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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,811
Location
Las Vegas

Player's Guide
to the
C2C Combat Mod - Size Matters
Game Option

I'm sure by now some of you have attempted the Size Matters game option and, seeing little more than a few extra combat classes assigned to units that didn't seem to have much effect, were wondering... huh? What's this all about?

Well... it was in a planning and development stage. To some extent it still is but the primary impact should now be fully active. And it's complex enough to warrant a full explanation.

Size Matters now makes the Combat Quality, Group Volume and Individual Entity Size of a given unit bear weight and meaning.

Under this option, it is valuable to consider the 'Strength' of the unit to be the general evaluation of the combat lethality of a unit when that unit has an average size, group volume, and combat quality. Units don't always START with average values, mind you, but MOST units will enter the game balancing out to an average between the three.

For each improved step up or down any of those three scales, a unit will patently be modified by 20% on its Combat Strength and Maximum Hit Points (which until now has always been 100 for all units.)

So for a unit that has a single step better than average Combat Quality while being of average size and average group volume, that unit will have 20% more strength and hp.

This required, of course, for a method that enabled strength values to be decimalized. Therefore under this option, you'll find all unit strengths are set to consider decimal values.

You'll immediately notice that not all units will always average out even from their base settings. I'll leave it to y'all to see if you can figure out what the patterns I determined for those few deviations are but animals in particular can show a wide variation as their group volumes, combat qualities and sizes were considered more for realism than an initial attempt at game accuracy, assuming that the animal strength values they had been initially assigned carried the presumption that all units represented only one individual. This seems, in testing to have worked out fairly well IMO but I'll let y'all give me the feedback you'll have once you experience the option.

Now... these base 20% adjustments to Strength and MaxHP are not the only adjustments these category level shifts can bring. Each category has its own special dynamics when a unit has a higher or lower level.

Let me pause here and express the three categories and the combat classes associated with their levels (in all cases, average is 5):

Combat Quality
Incapable - 0
Pathetic - 1
Inferior - 2
Poor - 3
Mediocre - 4
Standard - 5
Superior - 6
Exceptional - 7
Elite - 8
Epic - 9
Divine - 10


Group Volume
Solo (1) - 1
Party (2-6) - 2
Squad (7-20) - 3
Company (21-100) - 4
Battalion (101-600) - 5
Forces (601-2500) - 6
Clan (2600-10000) - 7
Horde (10001-100000) - 8
Multitudes (100k - 1 million) - 9
Millions - 10
Billions - 11
Trillions - 12
Countless - 13


Size
Fine - 1
Diminutive - 2
Tiny - 3
Small - 4
Medium - 5
Large - 6
Huge - 7
Gargantuan - 8
Colossal - 9

And more detail for each category:
Combat Quality
Combat Quality is the innate instinctual familiarity with combat the unit possesses. It encompasses the savagery, perseverance, and combat mindedness of the unit. It can be natural or learned. Thus a Pigeon has a terrible Combat Quality while a Tiger has a rather incredible one. Among human troops, usually specialized or culture specific units carry a higher quality while the standard troop type units like Infantry have a rather average level.

A unit can increase its Combat Quality via promotions. These promotions become available when the unit attains a level that qualifies for them. The higher the current Combat Quality of the unit, the higher the level it will need to qualify to take a promotion that gives it an increase.

Obviously, a 20% jump in Combat Strength and Max Hit Points is perhaps one of the strongest promotions a unit can ever take.

But it comes with some cons that make the decision to upgrade in this manner rather interesting.

First of all, any time a promotion that increases the combat quality is taken, the unit will lose ALL current XP, resetting down to 0 (thus it will take quite a while for the unit to earn its way back up to the next level since it must now earn all the xp it takes to get there!) This happens irregardless of the Infinite XP option.

Second, for every level shift greater or less than average, the unit earns more or less xp. Thus, the lower the combat quality, the easier the unit learns. The greater the combat quality, the slower it gains experience. Thus it makes the unit take EVEN LONGER to get to the next level.

Therefore a shift up in quality doesn't mean the unit won't ever improve again but it will mean it's going to take a long time for it to do so. Additionally, you must realize that a unit will be able to level a lot farther and take a LOT of promotions that it will otherwise lose the opportunity to have had by taking this quality step up.

Whether a unit will truly be more powerful this way will certainly be up for debate and player preference. Some players may prefer to simply gain more levels and promotions and maybe later down the road take a step up in quality for their units. Others will prefer to up the combat quality on all units as soon as possible. Both should be fairly valid choices.

Additionally, the greater the combat quality of the unit, the more expensive the unit is to maintain (they demand higher wages than the standard troop) and the more expensive the unit is to upgrade (they tend to have more equipment and thorough training to keep up with their standards).

Increases in Combat Quality will also soon bring about access to increasingly valuable base combat strength upgrade promotions. Some fame promotions that give exceedingly skilled units national fame and prestige that makes them more effective at making local city populaces more happy than most units will also be developed for higher end Combat Quality access. (Promotion lines supporting this option are among the few things I haven't gotten to quite yet.)

