Armies DO Have Combat Bonus! - Page 3

Shogun Gunner · November 21, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Do you guys miss the fact that MGLs cannot rush all Wonders?

Dominae

I love this change. This change keeps a leading civ from getting to far ahead. Usually war means new luxuries, cities, etc...AND producing great wonders. Nice way to run away with the whole game.

Regarding the army's new capabilities: Sherman Lives Again... (with apologies to anyone from Georgia)

Mad Bomber · November 25, 2003, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner

Regarding the army's new capabilities: Sherman Lives Again... (with apologies to anyone from Georgia)

Yahweh Sabaoth · November 25, 2003, 19:01

I do love the MGLs... but I'm not sure about the Wonder rushing change. Yeah, it was too easy before, but still, I've yet to get one SGL out of about 10 epic games. Sure, I haven't always had the tech lead, but I often have had it... it's a bit galling... there's a lot of talk about how not allowing MGLs to rush wonders helps the builder, but frankly, a 3% success rate for being in the lead - which can take some effort - seems simply too minimal, and not very pro-builder at all.

pauli · November 25, 2003, 19:52

anything that hinders the conqueror helps the builder. at least in theory.

Yahweh Sabaoth · November 26, 2003, 11:37

I would also like to kvetch that the builder on huge maps doesn't get an immense advantage, at least in the ancient era. All the AI civs still try to build at least one wonder, and with 3 more available in that era, each AI civ generally gets at least one built... which is one more the "builder" can't build. They'll all start out pre-building the Pyramids, and very often, the human player can only get 1 or 2 wonders out of this era.

Not that I'm complaining TOO MUCH... I like the challenge, and I enjoy conquering wonders, especially with these new armies.

But the argument that the game now favors the builder is still subject to debate, in my view.

ducki · November 26, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Slax
I don't remember players complaining about MGLs rushing wonders before C3C. Did this come from the beta?

I never really full-on complained, but it did bug me a bit that builders were at a horrible disadvantage in the wonder race.

Not everyone wants to fight as much as you must to generate leaders in anything resembling a consistent manner, but almost everyone researches tech.

I'm not saying the chance for SGLs is "right", I'm just saying that (IMO) you shouldn't have to go to war in order to rush a wonder.

I like SGLs so far, even though I've only gotten 1. It seems fairer in regards to both Builder vs. Warmonger and Player vs. AI(although you could argue that it's actually player vs AIs which mangles the odds a bit).

Edit:

Quote:

YS said: I do love the MGLs... but I'm not sure about the Wonder rushing change. Yeah, it was too easy before, but still, I've yet to get one SGL out of about 10 epic games. Sure, I haven't always had the tech lead, but I often have had it... it's a bit galling... there's a lot of talk about how not allowing MGLs to rush wonders helps the builder, but frankly, a 3% success rate for being in the lead - which can take some effort - seems simply too minimal, and not very pro-builder at all.

I played dozens of Vanilla Civ3 before getting a single MGL, so it's not too out of whack in that regard, but at least with MGLs you can maximize your odds.
Maybe being the first to a tech should give you a cumulative bonus to your chances, reset upon the generation of a SGL or upon entering a new age, whichever comes first? Or maybe some other way for the player to influence his chances similar to "Getting the Most Out of Your Elites".

Catt · November 26, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
But the argument that the game now favors the builder is still subject to debate, in my view.

I wouldn't argue that the game favors the builder now, nor am I sure anyone really has made that argument (if someone does, I'll join you in debating that one

). Warfare still allows you to acquire land, resources, population, wonders, techs, gold, etc. and simultaneously deny sich things to your enemies -- i.e., warmongering is still a very, very profitable Civ business.

It's rather that the C3C changes strengthen a builder's hand a bit and weaken a warmonger's hand a bit.

Catt

Harovan · November 26, 2003, 19:57

... (never mind)

Jon Shafer · November 27, 2003, 04:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Question:
So if armies are indeed stronger....Could I simply make armies a "you can build this unit anytime" unit and have a 'stacked combat'-esque battle?

There's a certain flag for wonders that makes it possible to build Armies. All you would have to do is make it a really really cheap Small Wonder and reduce the cost of Armies and they could be built like regular units.

sabrewolf · November 27, 2003, 05:02

or let the palace have that flag?

Harovan · November 27, 2003, 05:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
There's a certain flag for wonders that makes it possible to build Armies. All you would have to do is make it a really really cheap Small Wonder and reduce the cost of Armies and they could be built like regular units.

Well, he just could set the "Advance needed" setting of the Military Academy from "Military Tradition" to "Warrior Code" or even "None", remove the "Needs victorious army" flag, drop its price to 10 shields, and the price of an army too. Voilà, lots of armies from the start. How this would change gameplay and what the AI would do about it, I don't know and am not up to test.

sabrewolf · November 27, 2003, 05:16

oh, and don't forget to lower the "number of cities needed per army". default is 4.

sir ralph, you could even put the costs down to 1 shield. c3c now has that

Harovan · November 27, 2003, 05:31

Yes, but only for units.

I'm not sure if it would take a 0 in the "number of cities needed per army" setting. In this case, there could be unlimited armies, hypothetically.

dworkin · November 28, 2003, 07:31

Given the way armies act now, the dark side will remain as popular as ever.

