Imperium Romanum released...

I understand that the AI isn't meant to overrun the Romans, but I think there should be a possibiliy. I'm just wondering about the future, if the Punic Wars of the Gaulic campaign will be difficult. Will Hannibal really come out of the Alps and attack me? Will the Gauls try to retake any of the cities I have conquered from them? Stuff like that is all I'm wondering.

[CyberChrist]

quote: Originally posted by BeBro on 02-07-2001 05:55 AM CyberChrist, this is no real error. During the tests I thought the same as you, and want to move their creation points into Opitergium, but then I did not, because it seems not too unrealistic that Barb plunderers appear directly in front of a Roman city

Heh heh ok, of course all you need to do to negate this is to permanently place a unit on that location. I am sure most players will figure this out, so it is not really anything that affects the game anyway. Just rather annoying having to figure out all these non-city random unit generation spots.

Speaking of barbarians, why are the Persian not pestered by a horde of these as well? Parthia conquered large parts of Persia coming from the North (East of the Caspian Sea) starting from around 300BC.

[Prometeus]

Sorry to burst out your post, Cybbie... But as a matter of fact, Parthian power on Iran was unsure untill the rise to power of Mithridates II in 124-123 BC. Before him, Parthian kings were vassal rulers for Achaemenids and Seleucids at first, and then second level kings, in spite of some great generals like Mithridates I. Maybe you're confusing them with Saka. Parthians were members of Dahae confederation.

[BeBro]

Cockney, don´t worry, my day wasn´t better

MagyarCrusader, Ceteram lost Mediolanum to the Barbs with the Cimbri/Teuton event in Northern Italy, which was absolutely planned, but generally the Barbs are randomly created.
I included another thing to help the poor Barbs a bit: with every new rules file, their units are a bit upgraded, so the same units are stronger in the later parts. They are sometimes very strong in the open, in my current game I lost some fortified Legions on mountains due to German/Celtic attacks...

Hannibal will attack in Northern Italy, but I have to admit that some players found it to easy to resist Hannibal´s army. But this is a problem of the limited events capacity, even with multiple files. I could include more units for Hannibal, but then I have to leave out other things, or use more events files, but I´m unsure if I should do that.

To sum up, there are several events that can cost you cities, especially when playing Carthage in the second part, but they don´t drive you to the edge of destruction. This may be related to the fact that I´m not an expert player...

------------------
Civ2000

[CyberChrist]

quote: Originally posted by Prometeus on 02-07-2001 05:10 PM Parthian power on Iran was unsure untill the rise to power of Mithridates II in 124-123 BC. Before him, Parthian kings were vassal rulers for Achaemenids and Seleucids at first, and then second level kings, in spite of some great generals like Mithridates I. Maybe you're confusing them with Saka. Parthians were members of Dahae confederation.

Huh?
The Parthian Kingdom was founded by Arsaces I in 238BC (in other words they became independent from the Seleucid) and it was Mithridates I who conquored Iran(Persia) and Mesopotamia in 141BC. It is true that the Parthians further expansion was hampered by the Sakas invasion from the East, but by 80BC the disputes with the Sakas was settled and the Sakas actually became a vassal state to the Parthians.
In 66BC they increased their land by taking Atropatene and sieze northern Mesopotamia - where they settled a common border with the Romans on the Euphrates. The Romans was immediately destroyed at Carrhae by the Parthian Horse Archers when they crossed the border in 53BC.

Anyway, my real point was that the Persian have it far too quiet and cosy out there to the east.
Some heavy barbarian pressure should be added to keep their otherwise unchallenged expansion in check - whether you choose to call them Parthian or Saka is not that important(even though Parthian Horse Archers would be a nice addition ).

[BeBro]

dp
[This message has been edited by BeBro (edited February 07, 2001).]

[BeBro]

CyberChrist, coming back to the eventschange error, I´m just after the third change in my new game with the update 2.1 (143BC), the poor Greeks were destroyed years before, but the eventschange worked absolutely fine.
I have to admit that I have no idea about the reason of the problem. At first I thought it appears only under MGE, but now I´m unsure. Has someone another idea? Any help is of course welcome...

This reminds on the release of Cross&Crescent, when Mao complained about weird researches of one civ, but many players, including me, hadn´t such problems. Seems that civ has already some new surprises for me...

For the Barb events, i´ll move their creation points a bit away from Opitergium in the later events files.

