"Simulation" ruleset (2.5) - v1.0 released

[Corbeau]

Corbeu, are you intending on transferring your ruleset to 2.6? I am building my personal on top of yours, because I like how you handled combat and upkeep. But I'm a huge fan of Culture gameplay, so I would love to see a version for the next gen.

Eventually, one day, yes, but don't ask me when because a few hours of work on this one depended exclusively on free time and inspiration and no way to know when it will it again But it would be safe to say "around the time Longturn transers to 2.6" because that was my primary motivation for it.

If you yourself wish to work on it, feel free to. And thanks for the compliment, I'd be interested to know what changes you are implementing. It's always good to steal share ideas, especially if you liked the initial work, I'm curious where it would lead someone else

[Corbeau]

Oh, and just to mention that I didn't make any kind of test yet. If you do and find anything that doesn't run well or is poorly balanced, please let me know-

[drakeraider]

Oh, don't worry. I loaded it up with so many features that I'm terrified of the Test. And I slowed the game way down, so I'll have to use Editmode to test it properly. I cannot wait for Culture. But I seriously doubt this version will work for Longturn. It goes from -8000 to 16000. Starting with 20 instead of 50 year intervals.

[Corbeau]

Adjusted bombard_rate(s).

[Wahazar]

Idea of bombardment flat is awesome - in contrast to utterly straightforward standard civ tactics (use bunch of catapults/howitzers etc+some defending units and attack until empty), now at least 3 type of units are required - artillery to weaken defenders, infantry to protect artillery (and fresh infantry in reserve in case of defender artillery counterattack) and fast attacking units far from defender artillery range (at least knights or cavalry are usable).

But proposed parameters (very high bombard rates) make it overpowered, I tested it against AI and have following proposals, assuming that attack power is untouched as original.
FP: firepower
BR: bombard rate
archers: FP 1, BR 2
catapult: FP 1, BR 1
cannon: FP 2, BR 1
artillery: FP 2, BR 2
howitzer: FP 2, BR 3

Additionally, all these units have IgWall flag - it is justified due to their plunging indirect fire from reality point of view, and due to playability purposes, to assume that their fire would have any noticeable effect against fortified units behind walls.
I'm also using CityBuster flag, but not sure if it works correctly together with Bombardment flag.

Nevertheless, I'm using similar number of cannons in case of standard rules or bombardment rules, with above parameters, which is fair.
Higher number of bombard rate is overpowered (attacked units are almost destroyed and cannon is intact).

[Corbeau]

So, can you share the results you got? I did some numbers in my head and that's how I got the values I put into the ruleset.

Also, you need to keep in mind that in this ruleset units are much more expensive to maintain so you probably won't be able to have a multitude of artillery-class units banging the same city.

However, I did my numbers before I established a nice tool for calculating bombard damage. Looking at it now, I'm thinking that the best results (low damage for phalanx in a city behind walls on a hill vs. higher damage for an unfortified phalanx in the field) would be made with something like
Catapult: A=3, BR=5

This way the damage dealt is 1 HP vs. 3 HP in those two cases.

But yeah, maybe do some minor rethinking.

Also, I'm very much against IgWall and CityBuster flags for long-range units. A wall makes a hell of a defence from projectile weapons. When a great besieging army goes to attack a city, a moderate artillery force isn't the one to bring victory. it's the infantry work, combat house to house, driving the defenders out one by one. Close range fighting. This is why I gave special infantry units (paratroopers and marines) this CityBuster flag: they have a good chance of winning, but can also be killed in the process.

[Corbeau]

I'm doing a recalculation of bombard units using the tool I created. What follows are the new values, along with projected attack damage. Note: the lower Bombard Rate, the greater RNG effect.

Damage projection:
(corrections made 2018/07/28)

Archers: Attack: 1, Bombard Rate: 5
vs. Green Phalanx in a city on hill with walls (Defence: 11.25): 0.4
vs. Green Phalanx on grassland (Defence: 2): 1.7


Catapult: Attack: 1, Bombard Rate: 9
vs. Green Phalanx in a city on hill with walls (Defence: 11.25): 0.7
vs. Green Phalanx on grassland (Defence: 2): 3

Cannon: A: 1, BR: 12
vs. Green Musketeers (10 HP) in a city on hill with walls (D: 16.875): 0.7
vs. Green Musketeers on grassland (D: 4): 5


Artillery: A: 3, BR: 12
vs. Green Riflemen (20 HP) in a city on hill with walls (D: 22.5): 1.4
vs. Green Riflemen on grassland (D: 4): 5

Howitzer: A: 5, BR: 12
vs. Green Riflemen (20 HP) in a city on hill with walls (D: 22.5): 2.2
vs. Green Riflemen on grassland (D: 4): 6.6

[Wahazar]

Also, you need to keep in mind that in this ruleset units are much more expensive to maintain so you probably won't be able to have a multitude of artillery-class units banging the same city.

Honestly, I tested bombardment flag itself, applied for normal (LT) ruleset, without changed upkeep.
I'm not sure, if powerful attack unit with high upkeep equal to more weak but cheaper units, especially if we need to consider costs of upkeep both defender and attacker (defender also need attack units).

[Corbeau]

Well, to conquer a moderately well fortified city, you'll need multiple long-range units, one or two attackers and one or two defensive units. That seems more expensive than, say, 3-4 defenders and 1 attacker who will run around multiple cities and cover gaps in defence.

Theoretically and hypothetically. Because, as we know, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy

[Wahazar]

Well, to conquer a moderately well fortified city, you'll need multiple long-range units, one or two attackers and one or two defensive units. That seems more expensive than, say, 3-4 defenders and 1 attacker...

But attacking units can be supported by multiple city, while besieged city, if its support is cut off or obscured, have no chance to produce more units, if it already pay high upkeep. Well, it is indeed realistic, but need to be tested if it doesn't toss all game flow and balance.