C2C Combat Mod Introduction - Step I (SubCombat Classes)

The link currently appears to work. And that sounds like a great set of solutions. But I don't have the python skill to implement it. Would you be willing to help with setting that up?

I am never confident about screens. Lets face it screens are newfangled things that weren't around when I was a young programmer and I was spoiled by the original Visual Basic:cool:

I have two pedia screens on my to do list one page for routes and another better hero page.
 
First, here's a compilation of all suggestions made in this thread. Some of these are redundant, but here they are for completeness.
Spoiler :
Size
Spoiler :
Small
Medium
Large
Huge
Fine
Diminutive
Tiny
Gargantuan
Colossal


Animal Types
Spoiler :

Animal Appetites
Spoiler :
Predator
Herbivore
Omnivore


Animal Orders
Spoiler :
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fish
Arthropods
Insects
Invertebrates



Animal Species
Spoiler :
Hominid
Feline
Ursine
Canine
Pachyderm
Dromedary
Rodent
Equine
Bovine
Serpent
Lizard
Shelled Reptile
Swarm
Mutated Creatures
Human
Arachnids
Crustaceans
Insects
Mollusks
Boney Fish
Cartilage Fish
Frogs
Salamanders
Crocodilians
Turtles
Snakes
Corvids
Gamebirds
Kingfishers
Parrots
Penguins
Pigeons
Raptors
Ratites
Seabirds
Songbirds
Waterfowl
Anteaters
Carnivores
Bears
Raccoons
Mustelidae
Hyena
Pinniped
Cetaceans
Lagomorphs
Marsupials
Monotremes
Primates
Sirenia
Ungulates


Combat Types
Spoiler :
Combat Approach
Spoiler :
Footman
Operated Construct
Vehicle
Mounted
Martial Artist
Helicopter
Wheeled
Recon
Diesel Ships
Wooden Chip
City Garrison


Combat Method
Spoiler :
Melee
Archery
Gunpowder
Throwing
Healer
Automaton
Warship
Interceptor
Submersible
Transport
Hunter


Deeper Definition
Spoiler :
Civilian
Scoundrel
Law Enforcement
Mercenary
Pirate
Criminal
City Attack Siege
City Defense Siege
Field Attack Siege
Field Defense Siege


Special Attack Forms
Spoiler :
Fire Wielding
Poison Using


Weapon Categories
Spoiler :
Club
Spiked Club
Mace
Flail
Small Blades
Throwing Knives
One-Handed Blades
Two-Handed Blades
Dual One-Handed Blades
Blowgun
Light Crossbow
Heavy Crossbow
Repeating Crossbow
Sling
Shortbow
Longbow
Javelins
Throwing Axes
Throwing Rocks
One-Handed Axe
Two-Handed Axe
Short Spear
Long Spear
Advanced Polearm
Staff
Ballista
Flung Boulders
Launched Fireworks
Fist Fighter
Boomerang
Lance
Bow
Crossbow
Composite Bows



Armors
Spoiler :
Light Natural
Medium Natural
Heavy Natural
Light
Medium
Heavy
Ultra Heavy
Armorless
Light Leather Armor
Heavy Leather Armor
Bamboo Armor
Light Hauberk
Heavy Hauberk
Light Plate Armor
Heavy Plate Armor
Kevlar Armor
Nanomaterial Armor
Nanobotic Armor
Padded Armor
Leather Armor
Studded Leather Armor
Chain Shirt Armor
Cord Armor
Bone Armor
Ashigaru Armor
Leather Scale
Hide Armor
Scale Mail Armor
Chainmail Armor
Breastplate Armor
Dhenuka Armor
Brigandine Armor
Partial Armor
Lamellar Armor
Splint Armor
Banded Mail Armor
Half-Plate Armor
Full Plate Armor
Great Armor


Shields
Spoiler :
Bucklers
Small
Large
Tower
Small Wooden
Small Metal
Large Wooden
Large Metal
Kappa Shell
Light
Heavy


Armor Extras
Spoiler :
Armor Spikes
Gauntlets
Shield Spikes
Chahar-Aina
Dastana
Tessen


Metals
Spoiler :
Copper
Bronze
Iron


Mounts and Animals
Spoiler :
Pack Mule
Pack Llama
Light Horse
Heavy Horse
Horse
Camel


Accessories
Spoiler :
Musical Instruments



Unless I am mistaken about how the coding of SubCombat Classes work, more can be added in the future as modders need them without too much effort. So we should definitely define the SCCs that we need currently and probably define ones that we think we might need or want in the future so that when future projects get around to coming to life they have these tags already waiting for them.

Here are my thoughts on SCCs. If I have any technical things about possible implementation wrong please let me know

Any time we would need to apply a promotion set or some other effect to a subgroup of units, we would be well served by a SCC. For size categories fewer is better I think, maybe four max. I think for the Weapon, Armor, Shield, and Accessories categories, and perhaps the Mounts category (depending on if we want to think of Mounts as equipment) we just want the types that could wield the same equipment. So maybe a Heavy Shields SCC would allow the members to use heavier shield equipment, whereas a Light Shields SCC would restrict the members to lighter shield equipment. Not sure about Metals. Perhaps we could have a Copper Wielder SCC that would limit early units from using equipment made from more advanced metals. Not sure that is necessary because if you have an early unit still around in an advanced age realistically they would have traded their bronze weapons for iron weapons and since their combat strength would still be the same you'd still want to upgrade or get more advanced troops. Deeper Definition and Special Attacks are important to think about and decide which categories for Deeper Definition do we want. The ones listed above are a sample, and not enough most likely. We also must decide what types of special attacks we want to use on units.

I have begun looking at Animals first, to help make our animals more distinctive. The first time a player will see these new combat promotions for the most part will be in the animal kingdom. Later they will be able to transfer their experience fighting these tactics while hunting to their own troop formations and fighting styles.

