Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
There are 5 files in ..../My Documents/My Games/SMCiv5/Cache.
You have to reactivate your mods after deleting them, btw.
Armies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
There are 5 files in ..../My Documents/My Games/SMCiv5/Cache.
You have to reactivate your mods after deleting them, btw.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
@Perkus
Oh okay, it's probably only in my local build for the next version. In UP - General.xml I added:
@alpaca
A huge thread like this makes it impractical to read through everything, so I've copied my reasoning from page 3.
@Tomice
I'm really not sure what the issue might be if you're not using other mods that interact with defensive buildings. The BC - City Defenses.sql file simply doubles the vanilla values, which should result in 10, 15, etc. The buildings have the proper values ingame for me.
@truetom
Glad the problem seems to have resolved itself.
@Txurce
Check out the "Compatibility" note in the first post or the mod readme.
I'm not sure about AI Battle Tweaks though, as I stopped using it after patch 1.0.0.62 improved the tactical ai.
@Perkus
The changes to siege unit base strength and promotions are combined into the "siege" table of the mod details. I explained it in terms of final results because I find this approach easier to understand than trying to figure out how the two interact in your head. I used to have a line "this was accomplished by reducing base strength and increasing promotions" but removed it as part of attempts to cut down on wall-of-text attack throughout the mod details.
Regarding siege, a 75% cap on bonuses wouldn't be possible anyway since spearmen have 100%.
Oh okay, it's probably only in my local build for the next version. In UP - General.xml I added:
Code:
<Update>
<Where Type="PROMOTION_HOVERING_UNIT" />
<Set Amphib="true" River="true" />
</Update>@alpaca
A huge thread like this makes it impractical to read through everything, so I've copied my reasoning from page 3.
The only documentation of CiV's Lua API we have is a list of function names, and that list doesn't even include parameters or usage. There's no indication at all of what events are available. It's mostly a guessing game.
@Tomice
I'm really not sure what the issue might be if you're not using other mods that interact with defensive buildings. The BC - City Defenses.sql file simply doubles the vanilla values, which should result in 10, 15, etc. The buildings have the proper values ingame for me.
Code:
UPDATE Buildings
SET Defense = ROUND(Defense * 2 / 100,0) * 100
WHERE BuildingClass = "BUILDINGCLASS_WALLS";
UPDATE Buildings
SET Defense = ROUND(Defense * 2 / 100,0) * 100
WHERE BuildingClass = "BUILDINGCLASS_CASTLE";
UPDATE Buildings
SET Defense = ROUND(Defense * 2.08 / 100,0) * 100
WHERE BuildingClass = "BUILDINGCLASS_MILITARY_BASE";@truetom
Glad the problem seems to have resolved itself.
@Txurce
Check out the "Compatibility" note in the first post or the mod readme.
I'm not sure about AI Battle Tweaks though, as I stopped using it after patch 1.0.0.62 improved the tactical ai.
@Perkus
The changes to siege unit base strength and promotions are combined into the "siege" table of the mod details. I explained it in terms of final results because I find this approach easier to understand than trying to figure out how the two interact in your head. I used to have a line "this was accomplished by reducing base strength and increasing promotions" but removed it as part of attempts to cut down on wall-of-text attack throughout the mod details.
Regarding siege, a 75% cap on bonuses wouldn't be possible anyway since spearmen have 100%.
Perkus
Prince
If you're doing it this way, can you also change the tooltip? Right now it just says "may pass over mountains." I'd like people to realize that even though they do embark, they can attack amphibiously at full strength. It's one of their fairly unique advantages now. Good for coastal assaults. The river thing is probably obvious enough that it doesn't need special mention.
Yeah, at first I thought it might be capped just on vs. cities, really. I have now seen as high as +150% working - Helis with Ambush II vs. tanks.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Fixed it!