Currently there aren't any ways for combat qualities to be reduced but perhaps some diseases or poisons may (though that WILL be noteworthily complex to develop.)

In summary, the more 'elite' the unit, the higher the combat quality itself.


Group Volume
This represents the number of entities in the unit of that type. The volume of those numbers are shown in parentheses or are self explanatory. Thus, a small strike team will be a Party size Group while a full Infantry will be a Battalion sized group (average).

Immediately upon entering a game with this option you'll see the biggest adjustment this option brings being available on your units. (Well... most of them - many unitcombats are denied this special ability.)

There are two new actions units can take under the size matters option. They may be Split into 3 smaller groups (each losing a Size category level) OR 3 units of the same type with the same quality and group size may come together to Merge into one larger group (the one unit gaining the next larger size category.)

Thus if you take 3 Company sized Stone Throwers and Merge them all together, you'll get one Battalion sized Stone Thrower unit.

When splitting units, the level and most promotions will be translated directly across to the 3 resulting units. Level and XP will average when 3 units are joined and whatever promos they ALL share will be automatically retained by the resulting unit.

It does not COST movement or take the full turn to Merge OR Split. However, units may not merge or split if they are injured or have moved in that turn. It costs nothing to merge or split.

You may continue to split units until you can't split them any further (usually solo is the limiter but some units may find themselves unable to because they'd be too weakened due to their low quality.)

You may continue to join units until the maximum group category is obtained, (Countless.)

Obviously the immediate impact of a merge or split is to get 2 additional units with all 3 being 20% weaker or to get 1 unit out of three, that new unit being 20% stronger.

Consider the further balance points for smaller or greater group sizes however.

First, the lower the Group Volume, the less it costs to upkeep and to upgrade the unit (by 20% so when you do the math, greater group sized units actually cost less than the three units of a lower size but not by much.)

Second, Smaller group size units heal faster while greater group sized units take longer to heal - this can be the biggest detractor to the huge group size gatherings you might be initially inclined to want. Keep in mind, once injured the unit may not split until fully healed.

Terrain attack and defense and city attack and defense promo lines will be designed for varying size categories as well - indicating abilities for units to take advantage of open ground upon which they may swarm the enemy, or to take advantage of territory that allows for bottlenecks to enable them to take on a lot greater size force on even footing.

Most importantly, what strategies you'll want to utilize with splitting and merging will really depend on what situation you're in. I have NOT developed any AI for the ai players to utilize this feature yet and will be looking for YOUR feedback on the proper and best situations to split and/or merge units to be a guide to developing AI. I already know of a few good uses and will be working on that rudimentary AI soon but it might've taken me another month to release this modification if I'd waited to get all the AI in place and it's sometimes hard to say what is a better move or worse move where splitting/merging is concerned. So I'm opening up the floor for debates there.

You'll notice the mathematics involved in this do not split/merge units with perfectly measured ratio modifications for a three-way split or merge. This is to compensate for the differing combat and support conditions that larger or smaller units must face. Units are a 5th more or less powerful at each size adjustment while the merging and splitting is at a 1 to 3 ratio. This ratio offset tends to favor splitting over merging except that the way the odds and flow of combat work, larger units will be (on the face of it) far more valuable in terms of combat effectiveness.

So... feedback is appreciated on this feature.


Size
Size is fixed and cannot be altered (unless perhaps we get into some Ant-man/Goliath futuristic sci-fi stuff or fantasy stuff eventually in which case I'll need a little more programming along similar lines to the other adjustable categories.)

However, it is important to take note of the differences sizes bring beyond the simple 20% Strength and HP adjustments that all these category shifts possess.

Increased size will lead to a reduction in Dodge and Precision values (meaning it's easier to hit a larger foe and it's tougher for them to hit you.) However, as size goes up, a new Damage Modifier dynamic will increase the damage by 20% for each time the successfully strikes its foe in a combat round. Thus, while a larger unit won't hit it's smaller opponent as often, when it does it packs a wallop.

The overall effect this will have on combat will be pretty much balanced between sizes aside from the differences in Str and HP. However, it will make battles between differing sized units a greater crap shoot for both sides. It makes the larger units rely more on luck to get those hits in but they don't need many to make it count and smaller units will need more rounds to take down a larger foe but if they can keep from being struck their ability to hit easier will eventually wear down their foe. You should be able to see this difference in the combat log quite clearly.

And of course, I plan a number of promotion lines to enable sizes to take advantage of differences in other opponent sizes so that any unit can compensate for its weaknesses or enhance its strengths. This part is still pending further development.

If you're looking for some definition for those sizes, the units as defined should present a good spread of examples but if you spot something that seems to be a poor fit based on other examples, feel free to point them out.



Once this option is fully developed out, I'll edit this post so that it may be utilized for some pedia concept pages. In the meantime, as development furthers during the next cycle, I'll be looking for as much feedback from those playing the option as y'all can offer.

