FIRAXIS: A list of EASY fixes for the next C3C patch - Page 3

Jon Miller · November 13, 2003, 14:44

also, if we added one content face to the colosseum

not only would it be better for most civs (40 cost per face)

but would come earlier

this would not be ballanced at all

Jon Miller

RobC · November 13, 2003, 14:45

Captured artillery units are maintenance-free. Not a big deal in SP perhaps, but a possible exploit in MP

notyoueither · November 13, 2003, 14:55

I agree that reduced shield cost for Colosseums would be the way to go.

alexman · November 13, 2003, 14:58

Initial post updated.

alva · November 13, 2003, 15:00

Or giving them more culture points. Of course that may lead to other (minor) changes.

RobC · November 13, 2003, 15:03

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
alexman

adding a lethal stealth attack flag, then selecting tanks, modern armor, etc as the only units air units can stealth attack fixing the problem of air units killing infantry

This seems like a perfectly reasonable (although a bit time-consuming) workaround to me.

korn469 · November 13, 2003, 15:09

RobC

you could also use it in Mods and Scenarios, either suggestion, "lethal stealth attacks" or "immune to lethal bombard" would work, and both could give modders more options

here's a bug that needs confirmation, when running a modded government with free building upkeep, but requires unit upkeep in a deficit, only one unit per turn will disband, regardless of the deficit

Stuie · November 13, 2003, 15:40

For the editor, I would like the "Requires xxxx in city radius" to include bonus resources, not just strategic and luxury resources.

alexman · November 13, 2003, 15:44

Stuie, that's probably not an easy fix, because nowhere in the game engine is the trade network checked for bonus resources. Why don't you just flag the required bonus resource as strategic?

Stuie · November 13, 2003, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Stuie, that's probably not an easy fix, because nowhere in the game engine is the trade network checked for bonus resources. Why don't you just flag the required bonus resource as strategic?

I don't want it to be "tradeable". You're probably right though... not an easy fix.

Nor Me · November 13, 2003, 16:29

I disagree about removing the AI offence flag from Num. Mercenaries. They are frequently worth 50% more as an attacking unit to the AI than archers and I've not seen them built ahead of swordsmen.

RobC · November 13, 2003, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
RobC

you could also use it in Mods and Scenarios, either suggestion, "lethal stealth attacks" or "immune to lethal bombard" would work, and both could give modders more options

But the former (selecting which units may be stealth attacked) is already in the editor...

Jaybe · November 13, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie
I don't want it to be "tradeable". You're probably right though... not an easy fix.

No need for concern. In PTW I had bonus res converted to strategic res so I could have them disappear. The AI wouldn't give me piddly squat for any of them.*

*Unless one was required for something and they didn't have it.

Nor Me · November 13, 2003, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

No need for concern. In PTW I had bonus res converted to strategic res so I could have them disappear. The AI wouldn't give me piddly squat for any of them.*

*Unless one was required for something and they didn't have it.

But being required to be in the city radius for an improvement is enough to give a resource value to the AI even though it's useless to trade for.

I've pointed out that the Iron Works is resposible for a third of the AI trade value of Iron in the ancient age before now.

alexman · November 13, 2003, 17:16

The AI builds all of its available units for a certain purpose. That's why it builds some guerillas when it has access to rubber.

So once the AI gets iron, it definitely uses up some of its offensive unit build quota for mercs instead of swordsmen.

Nor Me · November 13, 2003, 17:30

I've not seen it build enough mercs when it has Iron to be a serious disavantage.

If building mercs instead of archers is often an advantage, then that is likely to be more important.

It's not as clear-cut as for the other units.

vmxa1 · November 13, 2003, 17:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller

the only advantages the cathedral has is in culture and content faces

in every other way colloseums are better

they cost less, are avaiable earlier, and don't require a prerequisite

Jon Miller

Don't forget that you can get Sistine and double their value.

lockstep · November 13, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman [*]Remove the explore command from Leader, Catapult, Cannon, Hwach'a, Artillery, Radar Artillery, Settler, Worker.

And from Trebuchet.

joncnunn · November 13, 2003, 20:17

Starting worker locations in the Rise of Rome scenario disperately need relocated out of the capitals.

Because, I just bought the Greece, Egyptian, and Persian worker as Rome on turn 1 in that game before any of them get a chance to move. (This would probably be easier to implement that the real fix of the underlaying issue which is that the AI really shouldn't be offering to sell workers at any price while they still have improvments left to perfom.)

Jaybe · November 13, 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Remove the explore command from ... Catapult, Cannon, Hwach'a, Artillery, Radar Artillery ...