Pursuit - This should go to fast predators who could follow retreating prey. Fast Cats, Fast Canines, Fast Sharks. Later this can go to fast mounted or fast vehicles. This could be done with SCCs of Fast Cats and Fast Canines or with a combination of two SCCs each Fast and Cats for one group and Fast and Canines for the other group. I would include Cheetahs, Tigers, and Lions in Fast Cats and Wolves and Dire Wolves in Fast Canines, but perhaps others would be appropriate as well.

Withdrawal/Early Withdrawal - If I'm understanding this one correctly this should go to fast predators who have the speed to strike quickly and then retreat to safety and fast prey that would have the speed and the desire to quickly flee. Raptors, Poisonous Snakes, and maybe Pouncing Cats (Jaguars, Panthers, Leopards) would go in the first group and Fast Herd Animals (Gazelle, Zebras, Gemsbok, etc.) and Fast Running Birds (Ostrich, Emu, etc.) would go in the second group.

Armor - Animals with thick skin, hard plating, or shells would go in this category, perhaps defensively spike animals such as porcupines would go in this category too. Thick Skinned, Hard Plated, Shelled, Spiked SCCs might work for the animal kingdom.

Puncture - Animals with sharp claws, sharp teeth, sharp horns or antlers. Sharp Clawed, Sharp Teethed, Sharp Horned, for example.

Dig In - Animals that burrow themselves into the ground or otherwise build defensive positions for themselves. Aardvarks will quickly dig themselves a protective hole when threatened, perhaps badgers would have this promotion as well.

Overrun - Animals that will charge in with reckless abandon relying on their overpowering strength to break their opponent's defenses. Pachyderms, Charging Herd Animals (Water Buffalo, Moose, Bison, for example).

Repel/Fortified Repel/Early Repel - Animals that eliminate the attackers willpower to keep fighting. The most obvious would be the Skunk, but there might be others.

Knockback/Early Knockback - Animals with an initial ferocious strike, but who are unable to swiftly pursue their opponents. Bears, Pachyderms, not sure who else.

Unyielding - Animals which will not back down and not flee, who will stand their ground. Aggressive Weasels (Badgers), Bears, Pachyderms, Whales, Defensive Herd Animals (Musk Oxen, Water Buffalo, Bison)

Surround - Animals with pack mentalities. Pack Canines (Wolves, Dire Wolves, Hyenas)

Dynamic Defense - Animals that don't care about being surrounded. Shelled Animals (Tortoises), Spiked Animals (Hedgehogs, Porcupines), Defensive Herd Animals (Bison, Water Buffalo, Musk Oxen)

Equipment - I don't think any animals will need equipment, but perhaps war dogs or something similar might have equipment to help them in battle.

Poison Using - Poisonous Snakes (Puff Adder, Viper, Cobra), Poisonous Amphibians (Poison Dart Frog), Poisonous Lizards (Komodo Dragon), Poisonous Fish (Stingray). Puff Adders, Vipers, and Cobras are extremely poisonous if they bite you, and while modern medicine can treat all of them if medical care is obtained, for many thousands of years they were just death to be bitten, some slower deaths than others. Perhaps with Herbal Medicines they might be made less certain death and more probably death. Future advances would make them less and less likely to result in death. The Poison Dart Frog won't poison you unless you mishandle it or attempt to eat it (BTW, you shouldn't get any food bonus when you slaughter a Poison Dart Frog), but you should be able to use them with a poison crafter building to start poisoning your weapons like jungle tribes did. It used to be thought that Komodo Dragons were not technically poisoning you when they bit you, but that their saliva contained such potent bacteria that often a bite resulted in blood poisoning and death. However, that has recently been found to be false and they do produce a venom (see article) that lowers blood pressure and weakens victims and can kill them if not treated. In fact Iguanas and Monitor lizards are also venomous but are rarely dangerous to humans. Stingrays while they are venomous, their venom usually doesn't result in human death.

In summary, from the Animal Kingdom we probably at least want the following SCCs:

Major Categories
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Invertebrates
Amphibians
Fish
Whales
Sharks
Bears
Cats
Canines
Pachyderms
Running Birds
Raptors
Herd Animals
Weasels
Pack Animals

Terrain-Related
Water Animals
Land Animals

Speed
Fast
Slow

Size
Small
Large

Attack/Defense Subgroups
Venomous/Poisonous
Defensive
Pouncing
Aggressive
Shelled
Spiked
Thick Skinned
Hard Plated
Sharp Clawed
Sharp Teethed
Sharp Horned
Burrowing
Charging
Repelling
 
Unless I am mistaken about how the coding of SubCombat Classes work, more can be added in the future as modders need them without too much effort.
There's a link in the modder's documentation thread that leads to a clear tutorial on how to create a new combat class. There's about 5 steps or so but if done procedurally its very easy.

For size categories fewer is better I think, maybe four max.
Small, Medium, Large, Huge... most would fall into this until late game when we'd have Gigantic machines of war! Some birds and other animals could be smaller than the Small category but maybe only by one step otherwise its too insignificant. Don't think we'll be having individual insect units...

So maybe a Heavy Shields SCC would allow the members to use heavier shield equipment, whereas a Light Shields SCC would restrict the members to lighter shield equipment.
We shouldn't need too great a specificity to equipment categories. Keeping it FAIRLY basic is good because it allows us to have some choices as players as to what kinds of equipments we want our units to employ. Get too specific and we start losing the ability to generate interesting choices. This example is a good one. Shields, for example, shouldn't be much further defined in Combat Class categories than Light, Heavy, Tower. If you want wooden versions, shell versions, etc... should be at the option of the player. I can later explain more on how such options can be programmed via use of the same LinePriority in the same PromotionLine.

Not sure about Metals.
I believe metals should not be Combat Class categories because there's no need to restrict units to one or another metal - metal is more of a quality stage.

Fast Cats, Fast Canines, Fast Sharks.
Sadly, one limitation we face here is that most tag uses cannot specify more than one category. Thus if Fast and Slow were categories, and Felines, Canines, Mounted, etc... were another, we can't give a combat modifier against Fast Felines. We could give a modifier vs Fast OR Felines but not the specified combination of the two. This does complicate things a little. Promotion access, however, can specify multiple categories, yes.