------------------
Civ2000

[C0ckney]

Have finally entered northern Spain and subdued the Macedonians (although I haven't captured any cities yet), I am planing a campian against the Greeks which will be my first big naval operation

Also I am building up the navy but the damn carths never seem to run out of ships, still I'll be able to invade Africa soon

[St Leo]

Hint: You will never capture Massila without the use of Siege Towers...

I managed using only Consular Legions. It took a legion them but still...

But I know I am behind with science, still no siege towers and the independents are a pain in Gaul.

Fortify a legion in the Mountains on their path.

My impressions are that Pyrrhus should be easier to defeat (he captured 3-4 cities) and Hannibal should be harder to defeat (he captured 0 - although Mediolanum would have fallen if 3 Imperial Legions were not nearby).

Also I am building up the navy but the damn carths never seem to run out of ships, still I'll be able to invade Africa soon.

The Gibraltar is a landbridge. For my part, I am not building an offensive Navy until I own North Africa.

You´re right with the event, but the only solution would be that I remove the most historic correct events, because there´s always a chance that the things develop completely different in civ, but I think they create a good atmo.

I'll just assume Pyrrhus' Massilian.

My impressions are that Pyrrhus should be easier to defeat (he captured 3-4 cities) and Hannibal should be harder to defeat (he captured 0 - although Mediolanum would have fallen if 3 Imperial Legions were not nearby). Oh, and Macs didn't get beyond Anatolia, allowing Persia to grow really fast.

HINTS:
-go for Bohemia before Gaul - its defenders are easier to defeat and their units are more annoying (then again, I colonized Illyricum)
-fortify a legion in a mountain square bordering on Hills between Mediolanum and an Independent Massilia, it will be more or less invincible

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[BeBro]

quote: My impressions are that Pyrrhus should be easier to defeat (he captured 3-4 cities) and Hannibal should be harder to defeat (he captured 0 - although Mediolanum would have fallen if 3 Imperial Legions were not nearby). Oh, and Macs didn't get beyond Anatolia, allowing Persia to grow really fast.

Yes you´re right with Hannibal, but I have to find a way to do this without leaving lots of other events out. Another problem is that most players are simply better prepared later in the game when Hannibal arrives, but some were pretty surprised by the earlier attacks by Pyrrhos But i have some ideas...

For the Macs, it´s different: some players report that they conquer sometimes all of Persia, others report the same as you. In my last game I had the same, and the reason was that the Macs hadn´t researched a better government until 150BC and so they were totally behind. I can give them a tech via events that ensures that they reach the Late Republic earlier.

[CyberChrist]

A few suggestions regarding the issues raised about the dificulty of Pyrrhus and Hannibal.

Pyrrhus was in Italy for 5 years and only won the battle a Heraclea (situated between Tarentum an Croton) with heavy losses. Perhaps you could make some of his forces 0 movement - so that they would be annoying but didn't overrun the cities (I already had Katapults at that stage, so I didn't find Pyrrhus a problem myself).

Give Hannibal some elephants for crying out loud!
Elephants (in general) should be reduced in defence strength to 6(or so) but then given pikeman ability. This should make them hard for even Imperial Legions and Cavalry, but easier targets for Ballista, Katapult and Siege Towers(!! - I'll come to that later).
This should be very realistic as Hannibals elephants spread terror among the troops and cavalry at the Battle at Trebia River (Velites did manage to drive of the elephants by poking them in the butt with their spears - no kidding).
Also remember - Hannibal was in Italy for 15 years.
He entered Italy in 218BC over the Alps and after dealing Rome a crushing at Cannae(situated east of Paestum and north of Tarentum) in 216BC, he went on to to capture Tarentum(which he held until 209BC).

I have played this excellent scenario both as Proconsul and as Imperator now and one thing I have noticed is the overwhelming power of Siege Towers. In fact they are far too powerfull - why would anyone even consider using Cavalry or Elephants when you have Siege Towers that moves almost as fast but strike twice as hard?
I tried reducing their move to 1 and this seems to work much better. Laying siege does require more care, but how realistic is a Siege Tower that can keep up with Legion on fast march anyway?
I do have better ideas for how to deal with this problem, but I fear they would require quite a bit of rework on the scenario.

[Kull]

Bebro: Definitely having fun with this! Here's a few thoughts on possible improvements (and praise for what works:

1) The Teutons appearing at 52,54: Add a second location so they can appear elsewhere when the player fortifies that square against them. Should do that for all your Barbs. (If event space is the problem, see comment #11)

2) Barbarians coming in from Gaul/Germany: This really works well, and even fortified vet legions on mountains die when attacked by the Suebi. I really had to pay attention (which often involved retreating) until I was able to post a line of Vet Consular Legions in the Alps. The random Barbs also make it very dangerous to go off "exploring" in Gaul. The overall effect is excellent.

