Players Guide to the C2C Combat Mod - Size Matters game option.

[Thunderbrd]

For the healing, we have several buildings with an "Heals X units to full health per turn" ability. This will kinda screw up penalties from large groups when they are the only damaged unit in your city.

hmm... personally, I think these buildings just take on more meaning now - they never had much before since cities made healing so easy in general that most units would be healed in one or two rounds anyhow.

So it cant be a modifier assigned to the subClass Group(party)?

Well... what would you be modifying? Regarding being seen or unseen, and capable or incapable of passage through enemy borders, units don't have a % chance yet. I stress YET because an eventual project will enable units to have CHANCES to remain hidden and chances to spot potentially hiding enemy units based on unit skills. We're still a ways off from this so for now it's a very static boolean - either they are seen or not, either they are capable of entering enemy territory without starting a war or not - it would take significant work to adjust either one to a chance based scale. Perhaps as much work as this entire Size Matters option has been so far. Not a minor project.

Seems to me that it handles it as three merges at the same time. It first ask who to merge with unit 1 then who to merge with unit 2 then who to merge with unit 3; never really getting to the second unit to merge in any of the merges.
Hope you get what I mean.

That's probably pretty close to what's actually happening. Then it gets confused by the next selections, particularly since there's only supposed to be one selected unit for each slot of the three units - but it would take the units as all being validly selected for all three missions. It's a mess, yes... and I think I've figured out how I can fix it.

Yeah, shows what I know, was just a naive attempt at giving you a fresh perspective, it was sadly too fresh.

Well... to be honest, 3/4 of the way through the project I realized a different approach could've enabled this sort of promotion behavior but I'd have had to start entirely over to accomplish it. Still... this mechanism does work just as well - just takes a thinking adjustment from the usual way promos operate to read them. And this isn't a bad thing because there's some preparation for conditioning the audience to not be confused by some equipment processing to come.

A newly built scout (party size) can still move 6 rounds before they have to stop for one round to be fully healed. Animals now generally needs a strength buff, now that they are so weak due to size penalty. A newly built wanderer (solo size) actually have a pretty high survival rate and even more so on the terrain of discussion. Wanderers are weak (overall stronger with size matters) but since there are very few animals on the poles and deserts in the early games (low spawn rates there) and mostly harmless ones at that, they can easily fully explore a large landmass (20 cities without overlap) pole without dying.

It's been striking me that it's possible I'm using too heavy a hand with the healing modifiers and perhaps I should reduce the adjustment increments in general so that it's a bit less drastic in effect. The full math on how healing operates is something I may not fully understand yet but I'm thinking - Vanilla CivIV only allowed at most a 10% healing modifier in the field - so perhaps this modifier is a lot more powerful than I had suspected it would be. I may reduce the modifier to 5% or 10% increments per step rather than 20%. Leaning towards 5%. In my playtesting I've seen the effect is indeed a bit more severe than I'd thought it would be.

I've not found animals (that weren't supposed to be vastly weakened like pigeons for example) to be toooo reduced in strength by this option. Wanderers are in fact weaker under Size Matters by 20% less than their non-option counterparts. But I wouldn't mind seeing the upper strength range of animals increased a little and the gradient thus extended. Many of the great cats and wild canines do feel a bit weak - as do wolves. But then I've been thinking that for a while now in the core mod too.

If it's not possible to completely remove healing capability on terrain with damage penalty then the highest heal rate buff from size should perhaps be 20%.

It is possible and I was considering this as one possible way to address your earlier statement but I do think that may make the terrain a little toooo hostile. When I've played with the option I like to sometimes hope I can traverse the terrain before my unit bites it.

Or, as you said, terrain damage should depend upon unit group size.

Doesn't feel like the right way to go about it though does it? Why would the size of the group alter the impact of the terrain? I'm not seeing the rational outside of game balancing so I'm thinking there should be a better way. Thus I'm leaning towards reducing the healing impact of size in general.

I have always thought the same although more extreme 20/30/40%.