Nevertheless, such Fast and Slow CCs could be useful and we could easily give pursuit access to Fast alone an it'd probably fit. Even if most Canine units were not considered Fast, which they could be I suppose, Pursuit could also be a special access to Canines as they can track by scent.

If I'm understanding this one correctly this should go to fast predators who have the speed to strike quickly and then retreat to safety and fast prey that would have the speed and the desire to quickly flee. Raptors, Poisonous Snakes, and maybe Pouncing Cats (Jaguars, Panthers, Leopards) would go in the first group and Fast Herd Animals (Gazelle, Zebras, Gemsbok, etc.) and Fast Running Birds (Ostrich, Emu, etc.) would go in the second group.
Let's not forget Snakes in this category! Strike then immediately get away to let the poison do its job.

The second group could be simplified for this sort of access into a 'Skittish' SCC so that we don't get too caught up in Combat Class combinations as mentioned above.

Armor - Animals with thick skin, hard plating, or shells would go in this category, perhaps defensively spike animals such as porcupines would go in this category too. Thick Skinned, Hard Plated, Shelled, Spiked SCCs might work for the animal kingdom.
Sounds right to me.

Sharp Clawed, Sharp Teethed, Sharp Horned, for example.
Sounds right here too. Actually, as I review, its all pretty much spot on. Except I do have a few things to say about this one:

Dynamic Defense - Animals that don't care about being surrounded. Shelled Animals (Tortoises), Spiked Animals (Hedgehogs, Porcupines), Defensive Herd Animals (Bison, Water Buffalo, Musk Oxen)
Shelled Animals would rely on their armor but could still be penalized for being surrounded. Spiked, yes, correct, good example of Dynamic Defense. Herd Animals that pack into a circle to defend themselves, great example of DD!

But there's also those that are FAST to react to those things behind them. Moose, for example, wouldn't have a perfect Dynamic Defense as they do fall to packs of wolves, but their ability to hold off those packs is pretty epic with those big wide horns being adapted for defense in just that sort of situation. There's an overlooked category in this but what to term it? Or could it just be that some abilities, like DD, also have some special access given, as in the case of the Canine example above?

Attack/Defense Subgroups
Venomous/Poisonous
Defensive
Pouncing
Aggressive
Shelled
Spiked
Thick Skinned
Hard Plated
Sharp Clawed
Sharp Teethed
Sharp Horned
Burrowing
Charging
Repelling
Term-wise, Aggressive is also a Trait and has Promotions to back that Trait so we need a differing term there to avoid confusion. Perhaps, Reckless?


Ok, notes on the initially posted list:
  • I believe Hydro's convinced me that Animal Appetites would be an unnecessary category. Particularly with the added concepts you've brought forward that help to give it better definition what I was looking for there.
  • I also liked Hydro's animal taxonomy categorizations on the last page. Unless necessary for a project, the most intricate categories he mentioned are probably not important to define but it gives us a plan on how to further split things if needbe and if we start with the next layer up, we'd be right about on target for numerous combat (and more) modifiers to interact with.
  • Combat Types: I like the breakdown there. However, there's a fundamental split I'd like to see take place with Civilian VS Combatant VS Natural, which, although it only contains three CCs should be somewhat of its own category. Civilians would be rarely or unsuitably trained for actual warfare, Combatant would be trained for war, Natural would be a unit that, while untrained, operates on instincts that make it effective in battle.
    Also... A Garrisoneer Combat Class could be useful to make wide determinations regarding what should gain access to City Defense stuff.
  • Special Attack forms will widen as later era's are reached - Electricity Wielding for example. But for now... this is good.
  • Weapon Categories - While this is probably a fairly good list, I have a few things yet to do with weapon coding that may end up tweaking some of the one-handed vs two-handed considerations so we can ignore this anyhow while working on animals I think.
  • Armor - Most of those probably don't need to be categories, just unique options within categories. Keeping this list whittled down to more generalizations would be good.
  • Armor Extras - May not be necessary as CCs. We can probably make these more into Equipment promotion lines that have some interesting forms of access that aren't purely driven by Combat Class guidelines.
  • Animals - This list will have widened a bit and the worker thread recent discussions could provide a good resource for that list. 'Animal type' Assisted sounds like a good set of subcombats. The reason for them to be SCCs would be so that we could offer such animal assisted unit types some quality variations from Breeding based Equipment promos. 'Animal type' Mounted would also be much the same.
So with these in mind, would it be possible to generate an edited spreadsheet list of currently planned new combat classes so we can tweak that list? Google Docs could be useful for that so we can all come in and make direct notes on various listings.


On a side note: it suddenly occurred to me that we should rate combat classes according to their specificity. Give them a hierarchy that declares a generic commonality of frequency. This could then play into the AI. For example, when the ai selects a promotion, it won't see the value of combat classes as being any different, thus if we had a Bird Hunter Promotion that gave +25% Combat Modifier vs Birds, it would compare the same as it would to Shock (+25% vs Melee) even though Birds are far less common than Melee units in general.

So if I add a new tag to the Combat Class definitions so we can rate these, it could be very useful to generate AI evaluation modifiers from. Huh... Was that the main thing you were trying to point at earlier ls612?


@All: Please welcome SilentConfusion as our team's newest contributor. He's offered to assist SO and I on some tasks and according to his interests, I asked for him to help me begin to get the ball rolling on this loose end.
 
[...]

So with these in mind, would it be possible to generate an edited spreadsheet list of currently planned new combat classes so we can tweak that list? Google Docs could be useful for that so we can all come in and make direct notes on various listings.

I have created a public Google Spreadsheet you can access with the planned new SubCombat Classes (link). It's empty at the moment, but I'll populate it today with the ones we've thought of here and we can change it from there. It is public so as a team we can all change it. We can also use history to revert to previous versions in case good stuff gets accidentally deleted. The second tab is meant for notes from anyone on any aspect of SubCombat Class design or implementation.

@All: Please welcome SilentConfusion as our team's newest contributor. He's offered to assist SO and I on some tasks and according to his interests, I asked for him to help me begin to get the ball rolling on this loose end.