And to those who don't like the option nor the concepts it includes, that, of course, is why it is designed as an option in the first place. I most certainly did NOT want to FORCE this on any players. Some further recent combat mod changes that are not yet isolated into options will eventually be cordoned off into meaningful option sets as well so bear with me on those issues. I believe I'm finding I'll need to develop an 'enhanced animal' option set for example.

Anyhow, I truly hope you enjoy this. Let me know how it goes.
 
I'd use/include/rename more modern group names (Regiment, Brigrade, Division, Army).

However, after reading through this, my first inclinitation is to not use it. Personally, I don't see a need for unit quality category at all. That is what standard experience/promotions should represent along with just base combat strength. Secondly, I could sorta justify more hit points for bigger units, but in truth it should just balance out in that bigger units (elephants, tanks, mechs, what have you) are built in/grouped with smaller numbers. Which brings me to the resizing element you've included; and I don't think that is going to work well with this level of game. We aren't playing on small enough scale (time wise/map tile size... i.e. tactical to grand tactical type game) to make that justifiable in my head.

*shrug* I could just be me, but I see Civ games with a much higher level of abstraction than you do.
 
However, after reading through this, my first inclinitation is to not use it.

Try it (and for more than a few turns) before you decide that. ;)

*shrug* I could just be me, but I see Civ games with a much higher level of abstraction than you do.

And this is why. Civ games always put this kind of improvement in the too-hard basket.
 
I'd use/include/rename more modern group names (Regiment, Brigrade, Division, Army).
I do like those names... I may well go and update those.

Personally, I don't see a need for unit quality category at all. That is what standard experience/promotions should represent along with just base combat strength.
That's why it had not been considered a part of the plan until further evaluation identified this to be the missing piece to the balance puzzle. After going through all the units I found defining it really felt like a good fit. Mind... I don't blame anyone who feels the way you do but I think you'll see, if you do play with the option, that it does strike a meaningful chord.

Secondly, I could sorta justify more hit points for bigger units, but in truth it should just balance out in that bigger units (elephants, tanks, mechs, what have you) are built in/grouped with smaller numbers.
That's basically how most units do end up back at the same zeroed out values. Only now, adjustments to one of these categories on a unit can take meaning, as can modifiers based on these categories. Whereas, before, you couldn't really program a combat modifier for a unit to be able to fight larger sized, smaller sized, larger grouped or lesser grouped opponents more effectively. Now you can which opens up a new realm of meaningful potential.

Which brings me to the resizing element you've included; and I don't think that is going to work well with this level of game. We aren't playing on small enough scale (time wise/map tile size... i.e. tactical to grand tactical type game) to make that justifiable in my head.
Fair 'nuff opinion, though I do believe it will make things more rational and immersive. Groups at war are often splintering off and going separate ways and coming to band together. A great deal of thought has been done to make this play out in a rational fashion in the game that works in harmony with the current game mechanics. All I can suggest is to try it. Don't blame ya for your initial impressions.

*shrug* I could just be me, but I see Civ games with a much higher level of abstraction than you do.
It's not that I don't see it with that level of abstraction - it's that it frustrates me that we're limited to such a level of abstraction where more precision I feel would introduce a better strategy game. I realize not all will agree. I'm glad you can appreciate that it's been made optional for this reason.


@Yudishtira & Hydro: Thanks guys! Let me know what strategic benefits you find this unlocks so I can utilize that when developing AI adjustments.
 
Modern names will not make sense in pre modern eras.
 
Modern names will not make sense in pre modern eras.

And that's what I was originally thinking with Clan and Horde... I wanted to disperse the modern/older references so that it didn't seem too focused on one era.
 
It looks really intersting and I'm looking forward to play with this option once I have some time for it. What bugs me a bit is the splitting and merging of troops. If I understand correctly, if you have 3 units: one specialized in fighting Horses, one in fighting Melee, one in fighting Archers, if you merge them, the resulting unit will be specialized in everything? And can you merge a spearman with 2 Clubman for example?
The bad thing about that is: if you have 3 "millions" sized troops, you can get a "billions" sized group. If you do this 3 times, you can have a "trillions" sized group. In theory, you will be able to do so at least in the medival era.
 
Thanks for the questions Faustmouse! They always help to guide me to explain in better detail. In fact, this first one you asked I had anticipated but didn't want to add the answer into the massive info dump above.
If I understand correctly, if you have 3 units: one specialized in fighting Horses, one in fighting Melee, one in fighting Archers, if you merge them, the resulting unit will be specialized in everything?
Answer: Incorrect. ONLY promotions ALL 3 merging units share will be automatically adopted by the resulting merged unit. Any other promos will be abandoned immediately and the unit will be given the opportunity to retrain up to the amount of promos the unit should have earned at the level it's assigned based on the average experience of the unit. You might be able to see why I didn't want to mention that in the main text... it's sorta complicated but fair.