I agree actually. Then eventually I'll include in the late stage of the combat mod effort some ways for units to more gradually resist - particularly with equipments that prepare them to face these environments.

You are doing a great job btw and it should not come as a surprise to anyone that a modmod as complicated as this requires a lot of balancing.

Thanks! I'm not taking offense... we're having a great banter here about ways to improve things. It's very helpful!

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Thunderbrd and Toffer90

You guys are doing great in your discussion. I am extremely impressed by both TB's work and Toffer's ability to find bugs and question things. Ever since TB told me about the combat mod and how complex it would be I have been so excited about it. And as everything has been made it has been even more amazing than I imagined. Like everything in C2C there can always be more balancing but overall I think the whole concept is just amazing! I am sure the bugs will work themselves out and we will look back at C2C before this sub-mod and wonder how we ever played C2C without it.

On a side note TB you may want to look at this. Its a Brickwars manual and it talks about formations and squads. Perhaps you can be inspired from this quirky Lego game.

http://www.brikwars.com/rules/2005/8.htm#1

 

[Toffer90]

Well... what would you be modifying? Regarding being seen or unseen, and capable or incapable of passage through enemy borders, units don't have a % chance yet. I stress YET because an eventual project will enable units to have CHANCES to remain hidden and chances to spot potentially hiding enemy units based on unit skills. We're still a ways off from this so for now it's a very static boolean - either they are seen or not, either they are capable of entering enemy territory without starting a war or not - it would take significant work to adjust either one to a chance based scale. Perhaps as much work as this entire Size Matters option has been so far. Not a minor project.

I'm really just exploring the possibilities "size matters" opens. As I said to begin with, I had this idea that it would make sense that some units got the ability to enter a foreign border when their group size was small enough (solo/party [unit Dependant perhaps. Elephants/tanks/siege should not be able to sneak through borders!]). But for this to be balanced it would need some countermeasures like:
-Making the units hidden to the entered nation when entering their border and unable to pillage and attack.
-Then thrown out of the border (sent home to capital city?) the moment they are seen by spies/trained dogs, which would be greatly enhanced by the project you mentioned.
-Great wall could stop this from being possible...
(I don't really know whats possible or not, I'll leave that to you )

I liked your smuggler unit idea but I can see how the AI for it would be time-consuming to implement.

I may reduce the modifier to 5% or 10% increments per step rather than 20%. Leaning towards 5%.

This makes sense, just want to say that there is no limit to how ineffective recuperation of large number of injured soldiers can be but there is probably a limit to how effective it can become from smaller numbers. 1 guy tending his own heavy injuries should not be more effective than 15 persons tending many lighter injuries, but when the amounts of injured grows large organization problems would start to kick in making it less effective.

I've not found animals (that weren't supposed to be vastly weakened like pigeons for example) to be toooo reduced in strength by this option. Wanderers are in fact weaker under Size Matters by 20% less than their non-option counterparts. But I wouldn't mind seeing the upper strength range of animals increased a little and the gradient thus extended. Many of the great cats and wild canines do feel a bit weak - as do wolves. But then I've been thinking that for a while now in the core mod too.

You are right, there isn't a large difference in balance, but due to smaller animals having 1 hp I experienced that wanderers have a much higher survival rate because they don't get damaged every turn by pigeons and other critters (this I like); leaving them to explore more effectively and be more prepared to face the larger animals. To balance it out I think it would be enough to slightly boost the strength of wolfs and cats just as you proposed, but for units that are built in company size (Clubmen), nature turned quite harmless now compared to before. Therefore I would like to see a boost to the strength of some of the largest animals too (Moa, Haast, bears).

It is possible and I was considering this as one possible way to address your earlier statement but I do think that may make the terrain a little toooo hostile. When I've played with the option I like to sometimes hope I can traverse the terrain before my unit bites it.

This would still be possible as there are safe havens in these terrains, rivers and cactus in deserts and ancient forests in the arctic, which removes the terrain damage.