3) Pyrrhus/Hannibal: If you include "fortresses" with these armies, it will be impossible for the Roman player to take out the units before they go into action. (The fortresses could be removed via changeterrain events several turns later to prevent them from interfering with game play). You could also give them some special units (like Samnites), the killing of which generates more Carthaginian/Greek units. This would really make it hard to defeat them.

4) Punic Wars: This period was such a seminal event in the development of the Roman Republic that it's almost worth adding a whole new period (and events) to simulate it. Consider giving the "Corvus" tech to the Roman player during this period, since the sudden transformation of Rome into a maritime power was one of the signal events of this period.

5) AI and Movepoints: The AI kicks butt with Siegetowers (M2), but they are clueless on using catapults and ballistas (M1). (I had real trouble with the Independents until they researched ballistas, after which the number of siegetowers dropped dramatically.) In fact, anything with a movement of "one" just marches up next to your positions and waits to be destroyed on the next turn. If you want to encourage a more dynamic AI, consider restricting the number of M1 units it can build.

6) Infinite City Sleaze: The AI just goes wild building new cities. Rather than take away their settlers consider expanding the amount of unappetizing desert or mountain type terrain. (Especially in North Africa, Egypt, Saudi, and Persia) Excellent idea to use fortresses to wall off most of Central Europe/Russia, although even more might be needed.

7) Ptolemaios' Earthmap: Hated it! The AI built this wonder halfway through the game, and it really eliminated the fun which comes from exploring and uncovering new terrain. If you retain this, at least move it to the very end of the tech tree so it's one of the last things that can be built. Or give it a "no" prereq until a new rules.txt file is loaded in 27 BC.

8) Light Woods: Great terrain, but the AI insists on destroying it via irrigation (replacing it with plains which offer identical food but less trade and shields. Duh!) Suggest editing the rules.txt and allow it to be irrigated only by AI Democracies.

9) Terrain/Cities/Units/Icons: Superb artistry. A real feast for the eyes! But the women in people.gif have to be the ugliest set of wenches I've ever seen. Double-baggers, one and all!

10) Egypt/Carthage: Consider adding some fortresses between these two powers, as it will prevent ANY land warfare from taking place. To the best of my knowledge no army ever marched between Carthage and Alexandria, so you might as well make it impossible. The human player WILL do it otherwise, and so will the AI (plus it forces the Carthaginians to focus on Rome and the Egyptians to look toward the Levant).

11) Naval Units and Events: A little known fact is that naval units summoned by events will appear in a square EVEN IF IT IS OCCUPIED BY AN ENEMY UNIT! They won't bump to a second location, even if one is included. So you can get some of your event space back by deleting all but one of the naval unit locations in your events files.

12) Wooden Castle: It would be nice if only the Romans got the benefit. The AI is almost certain to get here first, and of course the "anybody" trigger locks in on the first civ to use it.

13) Economy: Talk about living paycheck to paycheck! Maybe it's just the Imperator level, but my empire always seems to be on the verge of bankruptcy! And conquering a huge AI city requires some serious city management in order to stave off starvation. This may be one of the greatest challenges in your game, and is certainly the source of my deepest anxieties!

Well, that's all for now. I have to strap on the armor, summon my centurions and prepare for the siege of Cartenna. As Cato the Elder reminds me on a daily basis, "Carthage must be destroyed!"

[Chris 62]

The new pedia works fine with MGE Bebro.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[BeBro]

Ah, thats good to hear!

[Snog]

The .bat files don't work under windows2000. No big deal I guess, but I thought you might want to know.

[Civfan]

Hey Bebro, the sewer system was sold off as intended but the problem with the pollution is still there. I've been checking and found something about it..Get back to ya on that. "Doing some testing"... With regard to my scenario, its gone. My system was infected with a virus and computer was formatted. Lost all. I've been looking at my Caesar scenario from my tot page. Might continue it. I use MPG for the scenario and only problem is so far theres no navy attacks from Carthage for the first punic war. All and all a terrific scenario, especially with the city graphic.

quote: Originally posted by BeBro on 02-06-2001 10:33 AM Civfan, it was intendet that you can have pollution, as a simulation of plagues or so. But I´m unsure why you have so much, have you sold the Sewer Channel improvement that is prebuilded in Rome? If not research for Thermes... BTW, what version do you play, and have you also any other problems? And how is your own Rome scn going?