And can you merge a spearman with 2 Clubman for example?
Answer: No. You may only merge units of the same type, quality and group size. Thus you may merge 3 clubman units or 3 spearman units but not a combination of the 2. This sort of combination may yet be possible in the future of the mod as SO asked me a while back to merge in a mod that apparently enables the generation of homogenized large armies a-la late Civ3 developments. I wanted to make sure the rest of the combat mod was considered into that mod before merging it in so perhaps eventually such blended armies may be possible but not via this option.

The bad thing about that is: if you have 3 "millions" sized troops, you can get a "billions" sized group. If you do this 3 times, you can have a "trillions" sized group. In theory, you will be able to do so at least in the medival era.
Keep in mind there are balance factors. Yes... theoretically this IS possible. And the resulting unit would indeed be rather powerful. BUT it would take FOREVER to heal so once whittled down, even in a strong healing city position it could be a long time before that unit sees full health again.

Additionally, very few unit types start at a greater size than Battalion. Therefore, let's say you start with a Longbowman unit (which begins as a Battalion.) You would need 3 of them to make a Forces sized unit. Then you would need 3 Forces sized units to make a Clan (9 Longbowman units). Then you would need 3 Clan sized units to make a Horde (27 Longbowman units). Then you would need 3 Horde Sized units to make a Multitudes (81 Longbowman units.) Then you would need 3 Multitudes sized units to make a Millions (243 Longbowman units.) Then you would need 3 Millions to make a Billions (729 Longbowman units.) Then you'd need 3 Billions to make a Trillions (2187 Longbowman units.)

(and 6561 Longbowman Units to achieve a Countless group is just... madness no?)

If you've achieved a Trillions Longbowman, sure you may have an awesomely powerful +120% strength and max hp unit. But consider how many you had to build to merge into that unit - 2187! If you could achieve that in the middle ages, you're already fairly dominant as far as world powers go, no?

And it's still not an invulnerable unit... there are a number of ways to knock down units on a percentage basis. If that were a Swordsman unit intended for city invasion, imagine the damage it would take upon attacking a well defended city or even just standing outside it. Surround and destroy and the soon to come intended promotions that help units to counter these strategies will also make it possible for smaller units to still compete effectively enough to at least severely wound. If that massive group dies... look at what's been lost - over two THOUSAND units! Talk about painting a bullseye on it's head eh?

Of course, this unit is also suffering from one major problem - it's defined as a longbowman still. Thus far weaker strength units that have a great deal of anti-archery bonuses will still be able to go toe to toe with it and have a chance at beating it.

Again, this degree of merging would mean the unit would heal at -120% rate so basically unless supported in healing, it really never would heal at all so all damage it takes is nearly permanent.

And then consider how the eventual poisoning of a unit could impact such a massive group!

All that and then consider the massive dedication it would take to put so many eggs into one giant basket... that's a LOT of production going into that beast of a unit!

I realize that without some good AI to support this it's going to enable the player to utilize the mechanism to some unfair advantage but the circumstances players find optimal to merge or split still have yet to be fully determined.
 
After my 1st look at this I thought: "Wow, this makes things complicated, needs much more micromanagement and prevents me even more from finishing a game in a timely manner." Thinking longer about it and reading all those other comments I see it somehow different (and more positive :) ).

  1. It is more micromanagement but it definitely puts the game to a new level. Congratulations to this well thought-out, highly sophisticated addition (saying this before I have tried it out myself).
  2. You have the option now to to replace many weak units by a few strong ones. This could even reduce micromanagement.
  3. I even get the feeling that the power of those huge troops (millions etc.) is weakened too much. It sounds like they might take 20, 30 or more turns to heal - that´s too much IMO.
  4. I see this as a good option to balance out situations where you have a strong empire but lack important military resources. If you don´t have iron then large troops with bronze weapons should be as strong as the smaller iron troops of your enemy.
  5. You might realize that I write only about the Group Volume effects. It is far more interesting to me than Combat Quality and Size. Combat Quality seems to be just a more sophisticated promotion system (which IMHO is already a bit over-complicated). And Size? Well this should already be expressed to some degree by the base combat value. In any case I don´t really see the need to introduce such a complicated system just for size.
  6. How does the Group Volume of a unit calculate into upgrade costs (would be fair to have it 3 times the one of the smaller unit)?
  7. How do support costs (or however the gold you need each turn for some units is named) calculate?

In any case, I am really looking forward to try this out, unfortunately it will take a while until I have time.
 
Thanks for the explainations TB!

As for the Promotions: Sad that they only keep promos all units have, otherwise it would have enabled a big new strategy layer how to promote your units. But this way it favours smaller sized armies, which is also good.

As for the Size: I wasn't aware they start at batallion (early units probably with less). Maybe the starting level of groupsizes could change with techs (for example, when you have food preservation, all troops starts with one level higher but costs 50%).

