

That would solve the problem for the options one can select at the start of the game. But aren't there some optional rules "hidden" in the userprofile.txt file?

I think there are some, like being able to set how long treaties last.

Or we could add an AE section to the GL that gives the changes and view it in game.

That as well as the mouse-over text would be useful, as a reminder in mid-game.

[Tamerlin]

Or we could add an AE section to the GL that gives the changes and view it in game.

Perhaps is it easier to implement than pop-ups but you have to access the great library first.. which means you have to start a game and that means you already have chosen the options. If creating pop-ups asks too much work, the easiest thing to do is to write a README text file. But even if there is a great library entry or a text file, pop-ups are good reminders, you are right Maq.