[CyberChrist]

quote: Originally posted by BeBro on 02-10-2001 12:52 PM ...siegetowers as air units? I´m afraid that the AI is not able to use them in the right way?

Huh? What do you mean? Are the AI not able to attack with airunits? They attack fine with bombers.
I have heard though that the AI doesn't run out of fuel - or at least use a different formula for calculating max distance.

I must admit I never investigated whether the AI actaully build Airstrips - if they don't then that is definetly another problem to solve.

Anyway, it was just an idea

[BeBro]

quote: I must admit I never investigated whether the AI actaully build Airstrips - if they don't then that is definetly another problem to solve.

CyberChrist, thats what I mean, of course the AI can use air units, but I´m in doubt that they will build airbases, so this would be a huge advantage for the human player.

And if you mean they should be able to stay for two or three turns in the "air" ("2/2 or 1/3 move"-hope I´ve understood it correctly), this would mean that they would be able to end their turn even on ocean squares. For a human player you can make a houserule to solve that, but not for the AI...


[This message has been edited by BeBro (edited February 10, 2001).]

[Kull]

Bebro: Actually it was William Keenan who discovered Fractional Movement Allowances (ie M172 = M1.3). My contribution was related to one possible use of the discovery. I've never tried this in a scenario, and the big question is whether the AI will use the "huge move" units properly.

CyberChrist: I have my doubts as to the feasibility of air unit siegetowers, even if the aI were to use them correctly. On the surface it sounds good, but the application gets sticky. First of all, it would take a long time to "march" these units from the production cities to the front, especially if they only have M2. Plus they could only fly between cities, unless you rely upon a pre-existing network of airbase "siege camps" (which are subject to pillage by the AI and barbarians). If you let players build siege camps, I guarantee they'll abuse the privilege and use it to costruct defacto railroads. (ie adjacent airbases function the same as railroads). Then there's the strategy of "sheltering" beneath bomber-type units and also using them as a means of avoiding ZOC. I'm almost certain that this solution would create more problems than it solves. Even if you were able to address all the issues I raise, it would still require extensive playtesting to fine tune the new strategies and work all the bugs out.

If it's simply that you're offended by the concept of roving, high speed Siegetowers which eliminate the need for human-player sieges, perhaps the best answer is to make them impossible for the Romans to build. That way the AI can still demolish you with them, but the human players will be forced to institute "true" sieges, something the AI doesn't know how to do anyway.

In the same vein it would be nice if the default road movement were raised from 3 to 4, which would speed the game up a bit.

[BeBro]

Hi guys, and thanks for the suggestions

First, a little pedia update. To use one of the files below, rename it to pedia.txt and copy it to the scn´s folder

-for FW: http://home.debitel.net/user/bbrosin...s/FW_PEDIA.txt
(changes: only the description for the Tower of Babel added)

-for MGE: http://home.debitel.net/user/bbrosin.../MGE_PEDIA.txt
(changes: shortened descriptions, also Tower of Babel added)
A special note for the MGE users: since the MGE copy I ordered some days ago hasn´t arrived yet, it´s not sure that the new MGE pedia solves the problem with the too long descriptions, it would be nice to hear some feedback from the MGE users.
When my copy arrives, I´ll add the wonder descriptions to the file describe.txt, test it, and offer a new update (hope then for the last time )

Kull, to your suggestions, they sound very good, I´ll do most of the things you mentioned (Wooden Castles, Light Wood, Ptolemaios´Map, etc.)

CyberChrist, you´re right with Hannibal, but I think the battles of the Carthaginian armie(s) in Italy are difficult to simulate over several years with events, but however, I´ll definately make Hannibal stronger.

To the siegetowers: my thought was that these large siege engines normally were built during a siege so that their transport was´nt the main problem, therefore MP 2. I´m aware that this is not an ideal solution, and I agree with you that its not realistic when a "Siege Tower that can keep up with Legion"
On the other hand it has some advantages, especially when the AI uses siegetowers (Kull mentioned it).

And I´m in doubt that MP 1 would make it so much better, because many expert players simply include engineers in their armies, building a fortress directly in front of a city in one turn, then moving their forces into the fortress and start a devastating attack next turn.
Perhaps I can give them these strange MPs that were recently discovered (wasn´t that also you, Kull?), I mean the very high numbers that result in 1 and "a half" MP, but I have to check that first...

[CyberChrist]

quote: Originally posted by BeBro on 02-10-2001 12:15 PM To the siegetowers: my thought was that these large siege engines normally were built during a siege so that their transport was´nt the main problem, therefore MP 2.

This is true, but the problem is that I(and the AI) use little else to fight with - even in open terrain.

