HostedRedmine.com has moved to the Planio platform. All logins and passwords remained the same. All users will be able to login and use Redmine just as before. Read more...
civ2 ruleset: give Fighters defense bonus against bombers
For better CivII compatibility, [Stealth] Fighters should have
"DefenseMultiplier", 3 against [Stealth] Bombers.
#4 Updated by Alexandro Ignatiev about 2 years ago
Probably, a bit later.
Actually, with SAM, it gives way too much (8x instead of 4x), maybe just tripled value (6x with SAM) will be enough? I would consider even just doubled, as it should not be applied to airbases at all, but I doubt it isn't too small for cities with no SAM.
#8 Updated by Alexandro Ignatiev about 1 year ago
No. It's wrong that early fighter has the same defense against stealth bomber as novel one. Used defense divider to reduce the defense a bit.
Defender SAM Ratio if attacker is Bomber Stealth bomber Fighter - 12:12 7.5:16 + 24:12 15:16 wanted 12:12 12:16 Stealth Fighter - 12:12 8:16 + 24:12 16:16 wanted 16:12 16:16
It's the best approximation I could get.
#9 Updated by Marko Lindqvist about 1 year ago
- As you add "quiet" column, it should be explicitly set to all rows, not only to the new row
- Please add a comment why DefenseMultiplier is higher against Stealth Bomber than regular one. Otherwise in a few years time someone is about to see that, not to notice that there's DefenseDivider in Stealth Bomber side, and "fix" it.
#12 Updated by Marko Lindqvist about 1 year ago
- File 0028-civ2-add-an-approximation-for-fighters-scramble-mech.patch 0028-civ2-add-an-approximation-for-fighters-scramble-mech.patch added
- File 0019-civ2-add-an-approximation-for-fighters-scramble-mech.patch 0019-civ2-add-an-approximation-for-fighters-scramble-mech.patch added
- Ported to other branches
#17 Updated by Marko Lindqvist about 1 year ago
- Sprint/Milestone changed from 2.6.4 to 3.0.0-beta1
Alexandro Ignatiev wrote:
Rear thinking: as 2.6 AI does not build fighters and it is not going to be fixed, this change makes AI weaker...
This is true for 3.0 also (and maybe some branches to the future), but you're right. This is probably too controversial change to be included in a mature branch that has already produced several releases. Let's retarget to 3.0.