Strangely, deactivating v13 was not enough, I had to delete it!Not sure if this was known, but that's how it is.
alpaca
King of Ungulates
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,322
Thanks, I haven't done a lot with Lua in this game yet. What happens if you print all keys in Events? Does it only print already used events? Otherwise this is a very sorry list
[2845.671] InGame: ClearHexHighlightStyle
[2845.671] InGame: GameOptionsChanged
[2845.671] InGame: RequestYieldDisplay
[2845.671] InGame: ActivePlayerTurnEnd
[2845.687] InGame: InterfaceModeChanged
[2845.687] InGame: UnitSelectionChanged
[2845.687] InGame: SerialEventExitCityScreen
[2845.687] InGame: ClearHexHighlights
[2845.687] InGame: SerialEventEnterCityScreen
[2845.703] InGame: SystemUpdateUI
[2845.703] InGame: SerialEventUnitDestroyed
[2845.703] InGame: UnitHexHighlight
[2845.703] InGame: GameplayAlertMessage
[2845.703] InGame: ActivePlayerTurnStart
[2845.718] InGame: AddPopupTextEvent
[2845.718] InGame: UnitSelectionCleared
How do you add a lua file in ModBuddy to be executed at game start?
Edit: Nvm, figured it out.
[2845.671] InGame: ClearHexHighlightStyle
[2845.671] InGame: GameOptionsChanged
[2845.671] InGame: RequestYieldDisplay
[2845.671] InGame: ActivePlayerTurnEnd
[2845.687] InGame: InterfaceModeChanged
[2845.687] InGame: UnitSelectionChanged
[2845.687] InGame: SerialEventExitCityScreen
[2845.687] InGame: ClearHexHighlights
[2845.687] InGame: SerialEventEnterCityScreen
[2845.703] InGame: SystemUpdateUI
[2845.703] InGame: SerialEventUnitDestroyed
[2845.703] InGame: UnitHexHighlight
[2845.703] InGame: GameplayAlertMessage
[2845.703] InGame: ActivePlayerTurnStart
[2845.718] InGame: AddPopupTextEvent
[2845.718] InGame: UnitSelectionCleared
How do you add a lua file in ModBuddy to be executed at game start?
Edit: Nvm, figured it out.
With the ability to upgrade scouts to paratroopers, shouldn't the latter also get the ignore-terrain-cost-promotion (which you would get when upgrading, but not when building paratroopers).
Additionally, when looking over the current upgradepaths, the musketman stuck out (weak unit that cannot be upgraded to and obsoletes rather quickly). To give it some use, why not incorporate it into the scout-upgradeline (scout -> musketman -> paratrooper)? With ignore-terrain-cost and the ability to be upgraded to, musketmen might actually see some use and one would not have to wait four eras to get a scout-replacement.
Additionally, when looking over the current upgradepaths, the musketman stuck out (weak unit that cannot be upgraded to and obsoletes rather quickly). To give it some use, why not incorporate it into the scout-upgradeline (scout -> musketman -> paratrooper)? With ignore-terrain-cost and the ability to be upgraded to, musketmen might actually see some use and one would not have to wait four eras to get a scout-replacement.
Txurce
Deity
I see the connection between scouts and paratroopers, but not with muskets. That there's basically not much use for muskets - I built one Janissary out of respect in my Ottomans game - is a different issue altogether.
Even with the paratrooper upgrade, that's an eons-long wait for the scout to have purpose again. Something in between is needed, ideally even earlier than muskets. What about some version of "light infantry"? Civ skips over this distinction, but it existed from classical times all the way to industrial. One or two versions of it - before and after gunpowder - would do the trick. Another approach arriving at the same place would be to give scouts an "armed" upgrade, raising their combat strength. The downside with this one is that it would be hard to achieve, and hard to keep relevant over the centuries.
Early versions of Civ didn't have upgrades for everything - archers and swordsmen were dead ends - but now it's pretty much the rule. The two exceptions prior to the modern era of specialization are muskets and lancers. I don't understand why pikes shouldn't upgrade to muskets, as opposed to waiting for rifles. Historically they co-existed, but the option should be there, since it will soon be there for rifles. Lancers seems like an even more obvious optional upgrade from knights, varying from cavalry.