Doesn't feel like the right way to go about it though does it? Why would the size of the group alter the impact of the terrain? I'm not seeing the rational outside of game balancing so I'm thinking there should be a better way. Thus I'm leaning towards reducing the healing impact of size in general.

Agreed, seems like an un-elegant solution.

Thanks! I'm not taking offense... we're having a great banter here about ways to improve things. It's very helpful!

Glad you see it that way, this might be the most civilized forum on the web. Gotta be civilized to like a game like civilization I guess .

 

[Deceti]

With regards to the merging of grouped units, my experience has been if all 3 are selected and I click merge I end up with 1 (2 unit) merged unit and 1 not-merged unit. It appears to get confused as to who is merging with who.

If however I have just 1 of the three units selected and then click merge, I can pick one other to merge with then a third.
I find it works best if I merge from the bottom up (so to speak) in the choice list ie click merge and select the bottom of the 2 choices then the only choice and all good.
See pic

 

[Thunderbrd]

@Thunderbrd and Toffer90

You guys are doing great in your discussion. I am extremely impressed by both TB's work and Toffer's ability to find bugs and question things. Ever since TB told me about the combat mod and how complex it would be I have been so excited about it. And as everything has been made it has been even more amazing than I imagined. Like everything in C2C there can always be more balancing but overall I think the whole concept is just amazing! I am sure the bugs will work themselves out and we will look back at C2C before this sub-mod and wonder how we ever played C2C without it.

On a side note TB you may want to look at this. Its a Brickwars manual and it talks about formations and squads. Perhaps you can be inspired from this quirky Lego game.

http://www.brikwars.com/rules/2005/8.htm#1

That Brikwars game looks really cool/addictive. It does indeed discuss some of what I'm trying to accomplish here but it has the benefit of not being as complex in the basis of it. Good stuff though.

I'm really just exploring the possibilities "size matters" opens. As I said to begin with, I had this idea that it would make sense that some units got the ability to enter a foreign border when their group size was small enough (solo/party [unit Dependant perhaps. Elephants/tanks/siege should not be able to sneak through borders!]). But for this to be balanced it would need some countermeasures like:
-Making the units hidden to the entered nation when entering their border and unable to pillage and attack.
-Then thrown out of the border (sent home to capital city?) the moment they are seen by spies/trained dogs, which would be greatly enhanced by the project you mentioned.
-Great wall could stop this from being possible...
(I don't really know whats possible or not, I'll leave that to you )

I liked your smuggler unit idea but I can see how the AI for it would be time-consuming to implement.

Probably not AS time consuming as trying to write a complex interaction such as described and then having to also teach the AI to adapt to that too. Either way you look at it, the AI is the issue and I was wanting a Smuggler effect in the future anyways so that Rogues and such could sneak out captured captives from hostile territories.

This makes sense, just want to say that there is no limit to how ineffective recuperation of large number of injured soldiers can be but there is probably a limit to how effective it can become from smaller numbers. 1 guy tending his own heavy injuries should not be more effective than 15 persons tending many lighter injuries, but when the amounts of injured grows large organization problems would start to kick in making it less effective.

Makes sense - The healing adjustment is also a game balance factor to other details involved in increasing/decreasing group sizes - a counterweight as it were. So I still need to write the modifiers into the varying levels as a linear gradient or I'm messing with symmetrical game balance. There are some cases where this 'asymmetry' is desirable - and you make a good case that this could be one due to the asymmetry being able to show a deeper realism - but being a counterbalancing modifier as it stands (to other modifiers that ARE a linear gradient through the levels of Group Volumes) means I don't think I should over-extend for that extra bit of realism.

I share this to give you my perspective and a bit of my design theory. I do value realistic effects as a great way to enhance a game but ALSO remind myself not to forget that it is a game and generating easily followed and rational mechanics is a value as powerful as realism.

You are right, there isn't a large difference in balance, but due to smaller animals having 1 hp I experienced that wanderers have a much higher survival rate because they don't get damaged every turn by pigeons and other critters (this I like); leaving them to explore more effectively and be more prepared to face the larger animals. To balance it out I think it would be enough to slightly boost the strength of wolfs and cats just as you proposed, but for units that are built in company size (Clubmen), nature turned quite harmless now compared to before. Therefore I would like to see a boost to the strength of some of the largest animals too (Moa, Haast, bears).