In my first game I have just hit Cavalry and OMG! The 3 Cav army rocks. It slices, it dices, it heals in 1-2 turns and comes back for more!

CerberusIV · November 28, 2003, 08:21

I have 2 crusader armies in my current game. 7/4/2, then I built the Military Academy so they are now 8/5/2. I will have a third army shortly to build the Pentagon and have saved a couple of spare crusaders to add so a 4 crusader army becomes 10/6/2 with at least 16HP. That is more than useful against riflemen, possibly even against infantry so one big change is that armies extend the useful life of older units. I will be using 4 cav armies to attack in the mid-industrial now, not just parking them in captured cities to deter culture flips.

Two minor gripes about crusaders. Yes, they are good to put into armies since you can't upgrade them anyway but then they lose the build fortress ability. Second they can build fortresses but then can't add barricades (perhaps I can change that one in the editor).

Final thought here - there is no question in my mind what to do with that first MGL now - it has to be an army, anything else can wait or be built the hard way.

Kuciwalker · November 28, 2003, 11:55

Quote:

I'm not sure if it would take a 0 in the "number of cities needed per army" setting. In this case, there could be unlimited armies, hypothetically.

I'd say it'se even odds whether it works or it crashes the game with division by zero.

Mad Bomber · November 29, 2003, 22:03

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

I'm not sure if it would take a 0 in the "number of cities needed per army" setting. In this case, there could be unlimited armies, hypothetically.

I'd say it'se even odds whether it works or it crashes the game with division by zero.

The minimum should be 1. Armies are just too powerful to be unlimited. It would not be unreasonable though to have 1 army per city.

On the debate between the builder and the warmonger:

I think that C3C restores the balance between Warmonger and Builder. Before the scale was too heavily tainted towards the warmonger.

Theseus · December 3, 2003, 21:34

I was screwing around with my second epic game, playing the Maya as inspired by that thread.

Well, first of all, who ever said the Maya are for builders?

But second, MAN, I am I psyched about Armies. In the screenshot below, I've got four Musket+2xMedInf Armies. One at in the bottleneck to the NW, and three are at the bottleneck to the NE. The plan had been to leave one at each bottleneck, and for the other two to have been the vanguard of my Aztec Punitive Expedition. There was a whole bunch of other units in the prep city as well: Muskets, MedInfs, Longbows, and Trebuchets.

Lo and behold, here come the Aztec Knights!!

Yeah? You talking to me and my Armies??

Ah pity da fool!

They attack, losing 15, redlining 3, and with one at 3hp (killed a Musket).

And with Barracks, all three Armies were fully healed for my turn.

Yeaaahhhh, baby.

Theseus · December 3, 2003, 21:55

OH!!

AND, it just occurred to me, that in the absence of horses (damn this new resource distribution), my 2 move blitzing Armies are a godsend in taking down fastmovers!!

Catt · December 3, 2003, 22:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
They attack, losing 15, redlining 3, and with one at 3hp (killed a Musket).

And with Barracks, all three Armies were fully healed for my turn.

Oh My!

Catt

vmxa1 · December 3, 2003, 22:47

I guess that kills the idea that the AI will not attack armies.

Inverse Icarus · December 3, 2003, 22:56

the AI should have reloaded that turn and tried with different RNG :P

Kuciwalker · December 4, 2003, 00:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
They attack, losing 15, redlining 3, and with one at 3hp (killed a Musket).

And with Barracks, all three Armies were fully healed for my turn.

Yeaaahhhh, baby.

Theseus · December 4, 2003, 00:21

Yeah, I am still just mucking about with C3C epic games to get a feel for things... won't play one for real until a patch.

But I was pleasantly surprised at:

* The quality of the Aztec attack.

* That they went after an Army-laden city (although that wasn't too smart... one step forward, one step back, eh?).

* The performance of the Armies. Towards the end, they were each at 3-6hp, and thus on defense they did revert to the MedInf... now at, hmm, ~6.1 defense, after the Muskets having taken some hps. Then, to see them spring back to full health!! (That's too much, btw, and should be addressed in a patch)

Pretty friggin' awesome.

vmxa1 · December 4, 2003, 01:04

I have been waiting to see how you would like the heal me quick funcion for armies now. It is brutally strong.

Kuciwalker · December 4, 2003, 02:34

If my math is right, a 4 mech infantry army with the Mil. Academy bonus fortified on a mountian inside a fortress and a barricade behind a river would have a defense of...

202.5

Dominae · December 4, 2003, 03:53

You forgot Radar Towers...

MrWhereItsAt · December 4, 2003, 05:26

But would the AI attack such an Army?

bongo · December 4, 2003, 06:35

With nukes?

In PTW the AI would not attack if the odds of winning were below 5%

mimi · December 4, 2003, 07:43

Quote:

Originally posted by bongo
With nukes?

In PTW the AI would not attack if the odds of winning were below 5%

I hate nukes. For the first time, out of the blue mind you, Babylon sent 3 ICBMs ... and, since I have animations turned off 'cause I'm sick of watching 45 units attack per turn, I didn't even know what had happened until I looked for my units and saw a huge orange landmass. Rude Babys!