Of course being able to upgrade to Muskets and Lancers definitely helps the Ottomans, as well as the French and Americans. Does it unbalance their civs? I've always thought that in theory UUs come when they do on purpose... including havign an expiration date.
Just as there's a downside to getting a good late-era UU like the Panzer, there should be some downside to having an early one. That's why, to spill into a discussion in the Obsolete Promotions thread, I think UUs' traits shouldn't upgrade. It's too much of an advantage for the early UUs (which are already generally viewed as preferable anyway).
Even with the paratrooper upgrade, that's an eons-long wait for the scout to have purpose again. Something in between is needed, ideally even earlier than muskets. What about some version of "light infantry"? Civ skips over this distinction, but it existed from classical times all the way to industrial. One or two versions of it - before and after gunpowder - would do the trick. Another approach arriving at the same place would be to give scouts an "armed" upgrade, raising their combat strength. The downside with this one is that it would be hard to achieve, and hard to keep relevant over the centuries.
Early versions of Civ didn't have upgrades for everything - archers and swordsmen were dead ends - but now it's pretty much the rule. The two exceptions prior to the modern era of specialization are muskets and lancers. I don't understand why pikes shouldn't upgrade to muskets, as opposed to waiting for rifles. Historically they co-existed, but the option should be there, since it will soon be there for rifles. Lancers seems like an even more obvious optional upgrade from knights, varying from cavalry.
Of course being able to upgrade to Muskets and Lancers definitely helps the Ottomans, as well as the French and Americans. Does it unbalance their civs? I've always thought that in theory UUs come when they do on purpose... including havign an expiration date.
Just as there's a downside to getting a good late-era UU like the Panzer, there should be some downside to having an early one. That's why, to spill into a discussion in the Obsolete Promotions thread, I think UUs' traits shouldn't upgrade. It's too much of an advantage for the early UUs (which are already generally viewed as preferable anyway).
Perkus
Prince
@Txurce:
Upgrading pikes to Muskets rather than Rifles seems reasonable to me. Neither makes much sense to me, but the gap reduction is desirable. And I'm with you about not allowing UU promotions to upgrade. The couple of civs where it seems to beef them up by necessity (Janissaries) is IMHO outweighed by a larger # of civs where it feels OP for already good civs (e.g. Chu-ko-nu).
Upgrading pikes to Muskets rather than Rifles seems reasonable to me. Neither makes much sense to me, but the gap reduction is desirable. And I'm with you about not allowing UU promotions to upgrade. The couple of civs where it seems to beef them up by necessity (Janissaries) is IMHO outweighed by a larger # of civs where it feels OP for already good civs (e.g. Chu-ko-nu).
Txurce
Deity
In theory I prefer no upgrades except where obvious, but agree that it's tough to take that approach with the smaller armies of Civ5. I just wish Thal would get with the program regarding obsolete promotions!
By the way, I'm looking forward to trying the Harder tech mod in my next game - probably middle of the week.
Txurce
Deity
@Txurce
Check out the "Compatibility" note in the first post or the mod readme.
I'm not sure about AI Battle Tweaks though, as I stopped using it after patch 1.0.0.62 improved the tactical ai.
My question wasn't so much about compatibility so much as pros and cons. One seeming difference is that City Defenses is balanced with the change in siege units, whereas Active City Defense is not. Is this correct? I'd be curious to learn anyone's opinions on this.
Well, it would solve two issues at once. Introducing additional scouting units seems like a lot of work compared to the gameplay value it would give, and finding a good niche for musketmen isn't that easy either.
I agree with that, especcially since the benefit of keeping UU-promotions can be far easier exploited by humans than the ai.
Txurce
Deity
Joneill,
I'm in favor of limited unit and building expansion, so I do see the value of scouts-to-muskets in theory. I'm just trying to find something that makes more sense. Earlier versions of Civ have had the heavy/light split, which was far more common historically than the amount of cavalry we have in Civ. I thought of scouts to light infantry because that's actually what scouts are: fast-moving melee units somewhat weaker than their slower counterparts, the warriors. Maintaining that link through the ages - that is, with swords and longswords - makes a certain amount of sense. I think there was heavy and light infantry until the arrival of rifles.