I thought they start at the Clan size, which is in the middle. Then you would only need "only" 350 longbowman for "trillions" and only 120 for "billions" which is rather easy to achive. And I wasn't complaining about to powerful units but over unrealistic amouts of soldiers (and therefore total population). And it is unrealistic that you need 3 mllion-sized armies to create a billion sized and then 3 billion-sized to create a trillion-sized. But that is mainly a problem with the names and can easily be changed. I think "trillions" is also countless ;)
 
i don't really like some of this ideas ,specially how they were done. here is my opinion ,maybe you find it usefull

1) combat quality:i agree with what other people have said :they are already covered by promotions .i think that if you done something about combat quality ,it shouldn't be with promotion, but just refer to the weapon status. after each combat there should be a chance that your weapon level decrease .these can be solve by the promotion call repair ,that get the weapon to his original level. imo the levels should be
5.perfect.it gives 5% strength bonus .1% to decrease level
4 excellent 5 % to decrease level
3good 10 % to decrease level
2 decent 15% to decrease level
1 poor -10% strength.5% to decrease
0 broken -25 strength

i don't know if is codable,but i think it would be much more interesting.basic units for example will start at level good, while elite at excellent or perfect
 
I even get the feeling that the power of those huge troops (millions etc.) is weakened too much. It sounds like they might take 20, 30 or more turns to heal - that´s too much IMO.
Possible of course but it's also so potentially imbalancing to allow such powerful units that they needed a severe counterbalance measure. I'm sure we'll see in-game if this statement proves true or understated. It's a stab at balancing anyhow.

You might realize that I write only about the Group Volume effects. It is far more interesting to me than Combat Quality and Size. Combat Quality seems to be just a more sophisticated promotion system (which IMHO is already a bit over-complicated).
Well... play with it and let me know if you still feel that way after a game.

This concept evolved from wanting to primarily do what I've done with size. Then I realized I needed to counterbalance the units with Group Volume. Then, when that wasn't sufficient, the apparent final counterbalance was Quality. See... I started with the idea of the +/-20% per category and after going through size and group, the missing element was made very obvious that it was quality - it really unveilled itself to me so I didn't go about setting this up with that initially in mind but it fit so well to bring almost all units back to the center 0% total Str and HP modifier that it could not be ignored as important.

And Size? Well this should already be expressed to some degree by the base combat value. In any case I don´t really see the need to introduce such a complicated system just for size.
I believe you'll have to see further installments of the Combat Mod to understand why it became important in the first place. The difference between a unit that's easily hit and less capable of hitting smaller foes and yet does greater damage when it does strike to compensate - and it's opposite when units become smaller - is going to have far greater consequences in terms of dynamics when equipments come into play. Furthermore, it was the initial need to find a way to enable very small units like songbirds and such to be taken down by a single strike that led to the thinking that revealed the need for this whole option, so again, it was the Size category I needed in the first place and everything else fell into place to balance the needs there.

See... previously, ALL units had 100 max hp and any given strike could only do at most something like 30 pts of damage. This was appropriate when we didn't have nearly insignificant combat capable units like some of our smaller animals in the game. But to make them more realistic opened up a whole world of potential to make all units more realistic. Interaction with soon to come distance vs hand to hand combat mechanisms (again optional) will be made all the more interesting.

Anyhow, Size won't require a great deal of consideration except that when the promos that support this option are developed some thought to unit sizes will be appropriate for players. For example, if you've got mostly Elephants and other mounted Large units coming at you it might be another way to enhance your units' abilities to fight those foes by giving them counteractive promos against larger size units. Generally these will be done by introducing promos that give modifiers based on the AMOUNT of size category differences to the unit taking the promo. Thus, a Medium sized unit such as any human foot soldier, with a promo that gains +10% Combat Modifier for each size category it's foe is greater than Medium, you'll be gaining 10% vs Horse units(Large) and 20% vs Elephants (Huge). Since Precision, Dodge and Damage Modifiers are being officially introduced into this option you can expect some promos specifically adjusting those values using size prerequisites as well.

How does the Group Volume of a unit calculate into upgrade costs (would be fair to have it 3 times the one of the smaller unit)?
Great question! 20%more expensive per volume shift upwards, Battalion is the 0% modifier point. It's more cost efficient to manage the larger group (1/5th more expensive while the unit is 3x the size) because central efforts to feed, clothe, and otherwise take care of the needs of the unit can be more efficiently delivered to larger groups.

How do support costs (or however the gold you need each turn for some units is named) calculate?
The mathematical mechanics on this new costmodifier tag this introduces to promotions and unit combats to enable this option is quite interesting in the first place. It actually adjusts the support unit count of one support unit by a percentage that totals to the nearest integer adjustment to the number of units supported. Thus 5 units with a -20% cost modifier equate to one less supported unit for the nation.

The way the support costs tally required it be programmed this way since, with the exception of the direct added cost adjustments units can incur (which gets modified as well btw), units don't individually report a support cost. They instead get tallied up and based on civics and traits and such are potentially supported for free. The total amount of units supported multiplies by the support cost itself as tallied by other more player wide factors. Anyhow... this was another reveal I wanted to wait to answer based on the questions posed rather than melting heads in the intro post.


In any case, I am really looking forward to try this out, unfortunately it will take a while until I have time.
Cool :D Hope you enjoy it! I should have one known bug fixed by then...