I agree - and I believe this all stands just as true for the core game too. So we need to make the case for base animal str adjustments to DH. I'm a little reluctant to conditionally adjust base strengths on units at all under Size Matters - if I need to make an adjustment that influences base str here, I will do so via the 3 categories by changing Quality, Group Volume or Size on the base unit, whatever is most necessary.

Now, if the argument, in a sense, is that a Company of Clubmen are not finding a couple of bears to be a challenge, consider what a Company of Clubmen WOULD find to be a real threat... would a couple (party) of bears, no matter how much more powerful a bear is over a single guy with a Club, be a real threat against a group of men in these numbers, even with such crude weaponry at their disposal?

That kind of thinking (How would this actually play out in the real world), over the effect on gameplay itself (ie: I desire for these units to be able to challenge these units by this much), is what the spirit of the intent of this option is all about.

Mind you, if an enemy trained about 300 bears and brought them to the field of battle, most Prehistoric military units would probably want to hastily depart that battle before being torn apart. Perhaps this would be the great strength of the Tamed animal lines - they start with incredibly low group volumes and thus may be combined by far more steps than most standard units into a very VERY strong (albeit extremely expensive to piece together) unified group. With Era based group merging limits, this becomes a more pronounced game effect.

This would still be possible as there are safe havens in these terrains, rivers and cactus in deserts and ancient forests in the arctic, which removes the terrain damage.

Do those features already provide these forms of relief in the game?

Glad you see it that way, this might be the most civilized forum on the web. Gotta be civilized to like a game like civilization I guess .

Oh... we've had our moments... lol But it has been very friendly here for a long time and that sure makes it a nice environment to work in.

 

[Thunderbrd]

With regards to the merging of grouped units, my experience has been if all 3 are selected and I click merge I end up with 1 (2 unit) merged unit and 1 not-merged unit. It appears to get confused as to who is merging with who.

If however I have just 1 of the three units selected and then click merge, I can pick one other to merge with then a third.
I find it works best if I merge from the bottom up (so to speak) in the choice list ie click merge and select the bottom of the 2 choices then the only choice and all good.
See pic

Yeah... thanks for the increased detail in reporting this bug. I'm working on a fix right now.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I agree - and I believe this all stands just as true for the core game too. So we need to make the case for base animal str adjustments to DH. I'm a little reluctant to conditionally adjust base strengths on units at all under Size Matters - if I need to make an adjustment that influences base str here, I will do so via the 3 categories by changing Quality, Group Volume or Size on the base unit, whatever is most necessary.

Yeah I think dangerous animals could/should get a boost to say Quality or even another factor. A good counter to low group size.

Talking about group size its obvious that a Pack of Lions unit would have more than one lion, but other animals could have groups too. Such as a Pack of Wolves, Herd of Bison or even a Herd of Mammoths. Likewise there should still be "Lone Wolves" for the Single animal unit.

And so call "harmless" animals could have great volume such as a Flock of Pigeons or a Flock of Ducks.

 

[Toffer90]

Makes sense - The healing adjustment is also a game balance factor to other details involved in increasing/decreasing group sizes - a counterweight as it were. So I still need to write the modifiers into the varying levels as a linear gradient or I'm messing with symmetrical game balance. There are some cases where this 'asymmetry' is desirable - and you make a good case that this could be one due to the asymmetry being able to show a deeper realism - but being a counterbalancing modifier as it stands (to other modifiers that ARE a linear gradient through the levels of Group Volumes) means I don't think I should over-extend for that extra bit of realism.

My point was merely that there should perhaps only be a negative modifier for this (I think units healed pretty fast without size matters), starting at party group with a 5 % increment, I was not really promoting an exponential gradient over a linear one as I take game balance quite seriously.