The musket problem strikes me as more of a tech speed issue. The later techs move too fast in general, and there's not enough reason to build muskets alongside pikes. Muskets improved gradually, being initially weaker than pike units, but stronger by the 18th century. The ones in Civ strike me as mid-era muskets, which is fine. I don't think there were any pike units around by the time rifles came about, so a direct upgrade doesn't make historical sense - and helps focus the problem. Why not just put muskets in between the pike to rifle upgrade line? One possible fix might make the cost of the upgrade from pike to musket cheap, so you'd lean toward a mix.
Sidebar: to be historically accurate, mounted units should probably be not just more expensive, but more limited. Otherwise they would have dominated the battlefield more often than the Huns or the Mongols. Here's where the fun factor comes in, though: they're more fun to play with!
I'm in favor of limited unit and building expansion, so I do see the value of scouts-to-muskets in theory. I'm just trying to find something that makes more sense. Earlier versions of Civ have had the heavy/light split, which was far more common historically than the amount of cavalry we have in Civ. I thought of scouts to light infantry because that's actually what scouts are: fast-moving melee units somewhat weaker than their slower counterparts, the warriors. Maintaining that link through the ages - that is, with swords and longswords - makes a certain amount of sense. I think there was heavy and light infantry until the arrival of rifles.
The musket problem strikes me as more of a tech speed issue. The later techs move too fast in general, and there's not enough reason to build muskets alongside pikes. Muskets improved gradually, being initially weaker than pike units, but stronger by the 18th century. The ones in Civ strike me as mid-era muskets, which is fine. I don't think there were any pike units around by the time rifles came about, so a direct upgrade doesn't make historical sense - and helps focus the problem. Why not just put muskets in between the pike to rifle upgrade line? One possible fix might make the cost of the upgrade from pike to musket cheap, so you'd lean toward a mix.
Sidebar: to be historically accurate, mounted units should probably be not just more expensive, but more limited. Otherwise they would have dominated the battlefield more often than the Huns or the Mongols. Here's where the fun factor comes in, though: they're more fun to play with!
So, I install / activate Attila's mods v8 - I guess it's compatibile with your Balance - Combat v15? Will the iron / coal, etc. show correctly in the ongoing game or does it only affect new game and show strat resources correctly then?
There were bombardiers / handmortar shooters / grenadiers in the earli(er) days of gunpowder usage and they lobbed granates from behind the frontline troops (i.e. range 2). I just hate that bow / crossbow with a range of 2 gets upgraded to use guns with a range of 1.
Perkus
Prince
@truetom
The coal fix is a trivial 1 line code change and takes effect immediately. I can't speak to the backwards compatibility of any other components.
The coal fix is a trivial 1 line code change and takes effect immediately. I can't speak to the backwards compatibility of any other components.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
It makes perfect sense for paratroopers to ignore terrain. I added it to the mod.
@Txurce & Joneill
I agree it'd be nice to have more than the 1st scout be useful, it does appear to be a design decision of the developers to not have scouts, though. After all, once the map's explored there's little reason to have scouts eating up maintenance when combat units cost the same and have more usefulness. I did make them a little more useful though, since they can start with Medic right away from an armory.
Regarding upgrades, it makes more sense to me both from realism and gameplay for Pikemen to hop on a horse and become Lancers. They both use thrusting spears, and it's a similar role ingame. While musketmen alone are weak, 3 UUs replace them, more I think than any other unit. Musketmen would also be useful if you're lacking iron... but resources are so abundant in this game it's not a concern right now. Eventually I want to mod resources to have a larger quantity of lower quality nodes. I don't think it's possible to mod resource frequency yet though, only quality.