I understand that this Combat Mod stuff isn't as urgent as all of the stuff for V29 release, so to all of you who are squashing bugs save these thoughts on the Combat Mod in the back of your mind for later. I have been reporting what bugs I have come across in the C2C Bug Subforum, and as I learn more I'll be able to help you all squash bugs. I am interested in the Combat Mod stuff and will do my part to keep that going so that it can eventually be in a finished release (whenever that will be).

To others who need little tasks done that are important but just not getting done because of other more important things, feel free to PM me with details and I'll see what I can do. I'm working on learning graphics and buttons, and potentially animations later so that someday our animals will actually move when they attack us. I am familiar with and have reading proficiency but not writing proficiency in both XML and Python.
 
Poison Using - Poisonous Snakes (Puff Adder, Viper, Cobra), Poisonous Amphibians (Poison Dart Frog), Poisonous Lizards (Komodo Dragon), Poisonous Fish (Stingray). Puff Adders, Vipers, and Cobras are extremely poisonous if they bite you, and while modern medicine can treat all of them if medical care is obtained, for many thousands of years they were just death to be bitten, some slower deaths than others. Perhaps with Herbal Medicines they might be made less certain death and more probably death. Future advances would make them less and less likely to result in death. The Poison Dart Frog won't poison you unless you mishandle it or attempt to eat it (BTW, you shouldn't get any food bonus when you slaughter a Poison Dart Frog), but you should be able to use them with a poison crafter building to start poisoning your weapons like jungle tribes did. It used to be thought that Komodo Dragons were not technically poisoning you when they bit you, but that their saliva contained such potent bacteria that often a bite resulted in blood poisoning and death. However, that has recently been found to be false and they do produce a venom (see article) that lowers blood pressure and weakens victims and can kill them if not treated. In fact Iguanas and Monitor lizards are also venomous but are rarely dangerous to humans. Stingrays while they are venomous, their venom usually doesn't result in human death.

Don't forget: Spiders, Shellfish (eg. Cone Shell), jellyfish and other marine invertebrates (eg. Blue-ringed Octopus). I don't suppose these deserve to occur as 'units', but they can all probably be used as sources of poison with some appropriate tech.

Closely related - not sure if you have disease causing insects - I think you have mosquitos but there are heaps of others.

ETA: Platypuses are also poisonous btw, although I don't know whether their poison has ever been dangerous (or useful :devil:) to humans.
 
I'm going to ask for some help here, and since SilentConfusion seems to have gone AWOL (though if you'd like to return to help here SC, I'd love to have ya back!) I've got a void of assistance on a project that could use a bit.

At this point in time, and I'm addressing the whole of those who read and follow the C2C forum and would like to see this come together sooner than later, the first step to begin true implementation of the combat mod would be sorting out the extra unit combats.

I've been thinking of adding a unitcombatcategory class that can keep them a bit more organized, even structured somewhat like a tree, where units can really only have one type per category though not all categories must be filled for all units.

Hydro, I know you are very good with charts and graphs and spreadsheets and such. And you've got a very solid idea about how to structure the animal unit combats which I fully support. You get what I'm attempting to do here so if you can get a ball rolling with a spreadsheet document or some way to organize all these ideas, we can review and ping for a bit and soon have the first stage complete, planning.

Then we, hopefully with some fresh blood inspired to help out, move into actually defining the extra unit combats and then applying them to base unit definitions.


@AIAndy: We're going to be needing ways to implement modifiers and effects based on multiple combat definitions and even being able to specify NOT applicable against certain combat classes while being applicable towards one or more others. How do you feel is the best and most efficient way to achieve this on a fairly large scale? Is that what we could achieve with the Effects system you've brought up? Or is this even easier than that, a matter of taking combat type effect based tags and converting them to something more like the expression system in application?
 
May as well. I was checking in on it frequently earlier, though it could use some restructuring of the documentation to build it more like a tree, if you follow what I mean.
 
Ok. Armors themselves wouldn't probably need to be combat classes but that's some good top down planning methodology being employed there and I know the charts from which you're deriving those ;) The categories you're placing them under is where the Combat Class would be defined and would be ok to stop.

I added a line there for you, an open ended question that you'd be far better equipped to consider than myself. Buildings will be needed to be tagged to specifically open up access to the equipment in a given location. Therefore, I put a line in there so the specific building that gives access to these armors could be considered. No need to fill them in right away, just a reminder that's a part of the planning process.

There's another element that could be considered there too and that's iLinePriority.

I'll go into some detail here and I've provided an example of this in the chart.

All armors you've listed would be categorized under one promotion line that would be then bonded to the combat class of that armor, thus all the light armors would be part of the light armor promotion line. Those units that have the Light Armor Combat Class would have access to this line and only those units would ever be assigned these armors. (Generally this means that by design, no unit should have two types of Armor Combat Classes - and this is possible to ensure.)

Then the iLinePriority defines what is automatically superior to another form of armor, and what is equal yet different (same value.) When a unit with the Light Armor Combat Class moves into a city that's offering a better (higher iLinePriority) armor than what its currently wearing, it will automatically give that improved armor to the unit if the unit spends a round in that city (and the city isn't in anarchy or an opponent's nation.)

Coming from D&D you may be compelled to think of the heavier armor as being automatically superior to the lighter armor, such as to say that we might be tempted to make Studded Leather a step up from Leather. BUT that's not necessarily the case with an appropriate establishment of iLinePriority. Studded Leather is heavier and a little more impeding, thus it may hinder the Dodge ability a bit more than Leather does, despite giving a little more actual Armor protection. Thus they COULD be considered the same iLinePriority in that neither is superior to the other, but they are different in how they balance out.

So, for example, if you have a unit that specializes in using Dodge abilities you'd want the Leather on that unit but if you have a unit that sacrifices Dodge in other ways and would prefer the security of simply resisting the damage they are more likely to take, you'd want that unit to pick up the Studded Leather instead.