I agree - and I believe this all stands just as true for the core game too. So we need to make the case for base animal str adjustments to DH. I'm a little reluctant to conditionally adjust base strengths on units at all under Size Matters - if I need to make an adjustment that influences base str here, I will do so via the 3 categories by changing Quality, Group Volume or Size on the base unit, whatever is most necessary.

Now, if the argument, in a sense, is that a Company of Clubmen are not finding a couple of bears to be a challenge, consider what a Company of Clubmen WOULD find to be a real threat... would a couple (party) of bears, no matter how much more powerful a bear is over a single guy with a Club, be a real threat against a group of men in these numbers, even with such crude weaponry at their disposal?

I'm quite partial to having animals spawn with different combat quality (is this possible?) as animals seldom cooperate in large groups, bears are here a good example of this as they mostly live solitary from other bears. Wolfs could on the other hand spawn as solo, party and perhaps even squad sizes without as much variation in combat quality.

Mind you, if an enemy trained about 300 bears and brought them to the field of battle, most Prehistoric military units would probably want to hastily depart that battle before being torn apart. Perhaps this would be the great strength of the Tamed animal lines - they start with incredibly low group volumes and thus may be combined by far more steps than most standard units into a very VERY strong (albeit extremely expensive to piece together) unified group. With Era based group merging limits, this becomes a more pronounced game effect.

Sounds like a good way of making them a more unique asset to the player.

Do those features already provide these forms of relief in the game?

Yes, there is no terrain damage on tundra/deserts with these features on them; allowing the player to heal units in them. It's great fun and adds a lot to the game.

Without your healing modifiers it was not really possible to heal in these terrains without an accompanying medic. Therefore I don't really see the problem with not allowing units to heal there at all (as a medic can't really treat the ailment "dying of cold/heat and hunger/dehydration".) with the exception of plots with said features.


PS: So glad platyping knew how to fix the health bar.

 

[MMX5000]

Sorry if this has already been fixed but from my experience a great general leading a group seems to be pretty broken. Since he is only size 1, he gets a 80% healing bonus. This made it so all of my troops had an absurd amount of healing per turn, to the point where a clan (2501-10k) of horsemen was able to heal for 75ish% of his health per turn. I know you wanted large groups to heal slower so it seems just wrong for a group that was combined 4 times to be able to full heal every turn.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Yeah I think dangerous animals could/should get a boost to say Quality or even another factor. A good counter to low group size.

Talking about group size its obvious that a Pack of Lions unit would have more than one lion, but other animals could have groups too. Such as a Pack of Wolves, Herd of Bison or even a Herd of Mammoths. Likewise there should still be "Lone Wolves" for the Single animal unit.

And so call "harmless" animals could have great volume such as a Flock of Pigeons or a Flock of Ducks.

This is partially why I'd prefer that the 'pack' of lions wasn't in the game at all. Seems terribly superflous anyhow without having 'packs' of varying sizes throughout all the animal types.

I would prefer to develop an automatic group size adjustment charting mechanism that is checked when the animal spawns and randomly assigns a variable group size from a given range of potential group sizes. Could probably build it right into the spawning mechanism as an extension of further xml.

Of course, the easy (but not memory friendly) way would be to simply clog the mod with tons of animal definitions, each animal representing differing group sizes. (As the 'pack' of lions already does.)

RE Quality: They already have been assigned Quality categories, not only as counterbalances but to stand for examples of what those combat quality levels actually mean.

At this point, I think the better way to address balance would be to adjust their core game strengths as I still think, even for the core, the more dangerous animals don't often reflect this fact. Dire wolves have a 3? Wolves a 2? Really? Have you ever seen a wolf with a bone? He eats it like a dog chows down on Alpo. A wolf would be an easy 3 at least. And a dire wolf would be at least a 4. Bears are a little weaker than they should be as well... and elephants are tough, yes but they come down easier than they should when faced with hunter types. Even the largest animals aren't even a half-challenge for a hunter.

My point was merely that there should perhaps only be a negative modifier for this (I think units healed pretty fast without size matters), starting at party group with a 5 % increment, I was not really promoting an exponential gradient over a linear one as I take game balance quite seriously.