Ahh okay! I didn't understand the question. We both increase the
of the buildings, so there's not really much difference there. The key difference is I also increase city hitpoints, while Afforess provides a healing / damage effect around cities. His method is more interesting and encourages strategy, however the downside is the AI doesn't know about it. It'd require some serious coding with the full SDK to get the AI to recognize cities as medics, especially since 1upt unit movement and placement is an np-hard problem.I believe it's more effective to focus on the relatively few late-game UUs and ways to improve them, rather than nerfing a larger number of early-game UUs. Here's some of the reasons:
Early vs Late UUs
Most UUs gain their primary benefit through strength or other changes, which would not be impacted by promotions obsoleting. To achieve a goal of nerfing early UUs it would be necessary to alter these as well:
- Bowman
- Hoplite
- War Chariot
- War Elephant
- Ballista
- Legion
- Camel Archer
- Keshik
- Landsknecht
- Naresuan's Elephant
- Samurai
In addition, I'm uncertain chu-ko-nu are overpowered when upgraded. The special is identical to blitz until mech infantry, and I typically get blitz anyway as my fifth promotion for melee, behind march and siege. Units upgraded this far in tech will likely be highly-promoted. Blitz isn't as effective for melee units as ranged, either, since the unit takes damage in return. I also reduced the power of Wu Zeitan's great generals and paper makers... don't want to nerf her into oblivion. I feel the UA and UB were more overpowered than chu-ko-nu.
Leader balance
Considering which civilizations receive UU special promotions:
Code:
AND NOT (
Type = "PROMOTION_JAGUAR" -- jaguar
OR Type = "PROMOTION_PARTIAL_HEAL_IF_DESTROY_ENEMY" -- jaguar
OR Type = "PROMOTION_FASTER_HEAL" -- immortal
OR Type = "PROMOTION_MOHAWK" -- mohawk
OR Type = "PROMOTION_SPAWN_GENERALS_I" -- companion cavalry
OR Type = "PROMOTION_ANTI_MOUNTED_I" -- siamese elephant
OR Type = "PROMOTION_CITY_ASSAULT" -- songhai cavalry
OR Type = "PROMOTION_SECOND_ATTACK" -- chu-ko-nu
--OR Type = "PROMOTION_RANGE" -- longbowman, wouldn"t make sense on rifleman
OR Type = "PROMOTION_SPAWN_GENERALS_II" -- samurai
OR Type = "PROMOTION_IGNORE_TERRAIN_COST" -- minuteman
OR Type = "PROMOTION_HEAL_IF_DESTROY_ENEMY" -- janissary
OR Type = "PROMOTION_FREE_PILLAGE_MOVES" -- sipahi
OR Type = "PROMOTION_EXTRA_SIGHT_I" -- sipahi
OR Type = "PROMOTION_STRONGER_VS_DAMAGED" -- cossak
OR Type = "PROMOTION_FOREIGN_LANDS" -- foreign legion
OR Type = "PROMOTION_ANTI_FIGHTER" -- zero
OR Type = "PROMOTION_EXTRA_SIGHT_I" -- ship of the line
OR Type = "PROMOTION_IGNORE_TERRAIN_COST" -- scout
);- Aztecs
- Iroquois
- Siam
- Japan
- America
- Ottomans
- Russia
- England
In contrast, the powerful/overpowered civs impacted would be:
- Greece - ability and CC got nerfed, hesitant to triple-nerf.
- China - GG and paper maker got nerfed, same feeling as with Greece.
- France - I haven't been entirely sure what to do about this civ. Mech infantry come so late in the game though, I don't think the promotion aspect is a concern for France either way.
In summary from these 2 main points, I feel it's best to focus on the smaller quantity of overpowered or underpowered outliers, rather than rebalancing the majority of civs one by one after broad changes that would affect them unequally. Either approach gets the civs balanced, but the first option requires much less work and is closer to the CiV developers' original intent for the leaders.
Txurce
Deity
Excellent points, Thal.
I had given a lot of thought to making UUs obsolete. Out of context, I still prefer that they expire, as the units are in effect reflective of the civ's historic heyday (a la Civ2's GA). However, in Civ5 the concept of a near-eternal unit is central to combat. When this is combined with the fact that in Civ5 weak civs tend to have early UUs, keeping those unique values becomes a good thing, and may well have been what the designers had in mind. So... you've changed my mind!