If two armors of an equal iLinePriority are being offered to a unit that qualifies for both while the unit is in the city, the unit gains a mission button that allows him to switch (for free both in action and in cost) to the equal but different selection.

So there's 3 considerations to coming up with the line priority of a particular defined armor equipment promotion. The 3 considerations are: Type, Workmanship, and Material.

We rate the type of armor by its form, such as the difference between Studded Leather and Leather.

Thus some armors in, say, the 'Light' category would be deemed 'Lesser' such as perhaps Bark, Padded, and Bone, armors that can be fashioned from extraordinarily common but sub-par armor materials as a basis, thus contributes to the total iLinePriority 0. And some armors in the same category would be deemed 'Common' such as perhaps Leather, Studded Leather, Chain Shirt, Bamboo and would thus be contributing iLinePriority of 1. Then you'd have 'Prestige Armors' which should be very hard to qualify for (culturally unique or difficult to obtain resources, perhaps the use of animals to autobuild buildings that grant them) such as Rattan, Silk, Cord, Ashigaru, Leather Scale. These would contribute to the total iLinePriority 2.


Then, considering the workmanship is usually a matter of adding another tech degree. Wonders and/or Great Engineer generated buildings can push things to the highest levels of quality. You might get a Great Engineer to build a special building that provides 'Masterwork Light Armors'. I feel I previously suggested too many degrees of quality... 3 is probably sufficient: Crude, Standard, and Masterwork. Quality would thus contribute 0-3 to the iLinePriority total depending on the level, Crude (0), Standard (1) or Masterwork (2).

Then the particular material gets factored in. This forms the base. You have Chain Shirts in that category with differing listed materials, Copper, Bronze, Iron (would not steel be in here too even though true industrial steel was developed during the industrial age?) When you find the 'middle ground' on materials you can then add that middle baseline to all non-varying material armors.

So for example: Copper = 0, Bronze = 1, Iron = 2, you can then add 1 to all the rest of the armors as a base from material and only the amount of the material as rated to the armors that have variable materials.

Thus you end up with the example I left in the spreadsheet.

Anyhow... does this make sense? For the most part, weapons and shields would operate under similar principles.

Oh... and I'm only bringing this up to state intentions, not necessarily what we should be working out the details on right now so much as getting the proposed unitcombats organized. Just sharing my thoughts is all. Thanks again for your help!
 
@Thunderbrd

Ok. Armors themselves wouldn't probably need to be combat classes but that's some good top down planning methodology being employed there and I know the charts from which you're deriving those The categories you're placing them under is where the Combat Class would be defined and would be ok to stop.

Yeah they are based on D&D but also mixed in with my own stuff. I have written some of this down before in posts so I was trying to collect them all up into that document. For instance in one post I listed all armors with their enabled techs.

I realize the armors would be more of a promotion than a combat class. Which is why i still separated them into Light, Medium and Heavy for the early era armors. I am not sure if we need a Massive Armor category. But Modern and possibly beyond we would need. Not to mention stuff for siege, tanks and mechs.

I added a line there for you, an open ended question that you'd be far better equipped to consider than myself. Buildings will be needed to be tagged to specifically open up access to the equipment in a given location. Therefore, I put a line in there so the specific building that gives access to these armors could be considered. No need to fill them in right away, just a reminder that's a part of the planning process.

I also am adding a column for what combat class can wear it. Such as Melee or Archery or Recon or Hunter. Thieves would be like D&D rogues and be very limited in what they can wear. Likewise Archery cannot have a bunch of armors, especially the Heavy ones.

Then the iLinePriority defines what is automatically superior to another form of armor, and what is equal yet different (same value.) When a unit with the Light Armor Combat Class moves into a city that's offering a better (higher iLinePriority) armor than what its currently wearing, it will automatically give that improved armor to the unit if the unit spends a round in that city (and the city isn't in anarchy or an opponent's nation.)

Like I said your iLinePriority also has to account for what type of unit is using it. Thus the best for a Melee unit is not best for an Archery unit. Likewise a nation may not have access to say Iron and can only make Copper or Bronze based metal armors. Thus only getting the best in what they have available and not necessarily the best they technology could get.

So there's 3 considerations to coming up with the line priority of a particular defined armor equipment promotion. The 3 considerations are: Type, Workmanship, and Material.

Yes. Exactly. One may have the technology to get access to a "Type" and even the infrastructure to build the "Workmanship", but may not have the "Material". In short ...

- Workmanship = Buildings
- Material = Resource

I was also thinking that perhaps some wonders could let you gain access higher quality armor/weapons and/or materials. Such as Wootz Steel before the discovery of modern Steel.

Thus some armors in, say, the 'Light' category would be deemed 'Lesser' such as perhaps Bark, Padded, and Bone, armors that can be fashioned from extraordinarily common but sub-par armor materials as a basis, thus contributes to the total iLinePriority 0. And some armors in the same category would be deemed 'Common' such as perhaps Leather, Studded Leather, Chain Shirt, Bamboo and would thus be contributing iLinePriority of 1. Then you'd have 'Prestige Armors' which should be very hard to qualify for (culturally unique or difficult to obtain resources, perhaps the use of animals to autobuild buildings that grant them) such as Rattan, Silk, Cord, Ashigaru, Leather Scale. These would contribute to the total iLinePriority 2.

Yes Silk and Rhino Hide would be under these rare types of armors. As for Cord Armor I am not sure. From what I have read it most similar to Padded Armor, but uses rope and cordage to protect the wearer. This would be an alternative to metal or possibly even leather armors. Any idea how to rank it compared to Padded Armor? Note that ...

Padded Armor = AC +1 | Penalty 0
Cord Armor = AC +2 | Penalty -1

So would they be equal since Padded Armor would be more maneuverable than Cord Armor even though Cord has more protection? And if you can make cloth you can also make ropes.
Then, considering the workmanship is usually a matter of adding another tech degree. Wonders and/or Great Engineer generated buildings can push things to the highest levels of quality. You might get a Great Engineer to build a special building that provides 'Masterwork Light Armors'. I feel I previously suggested too many degrees of quality... 3 is probably sufficient: Crude, Standard, and Masterwork. Quality would thus contribute 0-3 to the iLinePriority total depending on the level, Crude (0), Standard (1) or Masterwork (2).

