Seems good to me!
Vokarya's Workshop: Units
- Thread starter Vokarya
- Start date
Seems good to me!
os79
Deity
I went from Frigate directly to Early Destroyer because I didn't research Steel tech. I didn't ever had an occasion to upgrade from Frigate to Iron Frigate. Is that intentional?
It's not intentional; it's a quirk in the techs required. ED requires Explosives and Screw Propeller, while Iron Frigate requires Military Science and Steel, and they're not linked together very well. In fact, these two ships are currently breaking my "one-third rule" by both being in the first third of the Industrial Era. I think we should move Early Destroyer up to Automobile, which would put it in the middle third of the Industrial Era. (Destroyer itself is in the last third, so it's fine as long as ED doesn't go too far forward.) Would anyone else have a problem with this?
os79
Deity
Seems reasonable.
Updated to 899.
Civilopedia for the NAVY SEAL says "TEXT_KEY RESTRICTED UNIT" in the "special abilities" box, and the Marine entry still shows "replaced by Navy Seal".
Tried to check in WB if it works as intended, could not build it. Started as America, gave myself Amphibious warfare, Composites and Modern Warfare. The city could build standard Marines, Anti-Tanks, but neither Navy Seals nor Modern Marines.
Secondary note, if it will stay as a replacement for the Modern Marine (if it can be made to work), could it also get a different unit model? Maybe just its original one (now used for the Special Forces)
Civilopedia for the NAVY SEAL says "TEXT_KEY RESTRICTED UNIT" in the "special abilities" box, and the Marine entry still shows "replaced by Navy Seal".
Tried to check in WB if it works as intended, could not build it. Started as America, gave myself Amphibious warfare, Composites and Modern Warfare. The city could build standard Marines, Anti-Tanks, but neither Navy Seals nor Modern Marines.
Secondary note, if it will stay as a replacement for the Modern Marine (if it can be made to work), could it also get a different unit model? Maybe just its original one (now used for the Special Forces)
I'm not seeing the problem you are describing. Is your CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml file updated? I think TXT_KEY_RESTRICTED_UNIT shows up whenever a unit appears that is not the default unit for its class and is not called by any civilization's definitions. The UnitInfo for the Navy SEAL should start like this:
and the America civilization info should say:
Let me know if either of those doesn't match your current version.
Code:
<UnitInfo>
<Class>UNITCLASS_MODERN_MARINE</Class>
<Type>UNIT_AMERICAN_NAVY_SEAL</Type>
<UniqueNames/>
<Special>SPECIALUNIT_TROOP</Special>and the America civilization info should say:
Code:
<Units>
<Unit>
<UnitClassType>UNITCLASS_MODERN_MARINE</UnitClassType>
<UnitType>UNIT_AMERICAN_NAVY_SEAL</UnitType>
</Unit>
</Units>Let me know if either of those doesn't match your current version.
I had changed both Unitinfos and Civilizationinfos manually, to keep other modifications I made, but I got that error.
So I reinstalled the mod completely (rev 899), and still get the same error, though this time I didn't touch the Americans at all.
Yes, both Unitinfos and Civilizationinfos have the correct unit class (MODERN_MARINE), still it doesn't recognize the unit properly.
Is Formations turned on? I didn't change the unitclass there, and that could do it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what else it could be.
Do you have an error with the default files ?
Yes, Formations is ON.
Starting a game with the Americans and looking in the "Unit upgrades" page, the unit progression is shown correctly Marine-Navy Seal-Dropship, though the individual civilopedia entries have the issues mentioned above.
I redownloaded the mod clean with 899, the problem was there before I changed anything.
Cossacks get 1-3 First Strikes and +50% vs. other Mounted units. I think that's enough for a UU.
Has anyone else noticed that there is a weird kink in the Industrial Age Artillery units? The progression is smooth up until Cannon with increasing Strength and constant speed, but then we get Light Artillery that is speed 2, but upgrades to regular Artillery with speed 1. It's very much an anomaly to have a unit go back to speed-1 after being speed-2.
I know horse artillery was a real thing, but I don't think it is good for game balance to have speed-2 siege units before the modern era. As long as we have stacks, you should be forced to have either low stack speed or a stack that can't take cities or defend well (all cavalry/mounted infantry), and I don't really want to introduce a new unit. It also seems weird to me that the Artillery unit is not available at the Artillery tech.
I think Light Artillery should be given the Artillery name and be Strength 22/Speed 1. Then the current Artillery can get a new name (Howitzer? Field Gun?) and be Strength 26/Speed 1.
