Makris1821
-
Posts
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Makris1821
-
-
I was reading some of the descriptions of the upcoming Civ 5, and I saw they introduced one victory condition which was triggered by capturing the opponents capital, to avoid the end game mopping up tedium. I was thinking whether a similar mechanism could be implemented in EoS. Some thoughts and options:
1. A simple capture the capital victory option;
2. Like 1, but the victim has x turns to recapture before surrender (AH's Third Reich used to have a one turn counter-attack rule IIRC);
3. Like 1, but the capital shifts to an alternate city first, and once that falls too its game over;
4. Three largest cities are designated as key, and once they are all captured it triggers surrender (think Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad capture triggering victory in WW2 Russian front games). (This may need to be finessed in the standard expansion game.)
-
Hello! Good to see another update and I am looking forward to seeing those rivers soon!
Heh, me too. I skim each update looking for the word "river" before I read it properly.
-
I have checked the manual, teched up- how do you construct forts?
AFAIK, forts can't be constructed but are part of the initial set up of scenarios.
-
Just a thought Brit, if you run out of a resource that impacts units, a pop up message would definitely keep users from reporting it as a problem. :-)
The interface already give you warnings IIRC. The ribbon at the top with the resources will show the resource in red when you are about to run out, and the side bar messages give you a warning a few turns before a resource runs out.
-
Also, I really like the changes to the trade screen, how relationships now clearly change with trade, and the feedback that is given.
One thing I noticed though is that the AI doesn't seem to value technology very highly. I was playing around with a saved game with the latest patch and a player that was selling lots of iron valued 10 iron from me as highly as nuclear bomber technology and other high end technologies they were no where near researching. Maybe there is a reason for this, but it's not obvious to me.
Also, I offered a lot of high end technology in return for a non-aggression pact and they refused. We had +73 relations, never been to war and didn't share a border (and they were much smaller than me). I eventually offered a one turn only pact, and they still refused. Am I missing something here?
-
- Added a "70% Population" Victory condition
Thanks for the quick update Brit, and listening to the feedback.
One thing though, I think the 70% population option doesn't go far enough. With a human and one AI, that means the human is nearly 2.5x head of the AI in population. With more than one AI the situation is even worse. Even at 60% the human player is already 1.5x ahead, and surely you'd agree that the AI will never recover from that far behind versus an experienced player? So why make the experienced player go through the motions? Personally (and other people are of course welcome to play at 90% or whatever as they please) after many years playing 4x games I really don't want to have to play the tedious mop-up end game. Please consider including a 60% victory condition in the next update (please tell me where to send the check;) ).
-
Moved posts to new thread
-
i dont see the reason for such underpowered air naval ability.
I think the problem is game balance. If you give tac air its historical strength against ships, then you have a very strong and versatile weapon. One solution to my mind is to make two different types of tactical air arms: one naval air, and one ground support. The naval air could be assumed to have a large percentage of torpedo bombers, and dive bomber pilots trained and experienced in naval attacks. This could be made to be much stronger than the current tac air against ships, but heavily nurffed against land targets.
I think the ground support planes could be buffed a bit against land units in this case (including reducing their casualties), and heavily nurffed against ships. In this way you get much more effective air units, but the costs double (because you have to make them for both land and sea), or you have to choose which medium to specialise in, which makes them less powerful overall as a weapon system.
Also, I think we have to remember that at least until quite recently air power was not very effective at night and useless in bad weather. Since these things aren't modelled in the game, weaker tacair than was historically the case could be seen as an abstraction for this.
I'll probably do a mod for this at some point once we get a few more versions into the game.
-
The OP sounds like a similar problem to the one I reported here last week:
-
If you can fly them in (AA)
I find a nuclear strike against a couple of unsuspecting cities a good way to start a sneak attack ... get's things off on the right foot.
I agree though, potential AA loses do make these things very expensive. -
I've played the game for quite a few hours now, and enjoying it, but I thought I'd put a few quick thoughts down about what I think could be improved.
1. Victory conditions. I think even the 80% of population threshold for victory is too high. The AI is never going to come back from being 4-1 down. The game is really over when the AI is 3:2 (or even less) down IMHO, which is a 60% threshold. Perhaps even 50% is even reasonable for situations when there are multiple opponents. It is that tedious end game mopping up that all 4X games suffer from than needs to be minimised, and this seems like an easy way to do it.
2. Trade. I see from recent posts per turn trades are not possible with the market, but for long periods of my most recent game I was short on food and had to go to the market every turn to buy it. It was tedious.
3. Upgrades. This can become a clickfest at certain times. For instance, upgrades seem to cancel sentry orders, and after a while I just gave up setting sentry orders as I had 50 or more infantry on garrison duty and they got upgraded 5 or 6 times. Similarly going to forty or more cities and putting in an automated factory and a nuclear power plants once you research them is a chore. Could they not be treated as upgrades somehow (to the factory, for instance) so that one click upgrades them all like units?