This i am unsure of. Right now I have some materals chnage the AC such as ...

Copper Scale Mail = AC +3
Bronze Scale Mail = AC +4
Iron Scale Mail = AC +5

Note that D&D Scale Mail is AC +4 so I had it where Bronze was the normal and Copper was -1 and Iron was +1. If we add your craftsmanship would it then become like this?

Crude Copper Scale Mail = AC +2
Standard Copper Scale Mail = AC +3
Masterwork Copper Scale Mail = AC +4

Crude Bronze Scale Mail = AC +3
Standard Bronze Scale Mail = AC +4
Masterwork Bronze Scale Mail = AC +5

Crude Iron Scale Mail = AC +4
Standard Iron Scale Mail = AC +5
Masterwork Iron Scale Mail = AC +6

Thus making a Masterwork Bronze Scale Mail equal to a Standard Iron Scale Mail?
 
I also am adding a column for what combat class can wear it. Such as Melee or Archery or Recon or Hunter. Thieves would be like D&D rogues and be very limited in what they can wear. Likewise Archery cannot have a bunch of armors, especially the Heavy ones.
The Armor Category itself is a combat class. But you CAN have additional combat class requirements, thus you can say that some of those armors are specific only to Criminal CCs too. Archery units as a general rule would not have anything but Light or at most Medium Armor Combat Classes themselves which would keep them in line (most likely they'd have Light Armor CC and an availability to take a promo that gives them the Medium Armor CC while taking away the Light Armor CC if you, as a player in the game, wish to promote them in this way.)

While Rogues may have access to all Light Armors, including up to Chain Shirts, it doesn't mean that this would necessarily be the best pick for them. Down the road with more complex stealth developments it will be more apparent but Criminal Units should be dodge specialists as well. So to take the Chain Shirt would mean they're less effective at avoiding hits in the first place, which is their strength in defense as it is. Also would most likely reduce their withdraw which I also see being a strength for them, particularly if they are poison specialists. But that's not to say the CAN'T take the heavier armor in the Light Category. But they would not have access to Medium Armor or Heavy Armor, (though Bandits perhaps could do as Archers in this regard) so they can't completely enter into the paradox zone.

But for the most part, the purpose of having the Armors grouped by combat class themselves is so that those CCs can be directly applied to units individually, thus we aren't required to keep things grouped by the normal core Combat Classes we currently have. This is necessary, for example, to differentiate between Heavy Axemen and standard Axemen. The standard Axemen may have Light Armor, while the Heavy Axemen has Medium Armor (generally only mounted want to make use of the heaviest stuff) though again, promos could open up heavier armors for them.

If you feel we need to narrow the Armor Combat Class definitions to be more selective among those groupings that would be the way to go. But in your examples, why would Criminals not be able to wear bark if that's the best available to them and their particular strategy isn't as much to do with speed? Maybe the rogue is a city infiltration specialist and you want them as outright strong and lethal as possible... maybe the bark armor makes them less suspectable as rogues?

Perhaps the Bark armor is a poor selection for Archers as it impedes Precision which they need above all, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to take it if they expect they would be wrapped up in a direct melee soon (assuming its a bit better for melee fighting.)

Like I said your iLinePriority also has to account for what type of unit is using it. Thus the best for a Melee unit is not best for an Archery unit. Likewise a nation may not have access to say Iron and can only make Copper or Bronze based metal armors. Thus only getting the best in what they have available and not necessarily the best they technology could get.
AI has to be able to determine what is generally better for their units and the programming for that should go along the lines of playing to their strengths. Otherwise, this is where there should be some fun strategy for players. This allows players to vary the methods their units are using with parallel selections. Now, most melee units from the Classical Era onward would probably be assigned the Medium Armor CC but from anywhere within the Medium Armor category they can have variations that the player gets to pick from. Will they pick from the Heavier end and have more armor, less dodge, more fatigue and a little less accuracy from the inhibiting joints, or will they pick the lighter stuff that has less armor, but is less fatiguing, a little better on the dodge impediment, and less accuracy inhibition? For the most part, it would be about whether you prefer to play to a strengths and let your weaknesses deepen in the process, or if you would prefer to counter your weaknesses by sacrifices in your strengths. (Or something in between...) There will eventually be more work done on elemental damage sources and armors can also vary there, thus some armors may be better if you're planning a foray into the frozen wastes or others better if you plan a desert siege.

In short, among given categories, and along the same iLinePriority, there should not be one of those armors BETTER than another so much as different but equal. Perhaps a given unit may find one such type is better for them than another but it all depends on how you want to run your strategies and it may be best for you to have a stack with variety rather than over-reliance on one type or another.

My point is that we're grouping things by the Armor Category CC so that we don't have to vary iLinePriority considerations by which types of units the armor applies to. This variability of selection is desirable in game effect but for the ai, they'll have ways to determine what works best for their units (some of that AI work is yet to be done still which has been part of the delay here.)

Units can only get what the nation has developed access to so the second point there is covered by that.

From what I have read it most similar to Padded Armor, but uses rope and cordage to protect the wearer. This would be an alternative to metal or possibly even leather armors. Any idea how to rank it compared to Padded Armor? Note that ...

Padded Armor = AC +1 | Penalty 0
Cord Armor = AC +2 | Penalty -1

So would they be equal since Padded Armor would be more maneuverable than Cord Armor even though Cord has more protection? And if you can make cloth you can also make ropes.
That's a good example of equal yet different and how that pans out. I put Cord Armor as a prestige armor as part of this example but I can agree it may not be... I just figured it was rather rare in actual application but perhaps that's because its commonly a worse choice than other contemporaries somehow.

This i am unsure of. Right now I have some materals chnage the AC such as ...

Copper Scale Mail = AC +3
Bronze Scale Mail = AC +4
Iron Scale Mail = AC +5

Note that D&D Scale Mail is AC +4 so I had it where Bronze was the normal and Copper was -1 and Iron was +1. If we add your craftsmanship would it then become like this?