While I don't think armies shifted from less pikes to more lancers, I see the link between pike and lance, and love the idea of being able to upgrade to lancers. (Which also helps our friends the Ottomans.) Your point about three UUs being musket equivalents is also very good.
Our mods are in good hands.
I had given a lot of thought to making UUs obsolete. Out of context, I still prefer that they expire, as the units are in effect reflective of the civ's historic heyday (a la Civ2's GA). However, in Civ5 the concept of a near-eternal unit is central to combat. When this is combined with the fact that in Civ5 weak civs tend to have early UUs, keeping those unique values becomes a good thing, and may well have been what the designers had in mind. So... you've changed my mind!
While I don't think armies shifted from less pikes to more lancers, I see the link between pike and lance, and love the idea of being able to upgrade to lancers. (Which also helps our friends the Ottomans.) Your point about three UUs being musket equivalents is also very good.
Our mods are in good hands.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Two things I've been considering... would love to have opinions on these subjects.
The first point is to give scouts a purpose after the map is explored. The second point is because from a gameplay perspective, ships are really quite pointless right now for all but a water-heavy map. Their attacks against a city only did 1-2 damage even in vanilla, and enemy units are rarely in range (other than barbarians). It also makes sense from a perspective of realism, since naval cannon are basically just smaller versions of land-based cannon. Each pair of land/sea cannon are also at equal tech levels.
With the other changes from this mod, the
comparisons are:
Frigate 17, cannon 21
Ironclad 22, artillery 24
- New Medic II promotion available to Recon units, increases range to 2
- Frigates and Ironclads start with Demolish promotion (same as siege units)
The first point is to give scouts a purpose after the map is explored. The second point is because from a gameplay perspective, ships are really quite pointless right now for all but a water-heavy map. Their attacks against a city only did 1-2 damage even in vanilla, and enemy units are rarely in range (other than barbarians). It also makes sense from a perspective of realism, since naval cannon are basically just smaller versions of land-based cannon. Each pair of land/sea cannon are also at equal tech levels.
With the other changes from this mod, the
comparisons are:Frigate 17, cannon 21
Ironclad 22, artillery 24
Txurce
Deity
Two things I've been considering... would love to have opinions on these subjects.
- New Medic II promotion available to Recon units, increases range to 2
- Frigates and Ironclads start with Demolish promotion (same as siege units)
The first point is to give scouts a purpose after the map is explored. The second point is because from a gameplay perspective, ships are really quite pointless right now for all but a water-heavy map. Their attacks against a city only did 1-2 damage even in vanilla, and enemy units are rarely in range (other than barbarians). It also makes sense from a perspective of realism, since naval cannon are basically just smaller versions of land-based cannon. Each pair of land/sea cannon are also at equal tech levels.
With the other changes from this mod, the
Frigate 17, cannon 21
Ironclad 22, artillery 24
The basic medic promotion is an activist change that makes scouts useful after the start. Cheap as they are, they are probably worth building with +1. (Would an armory do it?) By range, do you mean they heal units two hexes away? If so, that also seems lie a good later promotion, as long as it's not too easy to achieve. The biggest downside I see is that the AI probably won't ever use this appropriately.
I agree with the rationale behind jacking the coastal shelling of frigates and ironclads. However, I don't see why an ironclad would be so much more powerful than a frigate. Wasn't their advantage the ability to take a hit more than delivering one? Making them so close to artillery when their era passed before artillery really existed seems OP and historically off.
Two questions:
Should a coastal fortress (a la earlier versions of Civ) be added as a counter? This would benefit the AI.
Can something be done to make AI ships take the offensive more? They respond as passively as barb galleys when I send a caravel or destroyer into their midst.
I think there is an argument for more power in an ironclad's weapons.
According to Wikipedia:
"The size of the gun peaked in the 1880s, with some of the heaviest calibres of gun ever used at sea. "
There's a weird problem with the entire concept of putting ironclads in the game, though. That was a very short era in naval history, especially the time period where an "ironclad" was confined to calm, coastal waters. Naval tech changed rapidly from the 1860's up to WWI. I think it could be considered relatively more stable pre-American Civil War and post WWII.
Similar threads
