|
Post by lorddragon on Dec 18, 2006 17:44:02 GMT -5
Hi, been away from the game for awhile, and have been reintroduced to one of my pet peeves. Catapults.
The idea is good, anti stack weapon, etc etc. But it seems like the game boils down to who has the most of these 90% of the time. I mean an attack stack is usually 3/4 catapults!!
Does this strike anyone else as stupid? That a support weapon, catapults, tends to make up most of our armies on both offense and defense. There is no counter unit, units that get +50% to catapults might do better themselves, but it doesn't lessen their splash damage in the slightest.
I have requested the devs balance these guys many times, but they seem to ignore me, so I am just going to add one final plea. Give us a REAL catapult counter, a unit that counter splash, or something. Or reduce their effectiveness in large numbers. Right now the only way to stop them is to cata first, which is just another part of the problem. Another thought I had is to make catas do ONLY splash damage, they can die in combat but are incapable of actually killing a unit, or even harming it outside of the splash it does.
Just my little rant of the day, LordDragon
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Dec 18, 2006 17:56:17 GMT -5
This is about the 10th thread on this topic. And yes, catapults are way too powerful.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 18, 2006 18:37:56 GMT -5
there are units that get +50 % v. cats... keshiks are one of the few.
watch the powergraph.
Do not allow a neighbor to build unadultrated stacks.
Keep him on the defensive with little forces and prescision strikes against resoources(hide in the trees!)
the game is only what you make of it. Cats will dominate if allowed to do so.
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Dec 18, 2006 20:44:57 GMT -5
DrShot, with all due respect, saying "don't let someone build something" is not a solution, lol. As for units that get 50% vs cats, the problem is this does nothing to prevent catapults splash damage. Catapults do exactly the same splash damage when attacking regardless of the unit they actually fight(tested many, many times). And units with +50% to catapults aren't much use on the offensive, because they fight the defensive units protecting the cats, not the catapults themselves.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 18, 2006 21:19:38 GMT -5
kill the units covering the cats, which according to you arent many - suggest using swordsman or longbows/mace later on. Once you kill the cover units you can slowly pickoff/kill the rest of the cats. If there were no cats defence would be way too easy.
cats are not overpowered, but are as well too dependent a unit which you cant live without in a highly defensive city or strong enemy who uses cats.
How to fix this problem I blieve is a few things 1) Get rid of the culture Bomb, or make it so Culture Bomb can go to only 40 percent. Make 20 percent culture same cost, 40 percent culture the same cost as 60 percent, and 60 percent culture the same cost as 80 percent. By doing this there will not be a need for cats to go long distances to cat, and also make them not so important as most cities will be 20 percent unless bombed. This will lead too... 2)Make cats have the same offensive power, but do not let them use road bonus and as well they must have 1 point on def. I believe we should as well alow catapults to bomb roads, more fun id have to say. That way cats are strong on offense, but will get murdered if not protected when attacking a city. Catapults cant be used for defense as easily as well because they have a negative bonus when using roads, which will make it hard to counter a stack in open ground if your defending cats arent protected. This will tone down their effectiveness quite a bit I believe, though still need them on the battlefield.
Cats arent overpowered, but sometimes it can come down to reflex or fast moving before he kills cats you, not as often since expansion.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 18, 2006 22:34:05 GMT -5
DrShot, with all due respect, saying "don't let someone build something" is not a solution, lol. As for units that get 50% vs cats, the problem is this does nothing to prevent catapults splash damage. Catapults do exactly the same splash damage when attacking regardless of the unit they actually fight(tested many, many times). And units with +50% to catapults aren't much use on the offensive, because they fight the defensive units protecting the cats, not the catapults themselves. I do not recall saying : 'don't let someone build something' I am not going to offer up a lesson on how to keep the pressure up on a close civ if that is the main fear; try the strat threads. early in game a few units sent to a neighbor will slow him plenty, this allows the aggressor to call the shots. If you want to sit back and make workers, settlers and infrastructure, well likely you will get rolled over. options are plentiful and readily available. You mentioned you took 'some' time off, surely you do not expect to jump right in where you left off?
