DESIGN/DEBUG: The "Design decision" thread

MrBaggins · February 19, 2004, 15:18

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 · February 19, 2004, 16:52

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 · February 19, 2004, 16:55

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 · February 19, 2004, 22:02

Reminds me of a post i made in the playtest thread
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...7&pagenumber=3
But i guess its good to seperate it from that

Maquiladora · February 19, 2004, 22:28

Why arent there any goody huts on mountains?

Something to do with mounted units?

Gilgamensch · February 20, 2004, 05:28

Quote:

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 · February 20, 2004, 09:32

Quote:

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*.

Quote:

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 · February 20, 2004, 09:34

Quote:

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 · February 20, 2004, 09:46

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 · February 20, 2004, 10:02

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 · February 20, 2004, 10:18

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 · February 20, 2004, 12:06

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 · February 20, 2004, 12:37

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 · February 21, 2004, 03:40

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 · February 21, 2004, 04:08

double post

Martin Gühmann · February 21, 2004, 11:14

Quote:

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

Do you think it should be removed, because the AI doesn't use it or because you don't see any sense in it to have it at all?

-Martin

MrBaggins · February 21, 2004, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

True, but thats more due to the code not having it as a consideration, rather than it being impossible to code: its based on a relatively limited scope. We should reexamine the issue while we work on the AI.

Quote:

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.

I think that we should have the disband size be a constant, which SP'ers and MP'ers could change to their preference.

Quote:

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

Again... its not considered by the AI, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be. If anything, its easier for the AI to come to terms with that the disbanding option.

Maquiladora · February 21, 2004, 15:10

Quote:

Do you think it should be removed, because the AI doesn't use it or because you don't see any sense in it to have it at all?

I see that it works and it makes sense to retreat, but its not good for gameplay, even if the AI can use it well. I think its a very cheesy tactic to just attack with outdated units and know whats inside the city.

Quote:

I think that we should have the disband size be a constant, which SP'ers and MP'ers could change to their preference.

An option in the MP setup screen would be fine by me.

MrBaggins · February 21, 2004, 16:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Maquiladora
I see that it works and it makes sense to retreat, but its not good for gameplay, even if the AI can use it well. I think its a very cheesy tactic to just attack with outdated units and know whats inside the city.

Thats true... but if we remove that tactic, then SP'ers will just attack and reload.

So... make the game ironman? Or introduce an easier "automatic" abstract method to peek into enemy cities? That'd be my preference.

I don't think you can stop all cheese in SP. I think that providing a method for both humans and AI's to check each other out (with counterespionage to defend,) would be generally welcomed, and assist in this.

Removing retreat certainly won't help a lot... it just means that a single ancient unit becomes a sacrificial attack.

EPW · February 21, 2004, 19:20

I could never build the televangelist unit in any of the games I played. I don't know if I was doing something wrong or if it was accidentally or intended to be left out of the game.

Maquiladora · February 21, 2004, 22:44

Quote:

I could never build the televangelist unit in any of the games I played. I don't know if I was doing something wrong or if it was accidentally or intended to be left out of the game.

Were you in Theocracy gov? I think its kind of backwards to be in Theocracy the time at which you research Televangelists (mass media).

Quote:

Removing retreat certainly won't help a lot... it just means that a single ancient unit becomes a sacrificial attack.

Thats true you can still peak into a city with little attacks. But if your big attack is going wrong you shouldnt get the chance to regroup. They didnt disable it in MP for no reason. Why not just make it an option? Its gonna take an hour to start a game with all these options to look at...

Id also like to bring up another one, killing pop chances.

BOMBARD_KILL_POP_CHANCE 0.1
ASSAULT_KILL_POP_CHANCE 0.4
CAPTURE_KILL_POP_CHANCE 1.0

Assault is way too high. I think this another one of those realistic features but it wasnt tested for cheese. I played a SAP game and i landed 12 Arch+Hop on the coast of an AI i could see they had ALOT of Pikemen waiting so i attacked their Capital one-by-one instead. It was a pop 12 city, i knocked it down to pop 7. Okay the attack didnt go well compared to the investment in those 12 troops and coracles! but i still got something out of it when i shouldnt have.

EPW · February 21, 2004, 23:27

I didn't know you had to be in theocracy

Does it say that in the Great library or manual? Its probably not a very useful unit anyways.

Gilgamensch · February 23, 2004, 04:22

It is saying in the GL as well in the manual

But I must admit, as Theocracy is not a good government (unlike in CTP1, where it was to strong), I never used it again (same for their special units)

[quote]
BOMBARD_KILL_POP_CHANCE 0.1
ASSAULT_KILL_POP_CHANCE 0.4
CAPTURE_KILL_POP_CHANCE 1.0

Assault is way too high. I think this another one of those realistic features but it wasnt tested for cheese. I played a SAP game and i landed 12 Arch+Hop on the coast of an AI i could see they had ALOT of Pikemen waiting so i attacked their Capital one-by-one instead. It was a pop 12 city, i knocked it down to pop 7. Okay the attack didnt go well compared to the investment in those 12 troops and coracles! but i still got something out of it when i shouldnt have.
[quote]

Actually I would like to see the bombard raised to a higher level. I mean think of, when you bombard a city you are also trying to control all roads leading to it, therefore blocking/controlling the food floating into the city.

Maquiladora · February 23, 2004, 10:54

Not necessarily. Even in CtP2 you can last many turns before total starvation.

12 units sitting next to a city, 6 of them bombard (not together), perhaps killing as much as 3 pop a turn at a 0.5 chance? Thats unbalanced.

Gilgamensch · February 23, 2004, 11:29

You never seen the good old catapult in use, I guess. When they were throwing fire/deseases over the walls, the population was decreased fairly quickly. Quicker than you could slaughter them.

Don't forget that one turn is covering a few years.............

Maquiladora · February 23, 2004, 11:46

Thats fine if we ignore all possible cheese tactics and go only for realism....

Quote:

Don't forget that one turn is covering a few years.............

Then why does my Battleship not go all around the world in one turn?

Gilgamensch · February 23, 2004, 11:51

Not what I was saying, but I just would like to see it more balanced.

For the battleship:

If we can't build proper ships, what do you expect? We can't even manage, to rewrite the code in a few hours (even as we have the internet-wonder ) !!

epeterson · February 23, 2004, 12:48

I have real issues with the CIs that bolster a cities defense. For example:

If you have battlements, why can't you counter-bombard naval units?

Same with Flak Towers and aircraft.

Once again for Ballista Towers and land units.

All of these things I mentioned above should be active-defense!

Are city walls effective against both naval and air units? I hope not!

Please explain how these improvements relate to a defending unit's movement, as there was some mention of it earlier. If a city is attacked with tanks than a flak tower would not be used. But if tanks AND planes attack then it would be. Right? But how??

tyrantpimp · February 23, 2004, 15:04

well to be fair a flak tower can be used to attack ground units but it probably wouldnt damage heavily armored vehicles too much and it probably wouldnt last long on the battlefield since it could be out maneuvered and blown up then again real life just complicates things

MrBaggins · February 23, 2004, 15:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Not necessarily. Even in CtP2 you can last many turns before total starvation.

12 units sitting next to a city, 6 of them bombard (not together), perhaps killing as much as 3 pop a turn at a 0.5 chance? Thats unbalanced.

I agree. It needs to stay relatively low.