Rebalancing Civ4: RtR Mod

[flugauto]

I'm pretty sure trebs do more collateral damage when attacking cities than cats.

They both have 50% collateral damage limit.

Yes. Trebs do more damage though, meaning it takes less trebs to reach the limit than it would take cats

But trebuchets cost more than 50% more. And are useless if attacking outside. And promotions improve catapults more that trebuchets.

[SevenSpirits]

I'm pretty sure trebs do more collateral damage when attacking cities than cats.

They both have 50% collateral damage limit.

The limit is not how much damage they do. The limit is a limit on how low HP they can be brought down to. The amount of damage done by a cat or treb is based on the ratio of strenths, in the same way that damage dealt per combat round is.

In addition, if the attacking cat/treb's strength ratio is less than even, the collateral damage limit get worse proportionally. (E.g. if strength ratios are such that you'd only do 17 damage a round instead of the base 20, then the collateral limit is 50% * 17/20 = 42.5%. So in practice, against good units, trebs do even have a better collateral limit than cats.

But the more important number is how much damage they do anyway. Trebs attacking cities do more collateral damage, do more damage to the unit they attack, and have a much greater chance of survival. And they are better at bombarding.

I don't know why we're talking about this though. Is your premise that trebs aren't good enough, or...?

[flugauto]

Trebuchets are not good enough.

[spacetyrantxenu]

I think it's another version of the swordsmen problem. It's a unit that is of situational utility and as a result no one really ever builds them because of it, since catapults can do the same thing (namely, city attack scenarios) that trebuchets are good at while being useful units in general as well, something which can't be said for trebuchets. So given the choice between a decent knife or a really useful Swiss army knife, everyone uses the generalist tool (catapults) instead of the specific use tool (trebuchets).

[Krill]

Hey Krill (or anybody?), I'm interested in what you think about my previous AGG vs. ORG comparison?

Link please?

Here:

I think I posted this already earlier (in our PB13 thread), but here's a repeat: I don't think that AGG needs nerfing. I think that comparison to ORG is the easiest way to highlight my point:
- As a pure economic trait it's clearly weaker than ORG (-50 % civic upkeep vs -25 maintenance, remember that State Property pretty much obsoletes this part of the trait too)
- It depends on map/settings whether ORG or AGG building bonuses are more valuable. Considering a "typical" RB game I guess you can make a case for both.
- I don't think that promotion bonuses swings it enough so that AGG becomes better than ORG.

That said, I think AGG is stronger than some other RB mod traits and it has been fun to play it.

I think that's one way to describe it. Another would be that on T0 AGG will have a greater impact than ORG, and at some point in the game ORG gives greater economic benefits in terms of commerce saved that you can instead spend on research, upgrading units or rush buying. On what turn that happens is dependent on the map, game settings, other players actions and, of course, your decisions (or how you played out the game for either trait). Later on though, the utility of the free promotion for AGG means that AGG still has specific advantages over ORG in unit quality and specific combat odds. The main bone of contention would be dependent on exactly when ORG became economically better than AGG, but because of the variance in that it's not a straight forward decision on which trait is better.

The more I watch PB13 the more I think AGG is fine at -25% city maintainance, but even if it were nerfed I wouldn't drop it below -20%.

I'm more interested in some numbers from FIN trait from PB13 TBH.

[Krill]

I think it's another version of the swordsmen problem. It's a unit that is of situational utility and as a result no one really ever builds them because of it, since catapults can do the same thing (namely, city attack scenarios) that trebuchets are good at while being useful units in general as well, something which can't be said for trebuchets. So given the choice between a decent knife or a really useful Swiss army knife, everyone uses the generalist tool (catapults) instead of the specific use tool (trebuchets).

Pretty much. The only real way to buff Trebs is cost, or remake the unit as a catapult upgrade (like S6+35% against cities), and frankly I think it's better to leave them as niche units so when Bob get's his OCC game we can see them used (/jk).

[WilliamLP]

I don't know why we're talking about this though. Is your premise that trebs aren't good enough, or...?

Cats do more collateral when attacking cities. The mechanic is explained here. "The only potential attacker strength bonus is Barrage." Nothing else modifies the attacker's strength (including HP) for the purposes of calculating collateral.

[Krill]

To be fair, the treb lived so you aren't down 50 hammers.

[plako]

I build trebs. I guess I'm doing something wrong then. Not every game, but at least when it seems evident their main usage will be attacking cities, then why not. Seven has already said most points why to do it, but I just add that they are reasonably cheap to upgrade to Cannons.

[WilliamLP]

To be fair, the treb lived so you aren't down 50 hammers.

Sure, catapults aren't better for all situations, just for the main use case of siege units which is sacrificing to cause collateral and turn losing odds for other units. To be worse at this is a lot to sacrifice for a unit that needs Engineering and costs 60% more.