6 new categories and 72 new items added to the shop!Fake forum EC for posting doubled everywhere to help pay for them!
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
QuoteMy experience with the combat system is the AI declaring war on me and then sitting on my periphery with artillery/armored drones such that dislodging them is cost-ineffective due to the defender having a large combat advantage. Granted I play a very passive builder style. But I still do not see what to do about that.Why, use the offensive outposts (TM)! Fight fire with fire; if they are skulking around at the edges of your territory, expand your territory just before you attack them. They lose their +50% buff, and you get one. Sensor arrays and their puny 25% on defence, eat your heart out!
My experience with the combat system is the AI declaring war on me and then sitting on my periphery with artillery/armored drones such that dislodging them is cost-ineffective due to the defender having a large combat advantage. Granted I play a very passive builder style. But I still do not see what to do about that.
Would you, as assailant, prefer defender to be able to "recover" from any of your attempts to destroy their economy so the war never ends?
The quote was about WTP.You linked that video before. I do not understand what it's supposed to say. I am not talking about randomness in general. I am talking about your mod in particular. I already explained once how the combat formula you invented makes extreme combat outcomes more likely than they should be. That in itselves would still be OK if you did not have so few units.
QuoteWould you, as assailant, prefer defender to be able to "recover" from any of your attempts to destroy their economy so the war never ends?I don't think it's possible in the current engine.
The question was somewhat provocatively phrased, so I tried to expand on it by listing my grievances.I don't want an opponent to be able to shrug off any attempts to harm their economy. But I find the current meta - the one where an empire folds like a house of cards the moment a couple bases fall - unsatisfactory.In a dream game the most intense phase of war should come after an initial invasion.
I have never played Civ1 but I do play Civ4 regularly and have absolutely no issue with the the randomness.And extreme volatility is bad whatever the video says. If I lose a 4 vs 3 combat strength fight that's OK. Losing two 4 power units against that 3 power defender should be exceedingly rare and losing three 4 power units against that 3 power defender should be about as likely as winning the lottery. The advantage of this above avoiding making people feel miserable is that you can properly plan. This is suppose to be a strategy game after all. Civ4 ensures this by scaling combat power with unit health. So if the 3 power defender wins but is heavily damaged it will be cleaned up by the next unit with near certainty.
Even more I don't understand why such grievances apply to this mod which on purpose designed so this said house of cards falling much less likely to occur comparing to vanilla where it happens all the time.
I try to keep an open mind about what the new changes mean for the game.
Losing a developed base is a massive setback for the owner, and taking it doesn't inconvenience the victor any. So in that sense I get what you are trying to do.
QuoteEven more I don't understand why such grievances apply to this mod which on purpose designed so this said house of cards falling much less likely to occur comparing to vanilla where it happens all the time.They don't. I was talking about SMAC in general
The way I see it, you make an attacker undergo massive economic setback to mount an invasion, so even if they succeed in taking a base the game is still somewhat even. This is what I tried to tell Hagin0.
...there is no need to be defensive all the time, surely?
Rather than everyone getting a big defensive boost, maybe a boost to both attack and defense but only for battles in your territory.