Crude Copper Scale Mail = AC +2
Standard Copper Scale Mail = AC +3
Masterwork Copper Scale Mail = AC +4

Crude Bronze Scale Mail = AC +3
Standard Bronze Scale Mail = AC +4
Masterwork Bronze Scale Mail = AC +5

Crude Iron Scale Mail = AC +4
Standard Iron Scale Mail = AC +5
Masterwork Iron Scale Mail = AC +6

Thus making a Masterwork Bronze Scale Mail equal to a Standard Iron Scale Mail?
Equal yet different, yes. The Masterwork Bronze Scale Mail may be a bit lighter and a lot less restrictive thus the fatigue is less and the accuracy is much better than the Standard Iron Scale. It'd probably also be a little better at enabling dodges. But it IS bronze and not nearly as strong so its actual armor value would be significantly less than the Standard Iron Scale Mail. The Standard Iron Scale would be heavier too so it would come with a little more move penalty (which wouldn't make a difference to units moving one space anyhow but for those who have gotten promos to move faster in forest or hills or flatlands etc, they could feel that difference profoundly.)

So if you have the view that you're likely to take the hits anyhow, then the Armor value is better than the lesser dodge impediment. If your unit deals a lot of damage when it hits an opponent (perhaps its an axemen) so you've gotta get that fight finished quick and upfront anyhow, then the Iron would be better. If your unit is already pathetically slow in the field, the Iron is better. If the unit already has enough precision skill to compensate the penalty, then the Iron is better.

But if your unit is a sword unit, perhaps, which relies on high precision, decent dodge, not as much damage when striking so needs to carry out the fight longer and would thus be more weak to fatigue, you'd want the Masterwork Bronze instead. By far.

I'll have to review with you the defensive tags we have to work with so we can get away from the AC measurements and more into considerations we have available to us in the combat mod, which are somewhat more diverse than just AC and Armor Penalty.
 
@AIAndy: We're going to be needing ways to implement modifiers and effects based on multiple combat definitions and even being able to specify NOT applicable against certain combat classes while being applicable towards one or more others. How do you feel is the best and most efficient way to achieve this on a fairly large scale? Is that what we could achieve with the Effects system you've brought up? Or is this even easier than that, a matter of taking combat type effect based tags and converting them to something more like the expression system in application?
While the effects system would be useful for that it is still in the concept stage so it will take some time before anything is implemented (and it is not a small project).

Since I don't think you want to wait for that, the best approach is probably to have two expression system conditions, one evaluated on each combatant and an effect connected with that.
You might use a promotion to reference the effect. So at the beginning of combat you search for all such effects on both combatants (I assume they will be on promotion or unit type), then check if the conditions evaluate to true. If that is the case for both conditions, then you process the connected promotion and add it to an array. After the combat you process the promotions in that array backwards to remove the effect again.
 
If you feel we need to narrow the Armor Combat Class definitions to be more selective among those groupings that would be the way to go. But in your examples, why would Criminals not be able to wear bark if that's the best available to them and their particular strategy isn't as much to do with speed? Maybe the rogue is a city infiltration specialist and you want them as outright strong and lethal as possible... maybe the bark armor makes them less suspectable as rogues?

I would say Bark Armor is one of the worse types of armors. Its bulky and can easily break. Its best used for bludgeoning, but piercing and slashing can cause it eventually break. In fact that should be another issue. Weapon/Armor Breakage. Where their equipment can break and you must return to a city that makes the equipment to be come re-equipped.

While Rogues may have access to all Light Armors, including up to Chain Shirts, it doesn't mean that this would necessarily be the best pick for them. Down the road with more complex stealth developments it will be more apparent but Criminal Units should be dodge specialists as well. So to take the Chain Shirt would mean they're less effective at avoiding hits in the first place, which is their strength in defense as it is. Also would most likely reduce their withdraw which I also see being a strength for them, particularly if they are poison specialists. But that's not to say the CAN'T take the heavier armor in the Light Category. But they would not have access to Medium Armor or Heavy Armor, (though Bandits perhaps could do as Archers in this regard) so they can't completely enter into the paradox zone.

I am not sure if rogues should be allowed to use any armors. Or if they did they get some sort of detection penalty.

But for the most part, the purpose of having the Armors grouped by combat class themselves is so that those CCs can be directly applied to units individually, thus we aren't required to keep things grouped by the normal core Combat Classes we currently have. This is necessary, for example, to differentiate between Heavy Axemen and standard Axemen. The standard Axemen may have Light Armor, while the Heavy Axemen has Medium Armor (generally only mounted want to make use of the heaviest stuff) though again, promos could open up heavier armors for them.

I think it also depend upon what type of mount. Such as a horse archer should not have full plate armor. At the most they could have Lamellar Armor. And should we have mount armor too?

That's a good example of equal yet different and how that pans out. I put Cord Armor as a prestige armor as part of this example but I can agree it may not be... I just figured it was rather rare in actual application but perhaps that's because its commonly a worse choice than other contemporaries somehow.

Here are images of the 2 types ...

- Cord Armor
- Padded Armor
 
I would say Bark Armor is one of the worse types of armors. Its bulky and can easily break. Its best used for bludgeoning, but piercing and slashing can cause it eventually break. In fact that should be another issue. Weapon/Armor Breakage. Where their equipment can break and you must return to a city that makes the equipment to be come re-equipped.
hmm... armor breakage. I like it. That'd be one of those effects that would take a bit to implement but it can be done (and should be) and weapon breakages could be worked in as well.

My point on all that was to focus on the combat class allowed issue. You can certainly specify extra combat classes that can required for particular equipment types beyond just the Light category. You can also have a given combat class denied a particular armor they would normally by their general armor category be allowed. But I would suggest to try to design the system to be only as narrow as it must be and let the players decide what works best for them on their units. That will be half the fun, choosing between equally valid variations for differing strategic reasons.