The optimal solution would be to make them Air units(!) with 2/2 or 1/3 move and then represent Siege Camps with airfields. This would make it possible to protect units fortifying right outside a city by placing a Siege Tower on top of them and only allow certain units to attack them (Cavalry and other Siege Towers should be prevented from attacking Siege Towers).
Also you could then introduce Siege Ships.

I know you are currently using Airfields for villages, but they could be represent with Farmland or RailRoad instead(maybe even introducing 2 different types of villages )

quote: Originally posted by BeBro on 02-10-2001 12:15 PM And I´m in doubt that MP 1 would make it so much better, because many expert players simply include engineers in their armies, building a fortress directly in front of a city in one turn, then moving their forces into the fortress and start a devastating attack next turn.

I do this always - or rather that is what I did before I got Siege Towers. Now I don't bother I merely rush the cities (and units in the open) with Siege Towers.
Of the 2 methods the first is the one closest ressembling true siege - IMO anyway. Keep in mind that sieges sometimes took years back in those days.

Btw, a veteran Imperial Legion fortified on a hill with a Fortress still stand a pretty good chance of being wiped out, when the AI attacks with only 2/3 strength Siege Tower - trust me I know from several such encounters.

[This message has been edited by CyberChrist (edited February 10, 2001).]

[BeBro]

Hey, these second villages as RRs are fine , but siegetowers as air units? I´m afraid that the AI is not able to use them in the right way?

[CyberChrist]

quote: Originally posted by Kull on 02-10-2001 07:01 PM I have my doubts as to the feasibility of air unit siegetowers ... First of all, it would take a long time to "march" these units from the production cities to the front, especially if they only have M2. Plus they could only fly between cities.

Use Siege Vessels (ships) to transport them and make the Siege Towers able to 'paradrop' a short distance.

quote: ..unless you rely upon a pre-existing network of airbase "siege camps" (which are subject to pillage by the AI and barbarians).

I don't recall ever seeing the AI or Barbarians pillaging Airstrips. I could be wrong though.

quote: I guarantee they'll abuse the privilege and use it to costruct defacto railroads. (ie adjacent airbases function the same as railroads).

Just let people know this would be considered cheating. If people want to 'cheat' then they will do so anyway.

quote: Then there's the strategy of "sheltering" beneath bomber-type units and also using them as a means of avoiding ZOC.

I don't see the problem in this case - Siege Towers was invented to protect the troops when they were scaling the walls. This would be far more fitting than the all terrain battle tank they are currently emulating.
You can use traders to avoid ZOC already - so I see no new problem there either.

quote: Even if you were able to address all the issues I raise, it would still require extensive playtesting to fine tune the new strategies and work all the bugs out.

That is how great things get done

quote: ...perhaps the best answer is to make them impossible for the Romans to build. That way the AI can still demolish you with them

Romans without Siege Towers? You got to be joking!
Anyway as I said in my previous post then the AI demolish my hill fortified Imperial Legion just fine even when they only have 2/3 move left (of M1).

quote: In the same vein it would be nice if the default road movement were raised from 3 to 4, which would speed the game up a bit.

Ack, that would hardly be solving the Siege Tower rush problem. If anything then reduce road movement to 2.


BeBro:
Just give ships the ability to attack air units, that should render Siege Tower blockades impractical at best.


A few added advantages of Siege Towers acting like bombers would be:
1. They could not capture cities on their own (except for the paradrop ability - if added)
2. They would be able to protect units fortifying outside city from being attack by some units(at the very least other Siege Towers)
3. There should be very few Siege Towers travelling in the open with this(except for those being sacrificed by paradrops to far away spots. Realistic as Siege machinery was most often left at the spot they were used)

Ok, despite what it might seem I am not really trying to push this idea - it was/is just a suggestion. Reducing movement to 1 (perhaps 1.1?)would work reasonably well for me as well.

EDIT: messed up some quotes

[This message has been edited by CyberChrist (edited February 11, 2001).]

[Kull]

Cyber Christ: Maybe we should rename this the "Siege Towers - Pros and Cons" thread. In the spirit of good debate -- and keeping in mind that neither of us is the game designer so the whole thing is probably moot -- here are the issues as I see it:

1) Siege Towers functioning as "all-terrain battle tanks" is a bad thing: I couldn't agree more. As currently configured, these units are utterly ahistorical. On the plus side -- and it's a big plus in my mind -- they are also one of the few units the AI is able to use that causes real damage to my otherwise invincible legion armies.