4. Politics. I don't know if this is WAD, but the AI does not seem to be working in its own best interests.
There was one situation where I'd reduced a player to three cities on Sicily, and they had plenty of units there. I could have destroyed them, as I had about 40 cities at the time and nukes, but I had bigger fish to fry and decided to make peace. I asked for reparations of various kinds and the deal meter stayed at -100. I eventually asked for just $1 and got the same response. I tried this over several turns. They were totally destroyed and hanging on for life, and I was offering them survival but they refused. Seems wrong to me, and in general the AI seemed closed to genuine opportunities, not just the "let's be friends until I'm ready to kill you" kind.
So I like the game, and particularly Brit's active support, so after he has finished bolting the fenders on the car, I look forward to seeing how this game matures, but I think I'll put it aside for a while until then.
-
I've sent some tac bombers on mission that are well within their radius but they are reported to be running out of fuel. This is happening when more than one unit is sent on a mission. In the most recent mission two returned, one was shot down and one ran out of fuel, and they were all in the same group and attacked the same target.
-
A quick update. After moving on to the next turn the range circles went back to normal, but it meant they were out of action for a turn. After several turns I managed a landing. The transports seem to be engaging with a naval unit near the island I was landing on, and the graphics went strange: it was like the icons were rapidly moving back and forward at a rapid rate over the range of a dozen or so pixels. I still have one transport reporting the very small range circle.
-
I'm trying to set an ongoing trade agreement with the market, but they don't seem to appear. Is it not possible to do this?
-
I'm trying to land some paras but not having a lot of success. I assumed they transport in the same way as sea transport, but they are not jumping. It was an opposed landing, so that may have been the problem. But I've cleared the opposition away now and was planning to make a new jump but the transports now report a range circle of only a few pixels (its in red, and any points set outside it get the skull icon). What's up?
-
This screen is reporting incorrectly too, and I think for the same reason as the Units screen I reported earlier: it thinks I am a different player, and I'm guessing it is player 1.
-
May be I'm missing something, but I expected the "Units" subsection of the National Summary Screen to tell me how many units I have. For my current game it is giving incorrect units counts for the unit types I do have, and also telling me I have units of types I don't have.
-
While I am enjoying this new game, it is basically a graphical update of the old "Empire and Empire Deluxe"game.
I haven't played Empire Deluxe in a long while, but doesn't EoS have a lot of additional game play features, e.g. tech trees? So it's a lot more than a graphical update, no?
movement interface takes some time to get used to.Which bit of it are you having trouble with? I thought it was fairly common sense except transporting, which is a good solution once you get the hang of it.
AI can be improved!I've heard this from others, and I expect it's true (as it almost always is for any game), but its not been my experience so far. I've only played the Med map (thanks to the modder - great map!) so far for any length of time, with 7 veteran AIs, and they are giving me hell. They seem overly fond of arty, but it seems to be working for them.
-
I think the problem with that is you might have some units on sentry that you'd still like to react to enemies, e.g. a tank and some artillery set up as a reaction force in a city.
I think the "no standing order" workaround should be fine, it is just with the newly built units that its a problem IMHO.
-
The bug is that they are chasing down enemy units rather than staying where they are, and gaining the defensive bonus of entrenchment/city terrain.
That was in fact what prompted my post, as I had stationary infantry in defensive positions, infantry moving to defence positions and infantry just built for defence all moving to engage the enemy.
I suppose the workaround is to give units in, or moving to, defensive positions the "no standing orders" command. That doesn't help with the newly build units though as I guess there is no way to change the aggressive default.
-
I'm not sure I understand field orders properly. Do they only apply to a unit that is moving, or do they apply to stationary units as well? For instance, if I have an infantry unit standing stationary in the open, will it move to engage an enemy that appears if its orders are set to "attack all enemy units"?
Also, what if this unit is moving, but not toward an enemy that suddenly appears: will it deviate from its movement path to intercept the enemy?
Finally, will "no standing orders" mean that the unit will just ignore all enemies that appear and continue on its set path? I'm guessing so, but I thought I'd just check.
Thanks
-
The good news is that this is fixed in the next update. The next update will be available soon. (Hopefully, within the next hour.)
I think a "woo hoo" is in order: woo hoo!
-
The problem is still very much there. What I mean is that the planes seems to be tracking the carrier as they did in the release version, but when launching the go to the point the carrier was when the order was given and then simply crash there, regardless of fuel status.
That's exactly how I've experienced it too.
-
Great, but the pilots are still unable to find & land on a moving carrier.
I've got this problem too. Any idea if Brit is working on it?
Thoughts on victory conditions
in Empires of Steel
Posted
I think that's what the "x turns to counter attack" option helps prevent. I certainly remember in Third Reich that Germany could fairly easily do an armoured breakthrough to Paris early on in the game, but with the one turn counter attack rule you had to make sure you built the platform for it: a long armoured salient into Paris would just get chopped off and annihilated on the counter-attack.