I know horse artillery was a real thing, but I don't think it is good for game balance to have speed-2 siege units before the modern era. As long as we have stacks, you should be forced to have either low stack speed or a stack that can't take cities or defend well (all cavalry/mounted infantry), and I don't really want to introduce a new unit. It also seems weird to me that the Artillery unit is not available at the Artillery tech.
I think Light Artillery should be given the Artillery name and be Strength 22/Speed 1. Then the current Artillery can get a new name (Howitzer? Field Gun?) and be Strength 26/Speed 1.
nionios
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 459
I personally consider the light artillery to be a swift unit because it is light.The word "light" justifies the speed 2 IMHO but your suggestion looks interesting.
This way would be more balanced from a gameplay standpoint.
so far I've always kept extra light artys handy to be used with tanks. but by the time you get tanks you should also be getting aircraft and those will provide bombing cover to the tanks running forward
so far I've always kept extra light artys handy to be used with tanks. but by the time you get tanks you should also be getting aircraft and those will provide bombing cover to the tanks running forward
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
Howitzer sounds good to me.
Here are a couple of things I noticed about some of the early air units.
Biplane has too high an intercept chance. Most of the fighter units have a good upward intercept curve from 20% (Fighter) to 60% (Aurora Scramjet and Orbital Fighter) but Biplane has 35%. I think it should probably be 15% instead.
IL2 has a need to have a better name. I thought about calling it Fighter-Bomber, which is a real role for airplanes, but the IL2 is not a fighter, as it does not have an intercept chance; the two main differences that I can see between fighters and bombers is that fighters get an intercept chance and bombers get collateral damage (both types can bomb improvements and city defenses, but bombers deal more damage). IL2 also upgrades to the pure Bomber, and I don't like upgrades that take away capabilities from a unit, so I don't want to add an intercept chance. I don't really like calling it Early Bomber or Light Bomber, and I think any other name would be horribly inelegant, but maybe I'm missing something. Light Bomber might be our best bet.
Biplane has too high an intercept chance. Most of the fighter units have a good upward intercept curve from 20% (Fighter) to 60% (Aurora Scramjet and Orbital Fighter) but Biplane has 35%. I think it should probably be 15% instead.
IL2 has a need to have a better name. I thought about calling it Fighter-Bomber, which is a real role for airplanes, but the IL2 is not a fighter, as it does not have an intercept chance; the two main differences that I can see between fighters and bombers is that fighters get an intercept chance and bombers get collateral damage (both types can bomb improvements and city defenses, but bombers deal more damage). IL2 also upgrades to the pure Bomber, and I don't like upgrades that take away capabilities from a unit, so I don't want to add an intercept chance. I don't really like calling it Early Bomber or Light Bomber, and I think any other name would be horribly inelegant, but maybe I'm missing something. Light Bomber might be our best bet.
youmakemefart
Warlord
How about ground attack plane or ground attack aircraft?
That would include all planes that were used for that role - which then was divided between the Bomber and the multi role fighter..
@Vokarya: From an AI point of view (I don't mean my intelligence is artificial 
), when you add units, could you review the UNITAI tag for that unit? I've updated all the ships lately, but there could be other errors.
For example, a cargo unit which transport only missionaries, settlers, etc should be UNITAI_SETTLER_SEA, etc.. but not UNITAI_ESCORT_SEA because it cannot transport every units. These are really critical for the use of the AI. If you have some time, could you track down the misuse of it ? I mean, if a unit isn't made to attack a city but to do some pillage, it should use UNITAI_PILLAGE and UNITAI_ATTACK but not UNITAI_ATTACK_CITY. If it's good to attack but not enough to explore, it should not have the EXPLORE tag, etc.
I'm not saying the unit xml is wrong, but just to take some time to review this.
), when you add units, could you review the UNITAI tag for that unit? I've updated all the ships lately, but there could be other errors.For example, a cargo unit which transport only missionaries, settlers, etc should be UNITAI_SETTLER_SEA, etc.. but not UNITAI_ESCORT_SEA because it cannot transport every units. These are really critical for the use of the AI. If you have some time, could you track down the misuse of it ? I mean, if a unit isn't made to attack a city but to do some pillage, it should use UNITAI_PILLAGE and UNITAI_ATTACK but not UNITAI_ATTACK_CITY. If it's good to attack but not enough to explore, it should not have the EXPLORE tag, etc.
I'm not saying the unit xml is wrong, but just to take some time to review this.
Ground Attack Plane sounds good.
Alternatively, make it a Dive Bomber, though I guess we should change unit graphics for that.
Similar threads
- Locked