A possible compromise:
- Give the identical unit stats (with the possible exception of ignore city walls) to one of the two War Elephant units. This is the closest thing to a "main battle tank" that existed in this period, and many of the featured civs actually used them. They will be built and used in numbers far beyond the true historical usage, but it's a whole lot closer to reality than the rampaging Siege Towers!
- Make these Elephants impossible for the Romans (and perhaps Macedonians) to build.
- Ensure that the AI civs can research and build these fairly early in the game.
- Make the Siege Tower an M1 land unit, and perhaps make it impossible for the AI civs to build it (as added insurance that they'll go with the elephants.)

2) Turn Siege Towers into some form of Air Unit: You have advanced some quite interesting and historically accurate ideas in favor of this possibility. Let's consider the pluses first:

- Sheltering: Besieging units outside a city can shelter beneath "Bomber-type" siege units. This is quite historical, even elegant.
- Anti-air Units: Giving "AA" capabilities to those units which historically sortied from the city to attack these engines is another good idea. Really helps to transform the siege into a multidimensional activity. It also eliminates the possibility of Siege Towers attacking one another which NEVER happened in real life, but is a frequent occurence in this scenario (and most other ancient type scenarios, it should be noted). One benefit you did not suggest is that now one could have the option of building a siege defense city improvement (SAM Battery).
- Siege Camps (Air Bases): The units fly out from these camps, constructed nearby and guarded by units of the besieging army. Again this is fairly historical and mimics the creation of fortified encampments by legions. An added plus is that units defending from inside a camp can only be killed individually, not as a stack.
- Siege Ships: Carrier type sea units which transport the siegetowers for use against port cities is another interesting idea. Not used that often in history, but does add a new dimension to the siege. Also simulates the transport of lumber (for siege tower construction) to areas which were denuded of trees.

I think that sums up most of the arguments in favor of Siege Tower air units. An impressive list, I'll be the first to admit. But lets consider the minuses that come with those "pluses":

- Sheltering: This may be historically accurate when used in the context of a city siege, but it's way off base in a "field warfare" situation. And that's exactly where most of this "sheltering" is going to occur. Since the enemy's most dangerous units (cavalry and other siege engines) cannot attack my siegetowers, I'll definitely use them to shelter my high defense legions especially where I need to establish an invulnerable chokepoint or in areas with poor defensive terrain.
- Anti-air Units: The only way to counter the above strategy is by giving "AA" capabilities to almost every unit, and that pretty much eliminates all the arguments we used earlier in favor of sheltering.
- Siege camps (Air Bases): If you give players the ability to construct defacto "siege camp railroads", many will. Reliance on "house rules" to mask a poor design choice is not something I personally care for. Once you start down that road, where do you stop?
- Siege Ships: These are truly ripe for abuse. First thing I do with those siege ships is form carrier battle fleets. Unless every enemy ship is given AA capability, I'll send out my Quinqueremes and shelter them beneath invincible siege towers (which are also great for scouting out the location of enemy battle fleets). Even if enemy ships DO have AA capability, there's nothing to stop me from using air siegetowers as naval scout units and to attack enemy fleets on the open sea or from within the walls of my city. The sight of siege towers suspended in air above the ocean is just as offensive (and maybe more so) than their use as main battle tanks.
- Paradropping: Since this was a recent addition to your list of features, it's worth noting that I've never heard of "paradropping air units". Is this even possible?
- Local Construction: You mention several times that Siege towers were historically constructed on site and then left behind when the army moved on. This is all quite true, but neither option addresses this. The only way to construct siege towers on site would be via events. Something akin to "Killing unit "X" outside of Carthage generates 3 Siege Towers nearby". This would take up a lot of event space (requiring a host of new trigger units), and would be impossible to use everywhere.

All of the above doesn't even address AI use of the "new" siege towers. Lets face it, the AI will NEVER be able to perform all the activities necessary in order to use the Siege Tower as a besieging weapon.
- They won't build siege camps near the city under attack.
- If the siege camps exist they won't land air units there.
- The AI won't carry siegetowers aboard ships (unless you give every sea unit the "carries air" flag - and even then it will be accidental and they will almost certainly NOT launch them from the ships).
- Assuming the AI can even mount an offensive, the siege towers will only be used against enemy cities that are within the movement range of an AI controlled city (as they won't build or use airbases)
- The most likely possibility is that siege towers will be deployed in frontline AI-controlled cities and used against enemy ships and field troops -- which is just as non-historical as the current situation.