To truncate the modifiers at a given point would interrupt that linear counterbalancing. One nice thing about lesser group sizes healing more is that it allows for more activity in the early stage of the game - may not be as historically accurate for more scouting to take place so early but I plan other ways to address that and it's not a bad thing for game experience for your earliest units to get back on the move again quickly. See how the adjusted healing modifiers do for ya though.

I'm quite partial to having animals spawn with different combat quality (is this possible?) as animals seldom cooperate in large groups, bears are here a good example of this as they mostly live solitary from other bears. Wolfs could on the other hand spawn as solo, party and perhaps even squad sizes without as much variation in combat quality.

No cause to spawn them with varying qualities. But varying group volumes, yes, that would be a very cool extension of this mod. I might like to work on that next cycle - though AI for this option is a high priority as well.

Sounds like a good way of making them a more unique asset to the player.

That's only one way of course. Fight or Flight introduces quite a few variations for Tamed animal usage too and more options to come will widen our capabilities to give those units more meaningful strategic depth.

Yes, there is no terrain damage on tundra/deserts with these features on them; allowing the player to heal units in them. It's great fun and adds a lot to the game.

I wonder if those features are somehow programmed to remove the base terrain damage... hmm... or if they accidentally override them. Dunno... I'll be taking a deeper look at that section of the code eventually and will see when that time comes. I like the dynamic, even if it's a 'helpful bug'.

Without your healing modifiers it was not really possible to heal in these terrains without an accompanying medic. Therefore I don't really see the problem with not allowing units to heal there at all (as a medic can't really treat the ailment "dying of cold/heat and hunger/dehydration".) with the exception of plots with said features.

@Hydro... what do YOU think of turning off the ability for a unit to heal on a plot where it's actively suffering terrain damage?

PS: So glad platyping knew how to fix the health bar.

Me and you both! He guided me in the right direction anyhow... the perfect answer was already awaiting discovery in the dll codes as it was and for some reason the searches hadn't found the right spot when I'm certain they should've... not the first time though - sometimes VS isn't as reliable as it should be and has some noteworthy quirks - might just be the version too.

Sorry if this has already been fixed but from my experience a great general leading a group seems to be pretty broken. Since he is only size 1, he gets a 80% healing bonus. This made it so all of my troops had an absurd amount of healing per turn, to the point where a clan (2501-10k) of horsemen was able to heal for 75ish% of his health per turn. I know you wanted large groups to heal slower so it seems just wrong for a group that was combined 4 times to be able to full heal every turn.

Nobody has brought this up before and no... I hadn't considered this problem! THANK YOU for pointing it out before release! Big issue here and unfortunately I think the only way I can address it is to not only bar Commanders from being able to be assigned Combat Classes from these 3 categories, which means its a good thing I have put all these new tags on the base unit info class so that I can address a special case like this - otherwise they could give me some interesting quandries I'd be unprepared for.

Anyhow, yeah this is a big one and I'll be right on to fixing that first thing tomorrow.

 

[Hydromancerx]

This is partially why I'd prefer that the 'pack' of lions wasn't in the game at all. Seems terribly superflous anyhow without having 'packs' of varying sizes throughout all the animal types.

I would prefer to develop an automatic group size adjustment charting mechanism that is checked when the animal spawns and randomly assigns a variable group size from a given range of potential group sizes. Could probably build it right into the spawning mechanism as an extension of further xml.

Of course, the easy (but not memory friendly) way would be to simply clog the mod with tons of animal definitions, each animal representing differing group sizes. (As the 'pack' of lions already does.)

I never understood it either. I agree that the "Pack of Lions" unit should be removed. Having a Lion and Lioness are more than enough lions. Not to mention Cave Lions and Sabertooths (but they are seperate species).

@Hydro... what do YOU think of turning off the ability for a unit to heal on a plot where it's actively suffering terrain damage?

I totally agree. It doesn't make sense for a unit to be healing in an environment that's actively hurting them. its like trying to treat hypothermia by sitting in the snow. Doesn't make sense.