I am not sure if rogues should be allowed to use any armors. Or if they did they get some sort of detection penalty.
Perhaps they could be set to no armor combat class but be allowed to select the Light Armor promotion which opens things up for them. But I do agree on that last assertion. That would be one of the more advanced effects to eventually be enabled but has been planned for some time.

I think it also depend upon what type of mount. Such as a horse archer should not have full plate armor. At the most they could have Lamellar Armor. And should we have mount armor too?
Oh absolutely, yes. But we would start with more a more basic approach by defining the differing types of mounted units as fast or slow. Elephants would be slow, horse archers fast, etc... this has other game bracketing effects but for armor it would certainly mean the slow mounted units would be more tending towards the heaviest armors, taking advantage of being able to protect their riders with heavier armor than one would want to walk any distance in, while the light ones would tend towards the lighter armors to keep up their speed.

Barding (mount armor) would certainly be a development but I'd want to have a mount equipment system in place first and your idea of equipment breakage would also apply there, so barding would mostly be providing resistance to attempts to slay the mount.

IRT Cord/Padded, I created examples just for the sake mostly of example. As you seem to understand the examples of iLinePriority assignment methodology, I will then be quite happy defer to your effective research and game knowledge to generate specific decisions on how to categorize and grant access to the various armor forms, even which forms to include. I may negotiate a point or two but for the most part I can see a good partnership here in letting you create definitions on these things. I just need to make sure you're fully equipped with an understanding of the intent of the mechanism. Know what I mean?

To that end, here's a few tags we can consider in defining the effect values of a given piece of armor:

iArmorChange: Think of this as a percent modifier to the amount of damage the system would normally apply to a unit when that unit is struck in a round of battle. Thus this is basically a percentage value but can and should as it progresses exceed 100% and its opposing value, iPuncture, will grow somewhat in parallel in technological weapons development. Armor should also slightly exceed, on average, the equivalent contemporary levels of Puncture in the same age, variances making the system interesting. Thus an Axe with a very high puncture value of say, 25, negates the usefulness of say, a common Chain Shirt offering the unit 20 armor. But the arrows of the same era may have 10 puncture and thus the Chain Shirt reduces the Arrow's damages by 10% on each hit.

But lets consider some base values here for a moment.

5 - Thick skin like a bear perhaps, untreated leather, common padded armor
10 - Very thick skin such as that of an Elephant or Mammoth, Treated Leather, common leather armor
15 - Reinforced Leather, Common Studded Leather Armor
20 - Minimal bodily coverage but tough armor, such as a Common Chain Shirt

I'm sure you can work out further extrapolations from there.


iPrecisionChange: Precision is pretty much a percentage modifier to the chance to land a strike on the enemy every round in battle. For the most part, a point of accuracy is probably roughly equivalent in value to a point of armor or puncture. Armors would slightly diminish accuracy values based on how restrictive they are to the wearer who's making an attack with a weapon. Weapon choices themselves would modify this factor far more than armor would but armor would represent a non-existent to commonly minor to uncommonly fairly severe penalty to this value. Here, if we try to keep total modifiers within a range of -50 to +50 it would be beneficial to the system. Thus perhaps:

0 or no value here: Perfectly fitted Masterwork Leather, all silk armor levels
-1: Only very slightly impeding: Perfectly fitted Masterwork Padded
-2: Slightly impeding: Common Leather
-5: Somewhat impeding: Perfectly fitted Masterwork Chain Shirt
-10: almost annoying: Poorest quality Chain Shirt


This value is opposes Dodge values on the unit you're trying to attack. Thus Precision - opponent's dodge = modifier to your chance to hit.

iDodgeChange: Positive Dodge is not a quality of armor as all armor can do is impede, just as positive precision is not a quality of armor. But, like Precision (though the weapon can grant a positive if the weapon makes it easier to strike an opponent than harder, compared to punching the opponent, such as a sword may offer) those who wish to rely on their dodge abilities would prefer less restrictive armor and would, by unit type and/or by promotions enhance their dodge ability to potential heights.

Dodge impediments would be potentially more severe on armors than Precision, which is more a factor from weapons, but shouldn't really exceed much past -50 (which would be severe) in total on even the heaviest combination of armor, any penalties associated with the heaviest weaponry, and the heaviest shields.


Move changes: you're probably more in full understanding of the values of this mechanism than I am actually ;) And would thus know how to work with those values on armors to adjust movement in meaningful ways. Obviously Armor should only be able to provide a penalty as no armor would be the default.


iFatigue: Each point of fatigue is a % modifier that accumulates every round to the strength of the combatant. Thus even -1% over 10 rnds is a -10% combat modifier. Armors would obviously give cause for fatigue as they are simply more exhausting to fight in. Each point here is potentially very impacting, particularly if the opponent they fight is more heavily armored than their puncture amounts to (that extends the length of the combat # of rounds significantly) or if they don't have enough accuracy vs their opponent's dodge ability to land hits frequently enough to get the battle to completion fast enough before the fatigue really starts to impede them.

BTW, the opposite of fatigue is rage, like a berserker's fury, so some units by native and developed ability can counter these values and grow stronger as battle goes on.

So a truly unhindering armor would not have any Fatigue value perhaps, while the heaviest Light Armor, such as the Chain Shirt, would probably have a -2 or -3% value here. Modify this value with kid gloves and firm respect for each point!


Combat Class modifiers: You made a point about blunt, slashing, and piercing weaponry. The particular weapon a unit is using should add one of those three as a combat class to the unit. Thus the armor should have some combat modifiers against those using the combat class combat modifiers tag.


There's also Withdrawal modifiers and such for armors that greatly slow the wearer, particularly in a sprint.


Those are some thoughts for now as to the various ways to define differences in armors and an attempt to explain the meaning behind the numbers somewhat.

And that reminds me that Blunt, Piercing, and Slashing should be Combat Classes on our document list...
 
Expanding on the idea of Armor/Weapon breakage, we could have blacksmiths who could fix the weapons on the go. I'm thinking they would cost similar to what medical people cost and fixing your units in a city would be quicker but more time consuming.

Also is their an AI to support the combat mod
 
Top Bottom