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Dec 18, 2006 22:43:21 GMT -5
DrShot, I was not referring to any particular build up that could have been prevented. My post was simply about how catapults, and other artillery units, are overpowered in the overall game balance. They should be support units, not the main part of your army.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 19, 2006 2:55:47 GMT -5
They should be support units, not the main part of your army. Absolutely, go tell Sid that.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Dec 19, 2006 3:45:08 GMT -5
I think a big part of the problem are the way too expensive HA, if HA (horsearcher) d cost 25 shields (what d fit their power better) they d be used much more and Catas d need more spear protection = stack more vurnable to axe, .... u d have then more this stone paper .. princip.
Also game d then be more bit civ3 like with surprise attacks which we all did like so much
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 19, 2006 4:21:47 GMT -5
yes I agree that cheaper HAs would be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Dec 19, 2006 4:42:40 GMT -5
I must say DrShot, i disagree with what you are writting, keeping pressure on the other guy is only possible when the distances are very small, or if you can stop him getting a resource. Generally speaking if the map is remotely fair and the other guy know what hes doing he will get hold of resources. Then attacking actually becomes very wasteful, because the game designed in an exponential manor, so if you are building units rather then settlers/workers/granaries and your attack isnnot susessful, then you have effectivly shot your self in the foot.
I have heard all to often this agrument of 'learn to use your units' - or something like that, but i have never seen any clever use of units in all the time i have been playing, maybe im missing something.
No matter what you send, it will very easily be countered, and the bottom line is youll take heavier losses.
Reinforcing stacks with elephants once they have been hit with catas makes the whole thing even more nonsense!
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Dec 19, 2006 5:32:27 GMT -5
Catapults as they currently function are awful. They changed Catapults to be immune to collateral damage to benefit attackers. Previously, the defender always had the advantage because he could always use his Catapults to collateral the attacker's units. Now that people are exploiting the system and making 75% or more of their stacks consisting solely of Catapults, the balance of power has completely swung in favor of the attacker. This really needs a fix, and fast.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Dec 19, 2006 5:48:04 GMT -5
add a promotion to longbows for "fire-arrows"
let the cats burn
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 19, 2006 7:22:14 GMT -5
Go play another game
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 19, 2006 7:26:25 GMT -5
One other thing I don't like and I'd be interested to hear what others think about this is you can attack with 99% odds and consistently lose a really big portion of health. Say you attack a knight with a cossack, you'll almost always win, but very often you'll lose so much health that another knight close by can kill the cossack, seems somehow unfair to me .
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Dec 19, 2006 8:13:43 GMT -5
That's part of the game chuchill1...
I agree with everyone else, catas are beyond realistic or balanced. Make them purely support units make them 0 str and no collateral dmg, so you only need a few to take out city defence bonus. Same thing goes for explorers, they need to make them 0 str and treat all squares as roads like it was in civ3, this ridiculous mass explorer army in the later eras is dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Dec 19, 2006 8:28:35 GMT -5
;D I love my elephant Cat stacks so leave cats alone
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 19, 2006 11:57:47 GMT -5
Theirs odds are 0 percent to win the battle, not 0 percent to do any damage
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Dec 19, 2006 16:15:30 GMT -5
Yes, the elephant cata stack is particularly lethal. While elephants don't get defensive bonuses, with the current state of fortified towns vs catapults it doesn't really matter. And even without defensive bonuses there are no units that can take out that group other than more elephants. It kind of defeats the purpose.
I don't think the developers care anymore quite frankly, which is a pity. I don't think it would be that hard to rectify the situation. Here are a few changes just off the top of my head.
Catapults - Give them a strength of 1 so they can't go toe to toe with other units. Give them a 2.5 multiplier for bombard damage when they attack, and do their damage over 12 units instead of 6. This means that they die very easily on the attack, but are still devastating to big groups. This restores them to valuable support and anti stack units, while making them very vulnerable and useless against raids and such, as they should be.
Elephants - Drop str to 7. Thats it, lol. With the easily available anti melee upgrade as the second upgrade they are still dangerous and useful, just not the end all be all unit they seem to be now. It also makes them a slighty weaker knight counter, which seems right.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Dec 19, 2006 18:01:54 GMT -5
What makes them even more stupid is the fact that they can retreat. Honestly weren't these suckers suppose to be slow? If you were pulling back one of these heavy siege weapons wouldn't it be so slow than any non-siege unit could catch just by running after them...
|
|