 

[strategyonly]

Why is that the OLD upgrade was more str, but now, the upgrade is LESS str?? Or if you build the upgrade is that one better or worse?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Why is that the OLD upgrade was more str, but now, the upgrade is LESS str?? Or if you build the upgrade is that one better or worse?

Looks like you have a merged Infantry unit that is one step higher on the Group Volume scale than the standard Infantry unit.

When you see the upgrade info you are looking at information for the standard group volume and quality for that unit type. If you do upgrade the unit, it should adopt the same merged Group Volume +1 that the Infantry unit has and will thus be 20% stronger than the stats of the Marine as shown.

Adjusting for this display to parallel the Quality/Group Volume adjustments already on the unit would be... difficult to say the least.

 

[Snofru1]

A raft cannot transport a single tracker, even you split the tracker down as far as possible. I don´t feel that´s right.

BTW, where do I see how much space a unit (here: the tracker) needs? I can easily see that the raft can transport 40 cargo volumes...

Added later: Not even a scout split in small parts fits on a raft...

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Pack of Lions is a very early addition way back in RoM.

Currently the Spawn system does spawn a pack of wolves as 3-5 individual wolf units and herds of Bison as 3 individual bison units.

 

[strategyonly]

Why so many different ones of the same thing?? Suppress Fire Promo, now isnt that the same as Barrage?? just /. /??

 

[Thunderbrd]

A raft cannot transport a single tracker, even you split the tracker down as far as possible. I don´t feel that´s right.

BTW, where do I see how much space a unit (here: the tracker) needs? I can easily see that the raft can transport 40 cargo volumes...

Added later: Not even a scout split in small parts fits on a raft...

Again... this sounds like a problem with the update not being able to update the units that were already in the game to the new methods. Sorry about that. It sounds like your raft may have been in game before the update. If both the raft and the tracker/scout units were trained AFTER the update that changed this dynamic then I probably have a bug and a savegame would be helpful. My own loose testing shows it working properly but if its not I need to know (and will need to fix it before the release!)

However, transport units should show what they can carry in terms of x/x. Unit volumes loaded out of Unit volumes possible. Meanwhile, non-transport units (as transports may not be transported themselves they don't show this) will show the Cargo Volume of the unit in the hover display. It won't show that on the base unit data since it comes from their combat classes (well... it does show it on the base unit data under their combat class breakdowns.) But it DOES show it on the unit hoverover in-game itself.

Make sense?

I have a feeling I should put this design under some further stress testing

 

[Thunderbrd]

Pack of Lions is a very early addition way back in RoM.

Currently the Spawn system does spawn a pack of wolves as 3-5 individual wolf units and herds of Bison as 3 individual bison units.

Really? On the same plot? Interesting... Maybe it just needs some AI to keep them acting as a group, even if split, that may or may not come together to merge or decide to split. I can see, for example, wolves splitting from one another to surround opponents with the superior surround and destroy abilities they'll eventually have. And I can see Bison traveling around split until they spot trouble and then seek to bring themselves together to protect the herd. Those sorts of things.

But I can also see it being interesting to introduce a range of group sizes for a spawning unit and 'chances' or rather 'weights that compile into chances' for each group size indicated. Then, when spawned, a mechanism simply attaches the correct promotions to adjust the base unit to that group size. (Similar mechanisms are what take place when a unit upgrades and its base group size changes as a result.)

 

[Thunderbrd]

Why so many different ones of the same thing?? Suppress Fire Promo, now isnt that the same as Barrage?? just /. /??

Not really the thread for that considering those purple ones are ls612's promos and have nothing to do with this option.

BUT - that's an interesting observation. I can see a concept difference but the modifications being almost identical is not ideal at all is it? Is it possible to make Suppress Fire establish an ability to generate a zone of control around the unit? (Since that's pretty much what a zone of control IS - a zone of suppressive fire.)

 

[Faustmouse]

EXCELLENT idea!
And then the Mashine Gun line also need it.