As for the Promotions: Sad that they only keep promos all units have, otherwise it would have enabled a big new strategy layer how to promote your units. But this way it favours smaller sized armies, which is also good.
Unfortunately it would be a gimpy and unfair strategy that would've led to needing to program the AI to exploit that strategy endlessly to gain tons of free promotions which would've multiplied turn times by an enormous factor. The fallout of that kind of decision would've been to make the whole option an epic fail. Not that I don't get what you're saying but the implications on that would've had a terrifying butterfly effect!

As for the Size: I wasn't aware they start at batallion (early units probably with less). Maybe the starting level of groupsizes could change with techs (for example, when you have food preservation, all troops starts with one level higher but costs 50%).
hmm... To some extent that's why I adjusted those from a standard of Company at the beginning of the game into Battalion later. If techs alone were to increase the base sizes, introducing units at higher size categories than the default, you'd see a lot of imbalance being introduced I think. Plus, in our modern era, we're tending to have smaller armies rather than larger ones. So at a point, army sizes tend to diminish rather than continuing to grow larger. It was easier to represent all this with the unit type's base size category subcombat itself. Techs, as they go, introduce new types anyhow at a rate faster than I'd think such an adjustment would be able to maintain with any great meaningfulness. Obviously, the longar a particular unit type has been around in play, like the Rennaissance with Sword units for example, would probably see greater sized groupings but mostly due to there being more of them anyhow and a need to fight fire (size mergings) with fire. Probably something I'll have to consider in the AI programming.

I thought they start at the Clan size, which is in the middle.
1) Wouldn't be historically accurate. I've tried to consider the average size of army units throughout history and consider them for some minor degree of accuracy.
2) Note that in all categories, the 5th level is the standard from which you obtain no modifier from that category. Size alone needed to exceed 10 because we have some interesting swarm units like locusts and nano clouds.

Then you would only need "only" 350 longbowman for "trillions" and only 120 for "billions" which is rather easy to achive. And I wasn't complaining about to powerful units but over unrealistic amouts of soldiers (and therefore total population).
Well... that's one of the big reasons I was zeroing out at Battalion right?

And it is unrealistic that you need 3 mllion-sized armies to create a billion sized and then 3 billion-sized to create a trillion-sized.
Yes, when you continue to group that's true but try to consider it in terms of the one group leading to the next and it does carry some mathematical honesty. It's a level of acceptable game 'abstraction' I felt.

But that is mainly a problem with the names and can easily be changed. I think "trillions" is also countless ;)
Sure... unless you're talking about massive galactic clashes right? lol I can somewhat agree but again, here at this extreme I'm happy to allow SOME abstraction.

i don't really like some of this ideas ,specially how they were done. here is my opinion ,maybe you find it usefull

1) combat quality:i agree with what other people have said :they are already covered by promotions .i think that if you done something about combat quality ,it shouldn't be with promotion, but just refer to the weapon status. after each combat there should be a chance that your weapon level decrease .these can be solve by the promotion call repair ,that get the weapon to his original level. imo the levels should be
5.perfect.it gives 5% strength bonus .1% to decrease level
4 excellent 5 % to decrease level
3good 10 % to decrease level
2 decent 15% to decrease level
1 poor -10% strength.5% to decrease
0 broken -25 strength

i don't know if is code-able,but i think it would be much more interesting.basic units for example will start at level good, while elite at excellent or perfect
Consider this to be one small fraction of the overall combat mod picture and I'm designing the overall picture to be a mix and matchable mod machine. Use what options you like. Equipment is definitely already going to be intricately covered by upcoming further Combat Mod work. This option is a companion for that effort so I wasn't going to step on the toes of that project plan here.

I don't blame anyone who finds catching the spirit of the intended meaning behind the Quality category difficult. Keep looking at examples and the purpose of its pattern may eventually emerge as clearly to you as it has for me.
 
i couldn't end my post yesterday so here is the rest
2 group volume:the way civ 4 combat works,i think that this is going to be really unbalance .more units is better than one .3 units( for example longbowman) against one will normally end with the victory of the three longbowmans. however the biggest the unit is,it would have even less chances of winning.really simple ,if you make a one trillion longbowmen, you will be losing 2187 longbowmens,a force that will always beat a one trillion longbowmen(in vanilla civ it only takes 30-40 warriors to defeat a tank) .imo it needs bigger bonus for higher levels.and maybe reduce to two the number of units needed for a conversion
3seems really good to me.the only thing i got to say is that once gunpowder units appear ,larger units can be more accurate but drop the extra strength. for example elephant gunners should be fairly accurate against normal size units and have more health than then,but be really difficult to evade a hit
ps:would you make something about unit formations? for example the phalanx was one of the most effective in acient times, and it was latter adapted in the 15th-16th century by pikemen
 
Thanks for your very insightful response, Thunderbrd!