Suffice it to say that air-unit siege towers can only be used in a historically correct fashion by the human player. Now we come to my final argument against the introduction of these specialized units, and it can be summed up in two words:

- Xin Yu: This guy has to be one of the most annoying people to ever come down the pike -- especially if you are a scenario designer! Captain Nemo must have nightmares when he considers all the ways in which Xin has manipulated the rules in order to demolish Red Front and Second Front -- two of the greatest scenarios ever made. The guy is ingenious, and thwarting him requires that one pay careful attention to the design of a scenario, and in particular to be extra cautious when it comes to specialized units that lend themseleves to multiple uses. If anything can be perverted in an Ancient Scenario it's an air unit, and Xin Yu will do things with these units you never thought possible!

[Shadowstrike]

Should have made the Xin version, like I said. (j/k)

Kull, I think I see a problem. What if people start moving the Siege Towers over the water so that they can't be attacked? And if they are M1 bombers, how are they supposed to get around?

[CyberChrist]

ok...

quote: One benefit you did not suggest is that now one could have the option of building a siege defense city improvement (SAM Battery).

True I forgot to mention that. The best part about that is that it would ONLY be a defence against the Siege Towers.

quote: - Sheltering: ... I'll definitely use them to shelter my high defense legions especially where I need to establish an invulnerable chokepoint or in areas with poor defensive terrain. - Anti-air Units: The only way to counter the above strategy is by giving "AA" capabilities to almost every unit

Well, I was actually suggesting giving the can attack air units ability to most units(including ships) with the exception to Siege Towers, ALL Cavalry (except Elephants) and ALL melee type units(those that would engage in hand to hand combat like Legions etc.)
This would leave Katapults and Ballistas as the main defense against Siege Towers, but also make it possible for 'ranged' units to attack the towers(giving them a renewed use).
Also one could imagine a M0 defending unit with the SAM flag on - available only to some civs (AI only maybe?).

quote: - Siege camps (Air Bases): If you give players the ability to construct defacto "siege camp railroads", many will.

People will only be cheating themselves and they will know it. Nothing is stopping anyone from turning on cheat and planting Airstrips all over the place in any scenario.
I do wonder why the effect airstrips have in MGE and earlier versions was never fixed in any of the patches. They don't have that effect in TOT - sigh, if only TOT wasn't so sluggish =/.

quote: - Siege Ships: These are truly ripe for abuse. First thing I do with those siege ships is form carrier battle fleets. Unless every enemy ship is given AA capability...

All ships should be able to take out the Siege Towers (if they got attack ability at all of course)

quote: ..there's nothing to stop me from using air siegetowers as naval scout units and to attack enemy fleets on the open sea or from within the walls of my city. The sight of siege towers suspended in air above the ocean is just as offensive (and maybe more so) than their use as main battle tanks.

If the Siege Towers had only 1 move each turn and 3 turns out of the city that would almost never happen.

quote: - Paradropping: Since this was a recent addition to your list of features, it's worth noting that I've never heard of "paradropping air units". Is this even possible?

Yes it is possible.

quote: - Local Construction: ...

No argument here - I am at a loss

quote: - The AI won't carry siegetowers aboard ships (unless you give every sea unit the "carries air" flag)

I was going to suggest a single Siege Vessel(Carrier) and not that all ships could carry Siege Towers.

Regarding the rest of the AI problems then...
YES there are some unanswered questions and some very real problems with this approach, but I for one am going to experiment a little and see if the AI can be coerced into seeing things my way

quote: - Xin Yu: .... will do things with these units you never thought possible!

I couldn't care less if someone wants to ruin the experience for themselves by blatantly abusing the setup - their loss entirely.

[This message has been edited by CyberChrist (edited February 12, 2001).]

[CyberChrist]

Ok, just did some fast testing for an alternative to having Airfields in the scenario.

I gave the Engineer unit the can carry air units ability and even though the Engineer doesn't as such 'carry' them, then any Siege Tower ending its turn on an Engineer will have it's moves fully restored and thus making the 1 move 3 turn Siege Towers feasible and now transportable to the front

[Kull]

CyberChrist: Moving an M1 air unit from your production cities to the front lines will be the Civ2 equivalent of watching paint dry.

But in the spirit of trying to make this work (I'm not a Luddite, just been around long enough to see where good intentions will take you unless they are RIGOROUSLY examined!), how about this set of unit/scenario features:

Unit Type=Air (Bomber)
Cost=200 shields (or Events only)
Paradrop=40
Move=1
Turns aloft=4
Units that can carry Air=Engineers only
Airbase Construction=Forbidden
Units that can attack Air=All except siege units

What do those stats achieve?

