Longturn Forum

In the current LT43/44 ruleset. Siege units like catapult, cannon, artillery, etc. get a double firepower bonus when attacking cities. Full forts (not pre-ports) could be considered mini-cities. Certainly from a defensive standpoint on certain terrain such as hills and mountains.

For LT46, what are thoughts about giving this same bonus to sieging units against forts? Forts are currently very powerful structures and its takes A LOT of units to dislodge an opponent from one. This is good to a point, but I think they are a bit too powerful and having a counter attack option seems right and more fair.

Thoughts?

I'm afraid the CityBuster effect is hardcoded, and there's currently no way to arbitrarily give a unit increased firepower. So, whether or not this would work balance-wise aside, it wouldn't be possible mechanics-wise.

Another question concerning attack. If we were to introduce attack fighters, could they have a special bonus against say tanks or fortified units?

Achtung Stukas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MoUs8ZlbK0

Yeah, good to divide into;
Fighter - Only air attack including missiles, bombers and fighter bombers, does not protect ground units, unreachable by ground units.
Fighter bomber - Limited/poor air attack, is reachable by ground units (So you cant use it to just block tiles while also attacking, but maybe with defence bonus), does normal attacks not bombard, ignores walls and forts.
Bomber - Heavy bombard attack only. unreachable by ground units.

This would avoid the situation where your enemy is attacking you with masses of fighters and you cant do anything about it until you also get fighters...

For forts full of units, thats why there needs to be bombard attack unit, to wear down multiple units before they can be taken out individually by conventional attacks.

Lord_P wrote:For forts full of units, thats why there needs to be bombard attack unit, to wear down multiple units before they can be taken out individually by conventional attacks.

Agree. What if we set bombarder on catapults and other sieging units like we did for archers in LT44? Too bad CityBuster is in the code and not a ruleset flag.

What do you mean? CityBuster is a ruleset flag.

Caedo wrote:I'm afraid the CityBuster effect is hardcoded, and there's currently no way to arbitrarily give a unit increased firepower. So, whether or not this would work balance-wise aside, it wouldn't be possible mechanics-wise.

This is what I meant

Maybe forts shouldn't give a defensive bonus? The ability to resist stack-kill is their primary utility.

Then again without a defense bonus, a fort on flatlands would be nearly useless. Would it be possible to make fort's defensive bonus be additive with terrain (like I think rivers are) instead of multiplicative?

Rivers' defense bonus is not additive with terrain (and has never been, I believe). In fact, nothing is additive with the terrain's base defense bonus. Up to 2.5, rivers are additive with other roads and bases (such as a fortress), but this is fixed in 2.6 with the introduction of separate "Natural" and "Fortification" defense layers for extras. While multiple extras on the same defense layer still add, the different defense layers (as well as the terrain defense bonus, effect defense bonus, veteran power factor, defense multiplier and defense divider) still multiply.

So it would be possible to make the fort and river add, but not the fort and terrain.