Great question! 20%more expensive per volume shift upwards, Battalion is the 0% modifier point. It's more cost efficient to manage the larger group (1/5th more expensive while the unit is 3x the size) because central efforts to feed, clothe, and otherwise take care of the needs of the unit can be more efficiently delivered to larger groups.

Hm, that would mean you can save a lot of money by 1st pulling your units together, then upgrading them and getting the single units back again.
Example: I have 27 units sitting each in one of my core cities (could be dogs against spys). Times are peaceful. I want to promote them all which costs 100 gold each, giving 2700 gold in total. Now I make one super-unit out of all of them and upgrade it for a mere 160 gold. Looks like an exploit to me...


The mathematical mechanics on this new costmodifier tag this introduces to promotions and unit combats to enable this option is quite interesting in the first place. It actually adjusts the support unit count of one support unit by a percentage that totals to the nearest integer adjustment to the number of units supported. Thus 5 units with a -20% cost modifier equate to one less supported unit for the nation.

The way the support costs tally required it be programmed this way since, with the exception of the direct added cost adjustments units can incur (which gets modified as well btw), units don't individually report a support cost. They instead get tallied up and based on civics and traits and such are potentially supported for free. The total amount of units supported multiplies by the support cost itself as tallied by other more player wide factors. Anyhow... this was another reveal I wanted to wait to answer based on the questions posed rather than melting heads in the intro post.
So how do extra support costs count which you get for late-game units, like Battleships?

In general the strategy for me seems to be clear: In peacetime I will keep as few super-units as I can as this will save money. In war times I will divide them as necessary as it also seems to me that many smaller units might be stronger (just think of Surround and Destroy) and heal much quicker.
Will the AI understand how many single units your troops could provide when it calculates your strength? How is this represented in the military power comparison that you can see on the main screen?
 
i couldn't end my post yesterday so here is the rest
2 group volume:the way civ 4 combat works,i think that this is going to be really unbalance .more units is better than one .3 units( for example longbowman) against one will normally end with the victory of the three longbowmans. however the biggest the unit is,it would have even less chances of winning.really simple ,if you make a one trillion longbowmen, you will be losing 2187 longbowmens,a force that will always beat a one trillion longbowmen(in vanilla civ it only takes 30-40 warriors to defeat a tank) .imo it needs bigger bonus for higher levels.and maybe reduce to two the number of units needed for a conversion
The combat mechanism greatly favors higher strength. The tweaks to the combat mechanism that weakens units as they are damaged now makes those 30-40 warriors much less likely to be able to take down that tank unless a number of them get lucky enough to deal some damage at the beginning of combat when they can still deal maximum damage. In vanilla civ, if the unit was injured during battle it wouldn't weaken so just before it died it would still be fighting at the same degree of effectiveness as it began the combat with. Now round by round the unit strength adjusts as it does in vanilla after combat is fully tallied and the unit's hp loss is taken into consideration for the next battle entirely. Mind, this also means the tank that takes those lucky hits early on will not last nearly as long as one that holds out against injury for the first attacks.

Also, when a smaller group unit goes to fight a larger one and loses as a result of the difference, that unit is dead for good and while it may have injured the larger unit, only the larger can recover it's losses and live to fight again another day. The smaller one is eliminated and represents real loss that cannot thereafter be used in any way. So if you throw a hundred normal sized units up against a 'millions' grouped unit of similar power and you can't take it down, even if only one more unit would've done the trick, that larger one will have harvested a LOT of XP (and GG pts) and will eventually recover to be able to take down a huge number of units later.

I'm playtesting this myself too and looking to make sure my evaluations are correct so you could be right but to modify by more than 20% would set it completely out of whack with it's original intention which was to be one of the triad of balance points that enables me to blend this option in with the standard mod's unit definitions without having to go redefining everything about those units just for this option. The UnitCombats themselves being active only for this option do that trick in a very efficient manner and all keep each other in balance with the original definitions of the unit (for the great majority of units anyhow. Those that are thrown off the initial definition were those I felt would benefit from the adjustment anyhow.)

So if you are right that either splitting or merging becomes an outright superior option to the other and it goes beyond situational or strategic preference then it isn't in the perfect balance I seek to strike and I'll have to make adjustments.

3seems really good to me.the only thing i got to say is that once gunpowder units appear ,larger units can be more accurate but drop the extra strength. for example elephant gunners should be fairly accurate against normal size units and have more health than then,but be really difficult to evade a hit
Under the Equipment system, the weapons used will play the largest role in Precision, Puncture and Damage Modifiers. Skill promos will also play a factor, particularly in enhancing Dodge values. So by the time Mechs role out, for example, their advanced targeting weapons and abilities will more than compensate for their size. These modifiers based on size are primarily a base upon which many other factors will eventually build upon.

ps:would you make something about unit formations? for example the phalanx was one of the most effective in acient times, and it was latter adapted in the 15th-16th century by pikemen
Formations has been brought up in earlier Combat Mod discussions and as a result are something I suspect will be introduced as a strategic setting promotion mechanism. The intention there is that every unit will have the ability to pick and maintain one strategic setting but that setting can be changed fairly easily (some settings only available with skill based promo or combat class granting access). It would be a promotion but the promotion would not be obtained by any current means - rather, it's free but they can only maintain one. A mission would enable the selection of a differing one.