I wonder, was the explore command given to these in an attempt to get them out of the cities, and into offensive use?

korn469 · November 13, 2003, 22:29

RobC

but I was asking for a flag to use in conjunction with it

dexters · November 13, 2003, 22:53

Alex,

I'm going to push again for the suggestion for the AI navies to switch to tile bombardment. The current set-up is NOT working.

The AI has now been improved sufficiently to field large navies, and it would be a waste in the Epic games to see all these ships bombard essentially useless targets.

Tile improvement bombard were what navies used to do in Civ iii and PTW. Let's return it that way.

Edit: The alternative of course, is to increase naval bombard strength so it does more damage to units fortified in cities and make them 'smarter' at massing near cities where they are abound to land their troop stacks.

WarpStorm · November 13, 2003, 23:29

Or to have their bombardments of cities trash infrastructure and population in addition to units.

dexters · November 13, 2003, 23:36

WS, I think that will lead us back to the abuse scenario that ruled out Alex's initial suggestion of lethal land. While it will be harder, all you do is have a navy show up to a coastal cities, bomb for several turns to trash barracks and send in troops by land to finish it. Might as well plaster "We are the new arty exploit of the high seas" next to the destroyers.

I personally think tile bombard causes significant damage and is relatively easy to implement since this is what the AI used to do. smarter bombardment of tiles will certainly be welcome, but with top tier AI civs now easily fielding 20 destroyers, + battleships and cruisers (under Standard maps), having that fleet show up to level your tile improvements would create enough damage for the human player, while at the same time, not allowing human players to 'exploit' a gameplay mechanic, like the arty stacks of doom that have grown so popular.

In conclusion, title improvement bombard is really what will work best. The original design was correct, and BA and Firaxis should change it back. This coupled with large AI navies should make things very interesting.

PrinceBimz · November 13, 2003, 23:47

I would like to see bombardment simply changed back to how it was in vanilla CIV3. That is with the AI attacking improvements and infastructure/garrison damage.

Master Zen · November 13, 2003, 23:55

Some of us were quite vocal in some of these changes during the beta test. I for one was among those who advocated eliminating the hardcoded distinction between MGLs and SGLs. Same was also said about removing the hardcoded unlimited movement from railroads. Unfortunately, the answer was quite simple: those changes would require to much code change to be worthwhile. Not being a programmer myself I guess there's not much we can really do about it. So, don't want to sound like a party-pooper but this excuse might make it very likely that many of these suggestions, while very good IMO, will not be implemented.

Now that I got that out my system, here's a change I would like:

NO LETHAL BOMBARD FOR BOMBERS

Bombers have INCREDIBLE bang-for-the-buck, heck, they usually never even make Stealth Bombers necessary. To top it off, now they have lethal land bombardment?!? I remember a scenario in the beta test where my bombers would simply wait in an offshore city and pick off enemy units one by one as they came into view. I didn't even have any troops in the enemy territory and his army was decimated. How real is that for a WW2-era military unit?

How many WW2 heavy bombers sank enemy ships? How many WW2 heavy bombers destroyed army formations? This is not only unrealistic from a historical point of view, but it makes the bomber unit just TOO powerful. Yeah I b*tched about this one too during the beta...

(btw, I understand that in the WW2 Pacific scenario the lethal bombard makes the scenario more realistic but emphasis here should be on the epic game default rules.)

Uncle Thade · November 14, 2003, 00:05

Would like and want a fix that prevents me from playing so I can get some sleep and get to work...

...work in Film & TV, 16 hour days and dangit, I get home wanting to play.... Boooooooo Firaxis!!!!

alexman · November 14, 2003, 00:15

This whole bombard issue is very difficult to settle, because there is no way everyone will agree on one solution. I'm afraid we will have to live with Firaxis' current implementation.

I'll update the initial post tomorrow...

Master Zen · November 14, 2003, 00:45

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
This whole bombard issue is very difficult to settle, because there is no way everyone will agree on one solution. I'm afraid we will have to live with Firaxis' current implementation.

I'll update the initial post tomorrow...

Once people start playing with the new bomber settings you'll see just how destabilizing they are in SP games. Btw, this only applies to regular bombers. Stealth Bombers are good as they are with the lethal bombardment, after all, something better make them worth the extra cost.

notyoueither · November 14, 2003, 00:45

I'd like to see...

Naval Air with lethal sea bombardment, and Attack Air with lethal land bombardment.

Each would have reduced bombardment values, but could kill their targets. Generic (heavy) Bombers could dish out the punishment but not kill anything.