1) A unit that costs a lot of time and effort to produce, thus making it VERY unwise to send them paradropping off into the unknown as scout units. You could still do it, but the unit would almost certainly die, and as an air unit it would be incapable of conquering a city to use as a base for the "Return Flight". Another good reason not to leave Siege Camps lying around.

2) A unit capable of appearing "magically" at the place you need it most, thus simulating local construction and eliminating all those unseemly siege towers traveling down the roads of the empire.

3) A unit that cannot be used to attack naval vessels out in the middle of the ocean. They could still violate logic and physics by venturing out to sea alone, but almost certain death would await them there. The ability to attack naval units at the coast is still problematic, but logically no worse than ships that can kill legions. This presumes that Siege towers can't paradrop onto an ocean square (I'm about 99% certain they can't).

4) A unit that doesn't require a siege camp in order to reach a distant city. Giving engineers the "can carry air units" flag is a harmless enough way to simulate maintenance and acts as insurance in case your assault fails and you can't conquer a city before their "hang time" expires. There's also a certain logic in requiring the presence of engineers at sieges.

5) OPTIONAL: To keep the player from relying too heavily on these units, perhaps they could be set as "unbuildable", and then have them created via events. These events could either be time based (coinciding with the Sieges of Syracuse and Alesia, for example) or generated via the death of a finite number of trigger units. This would be an added incentive to treat them with great care, and not to take inordinate risks. (also historical, by the way!)

I still have grave doubts about the AI's ability to use these properly, and feel confident that people like Xin Yu will find non-historical uses for them.

By the way, I and most others make a BIG distinction between using the cheat menu and utilizing features the designer left in his scenario. House Rules should ALWAYS be a last resort, and that's why I still have a big problem with "Siege Camps".
[This message has been edited by Kull (edited February 12, 2001).]

[Kull]

Shadowstrike: That's an interesting question. Is it possible for a land unit with "Can attack Air" to attack an air siege tower that's on an ocean square? I really don't know.

Equally intriguing is the reverse: Can Naval units with "Can attack Air" assault an air siege tower that's on a LAND square?

Since CyberChrist is running some feasability tests, perhaps he could give us the answer?
[This message has been edited by Kull (edited February 12, 2001).]

[CyberChrist]

Unit Type=Air (Bomber), Cost=200 shields
Fine

(or Events only)
Hmm, I say let the player decide the when and where, but events to support certain historical sieges might be a good idea.

Paradrop=40
Woa, way to long. This would mean you could capture undefended cities long behind the enemies borders (yes, any paradropping unit can capture empty cities - land, sea and air units alike )
I would say a paradrop range of 5 should be sufficient.

Move=1, Turns aloft=4
Move of 1 would be best as it would defeat the feared naval scout possibility you mentioned, but move 2 might be needed to make the AI use them properly.
Turns aloft should be around 3 to 5 turns (2 to 3 turns with move 2).
Final conclusion to this will require some testing, to see at which range the AI starts to make proper use of them.

Units that can carry Air=Engineers only, Airbase Construction=Forbidden
Fine, but maybe a few preplaced siege camps to suppport historical sieges would be appropriate as well.

Units that can attack Air=All except siege units
I still say that all cavalry should also be excluded from attacking Siege Towers.

quote: They could still violate logic and physics by venturing out to sea alone, but almost certain death would await them there.

I believe it is possible to give air units the must stay close to land disability to lessen players abusing the possibility of 'floating blockades'.

quote: This presumes that Siege towers can't paradrop onto an ocean square (I'm about 99% certain they can't).

Right, they can't - not even sea units can paradrop into the sea. Paradrops can only take place on land.

quote: Is it possible for a land unit with "Can attack Air" to attack an air siege tower that's on an ocean square?

No

quote: Can Naval units with "Can attack Air" assault an air siege tower that's on a LAND square?

Yes, unless they have submarine abilty. Come to think of it though then all ships should have submarine ability(more on this later)

quote: I still have grave doubts about the AI's ability to use these properly

Tests in progress.

quote: ...people like Xin Yu will find non-historical uses for them.

I couldn't care less - their loss entirely.


A final thought about protecting sea units from Siege Towers - give all ships the AEGIS ability, increase their attack/defence/health/firepower and make all ships with attack above 0 submarines. This would also remove the 'Trirere creams Legion' incidents which are rather ahistorical, of course most units would then require the see subs ability.

Lol - all these 'ideas' are looking more and more like an entirely new scenario in the making, rather than minor alteration suggestions for an existing one

[This message has been edited by CyberChrist (edited February 12, 2001).]