That will certainly be a cool combat mod project but development of that project is quite a ways off since it was considered much later than many others that are waiting in line before it to come to pass.
 
IMO merging limits should be unlocked by techs.

I'd considered this but production potential is already somewhat limited by this factor as well so I'm thinking that limitation is already somewhat built in. I'm observing to see if it becomes necessary to place such a tech limit though. You may be right.
 
In general the strategy for me seems to be clear: In peacetime I will keep as few super-units as I can as this will save money. In war times I will divide them as necessary as it also seems to me that many smaller units might be stronger (just think of Surround and Destroy) and heal much quicker.

Which would be excactly contrary to history.
 
Hm, that would mean you can save a lot of money by 1st pulling your units together, then upgrading them and getting the single units back again.
Example: I have 27 units sitting each in one of my core cities (could be dogs against spys). Times are peaceful. I want to promote them all which costs 100 gold each, giving 2700 gold in total. Now I make one super-unit out of all of them and upgrade it for a mere 160 gold. Looks like an exploit to me...
Sorry I didn't see your post there until Faustmouse started quoting it... lol.

That is a valid observation of an oversight I had in explaining the system. Size and Quality factors will modify upgrade costs by 20% per shift as well. This does make it slightly cheaper to group them before upgrading but not by ALL that much. The rationale would be that it is easier to assembly line style train and update a great number of similar troops at once - one large project is more efficient than many small ones. I suppose I should have the AI consider this for an easy exploit against players that don't catch on to the mathematical loophole. Thanks for bringing that to my attention again.

So how do extra support costs count which you get for late-game units, like Battleships?
Each gold is fractionalized for an offset modifier to this added expense. This is, in simple terms, considered into the equation.

In general the strategy for me seems to be clear: In peacetime I will keep as few super-units as I can as this will save money. In war times I will divide them as necessary as it also seems to me that many smaller units might be stronger (just think of Surround and Destroy) and heal much quicker.
That's one fair and gold cost efficient approach. Not sure why Faustmouse finds this against historical accuracy... If you look at modern military bases you'll see entire battalions organized on that base to be housed and trained and commanded from the same immediate regional locale. Then in actual warfare they can divide down to as far as a Company level for localized strategies. It really depends on a number of factors... the type of terrain being a big one. If fighting on an open plain, many times it's the larger massive armies that will clash on the field. I may yet generate some base modifiers and not JUST promotions to accommodate this variation in optimal strategic approaches.

However, I think what you'll find is that the preference really comes down to whether you want to get the most firepower out of your units at the cost of being willing to take numerous casualties (the split approach) VS some overall army power sacrifice for the opportunity to potentially minimize casualties. Yes, 3 -1 size cat units can probably overwhelm 1 zeroed out size cat unit but they will likely have to lose the first one or two units in that fight so the loss in terms of unit power is permanent. Whereas 1 zeroed out size cat unit vs 1 zeroed out size cat unit... if you win you've lost no amount of unit power permanently and you'll heal those 1/3-2/3ds rather than losing them permanently.

Furthermore, I think that strategically, it would depend a lot on whether defending or attacking as to which grouping is optimal. Ever gotten frustrated with that one powerful head city defender that just won't seem to take any damage because it's that much stronger due to all it's modifiers than the units you're sacrificing to it? Even with Collateral you just can't seem to take this guy down a peg? All the more likely with a greater group sized unit.

With surround and destroy, it also matters how strong the supporting units are against the unit under attack as to how much support they really are able to offer. If they don't compare very favorably simply because they are weakened by the splitting then the support they offer by surrounding is far less significant than it might otherwise seem.

However, a many split unit would be a great way to protect most of the military strength against collateral as any siege causing collateral to the stack will only do so to a limited number of units in that stack. You can protect a good number by splitting them up (scattering to avoid being grouped together in the zones of impact basically - makes sense.)

There's really a lot of things to consider I think you'll find and as more Combat Mod options come into play it will get even deeper yet.

Will the AI understand how many single units your troops could provide when it calculates your strength? How is this represented in the military power comparison that you can see on the main screen?
National Power tallies is one area I did not mess with and will indeed most likely be a little tweaked and needing some updating in the further polishing of this option. That IS probably a fairly glaring flaw. Again, I'd thought of it but in this case I admit to not having addressed it - it kinda fell into the category of thoughts formulating regarding AI considerations. I've been garnering some insights over the last few days as to how I can go about creating an AI structure for this option that could provide for a model for future AI developments in other areas. Some interesting stuff is developing on the horizon there I think.

However, for now, I'm shifting focus as I await further feedback, discussions and reflections here, to try to smooth out some long standing bugs and annoyances with the mod as a whole in preparation for a version release. Soon as I get past that I'll return to further develop this option with all the gathered feedback in mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom