Naval Units Rework Project

Very similar justification to the above. Synthetic Rubber would be able to play some more malleable roles that Vulcanized Rubber (used for tires and such) would not and would also be more expensive so where it's not optimal to use, the Vulcanized Rubber would be. Eventually Synthetic does completely replace Vulcanized needs - greater proliferation and application of the technology brings the price down to comparable or cheaper rates and thus completely trumps all need for vulcanized rubber.

I suggest it would be appropriate to represent this as:
Requires (ie. unconditionally): Synthetic, but
Builds (10%?) Faster With: Vulcanized (ie. as well).
Here faster represents cheaper, not actually faster or better like it usually does.

If it requires to have nanotubes to have nanogenerators then yes... I can fix that redundancy. There is a difference between them at the nano level, one not being the other at all but both only really finding their full potential with each other present, according to what I little know about nano stuff but if the game has nanogenerators requiring nanotubes then you're absolutely right.

May I suggest this is another case where you could buy in the 'finished good' and yet still be lacking the 'component'. Unless you want a new building for reverse-engineering nanogenerators to cannibalize a few for their nanotubes...
 
I suggest it would be appropriate to represent this as:
Requires (ie. unconditionally): Synthetic, but
Builds (10%?) Faster With: Vulcanized (ie. as well).
Here faster represents cheaper, not actually faster or better like it usually does.
Sounds like a good idea.



May I suggest this is another case where you could buy in the 'finished good' and yet still be lacking the 'component'. Unless you want a new building for reverse-engineering nanogenerators to cannibalize a few for their nanotubes...
Again, agreed.

Funny thing is, within the hour after posting those quotes the same thoughts had occurred to me as well. Great minds think alike. I'll be wanting to hear Hydro's take of course.
 
A bonus datasheet, finally some first applications of the S&D tags from the combat mod:
Surround and Destroy tag Datasheet

And with that (and as soon as we've properly reviewed the prereq buildings if someone is going to help with that), after some final edits and updates from edits that have taken place recently and haven't been copied over to the online datasheets yet, I think the stat work for the naval stuff is complete.

Some of this may prompt some need to review some of the earlier ships and plot them into the scheme but for now, this is actually a major goal point reached here.



Note: I took a deep look into the Ranged Assault tags, figuring I was compiling what would be the ranged assault modifier tags for these units and I came up with another plan entirely (being committed to the SVN now.)

It's been a pain in the arse trying to keep up on the unit modifiers for ranged assault. I've created more granularity in the weapon combat classes along the way as well. So I've just yanked out ALL of the unit specific modifiers, leaving those tags available for use to have a unit be extra specialized in some way in a ranged assault value. The Combat Class bases should be sufficient to cover these definitions just fine without further common manipulation at the unit level. The amount of time this will save in development will be tremendous. And I can always make another combat class to help fill in if it feels like a technological improvement of a significant nature has been ignored.

Most unit makers were confused by the method of establishing a proper unit modifier on these tags anyhow so this move certainly simplifies things! Also might help with overall balance of this ability some.
 
@Hydro:
Do you have any charts regarding the wooden ships before these so that I can work on some of the interfacing between the two stages? I'm working on upgrades from wooden to steam and movement rules during this transition.

I believe I've figured out some interesting ways to get wooden and beyond to work with coasts and oceans in an improved fashion where movement rules are concerned but I do need to get a clear idea of movement costs on wooden ships and what they're upgrade chains are (and roughly tech levels though if you JUST have an upgrade chart for wooden era ships alone that would be helpful - I could quite easily work things out from there.)

Actually... I should be able to generate one from the pedia then flesh out a deeper understanding from the xml from there. But since I won't be getting to that today, if you already have this available please share :D
 
@TB

I don't recall one but here is one for you.

| Strength | Movement
Workboat (Ancient)|0|1
Workboat (Classic)|0|2
Merchant Fleet|0|2
Workboat (Middle Ages)|0|3
Raft|1|1
Kayak|1|2
Cog Merchant|1|2
Canoe|2|1
Tomol |2|2
War Canoe|3|1
Haida War Canoe |3|1
Outrigger|3|3
Catamaran |3|3
Galley|4|2
War Galley|5|2
Siege Quinquereme|5|2
Trireme|6|2
Cog|6|2
Phoenician Bireme |6|3
Carrack Merchant|6|5
Dromon|7|2
Quinquereme|7|2
Dragon Ship Pirate|7|2
Turtle Ship |8|1
Deceres|8|2
Galleass|9|2
Caravel|9|3
Carrack |9|4
Fluyt|10|3
Sloop|12|5
Barbary Pirate|14|4
Sloop of War|14|5
Brigatine|15|4
Galleon|16|4
Spanish Galleon |16|4
Privateer|17|5
East Indiaman |18|4
Frigate|18|5
Ship of the Line|24|4
Man O War|24|4

Note these are in order of Strength.
 
@Hydro:
Ok, using the above I was able to plot out some updated upgrade paths Here! These take into account wooden ship progressions from the earliest ships that can cross the ocean blending into the current review. MOST of the original upgrade paths are fairly intact. But there are some adjustments to help players edge certain ship lines into particular directions to keep their roles basically going similar all the way through, branching where the roles can be interpreted in differing ways leading into the more modern ships.

Note that the wooden ships are never considered 'Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers' etc by class... I just used these blocks to help align the upgrade patterns into the more modern stuff. Still, upon evaluation, it's interesting how many of these ships do tend to conform to the more modern lines.

We do need earlier corvette units but I'll leave that for later development. As it stands now, corvettes pretty much pop into being around the steam era despite historically playing a much larger role in navies BEFORE this era, illuminating the need for the ship style in more modern navies.


I've also updated the Movement Datasheet with this blending in of the previous wooden ship lines.

The only change to movement points themselves I propose from among the late wood ships is to lower the sloop of war to 4 mv rather than 5 since it leads into a 4 mv Ship of the Line on it's new primary upgrade path and when compared to 'sloops' it would be more weighed down with heavy weaponry and ammunition so could be justified to be a mv pt slower than its more flighty counterpart.

There's a number of things to mention here. It's been an effort to try to get a harmony between the two layers transitioning from sail to steam. The following points apply:

1) Wood ships have a little higher base mv pts at the end of their reign than the steam ships they upgrade into.

2) Now, BOTH oceans and coasts have a base mv cost of 2.

3) Wood Ships prefer staying near to the coast to get the maximum benefits navigation wise, so they have double move on all coast terrains applied to their combat class. Therefore, they move at their base rate along coasts but half their speed in the open ocean. Applies to ALL ships before Steam (although there are some promos that can help speed things up for some of them out on the open seas.)

4) Steam Ships may be slower but they are not hindered by oceans nor coast. They plod along at their base speed wherever they may be (though some can only travel on coasts as they're basically very prototypical.) Therefore, on the open ocean, the standard steamer is probably just as fast as (or in some cases faster than) the wooden ships - and we know they're patently stronger. But wooden ships tend to have added maneuverability so although they are weaker, they're not completely inert strategically against steam ships.

5) At Diesel speeds are starting to edge upwards, but we start seeing oversized ship types coming into play that don't really appreciate coastline travel - they're speed and weight makes them best when they can just go forward without concern for maneuvering much. These ship types, such as Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship, Carrier, Submarine, prefer open ocean travel and lose their double movement on coasts.

6) The smaller Diesel ships are made specifically for coastal warfare generally and thus THEY keep the coastal double movement but in many cases simply can't compare to the full forward thrust speed of the bigger ships and thus lose the Ocean double moves.

7) Strategically, this means that fully fleshed out stacks in the Diesel and beyond eras are going to be overall slower than the ultimate potential of any one of those ships on their own in the right waters, so should slow down the mega-stack navies while allowing deep-sea and coastal specialty forces to form, introducing a host of 'interesting strategic choices' for the player.

This Diesel era coast/ocean duality is maintained until Droid Ships. Droid ships are so at home in the water anywhere and so amazingly maneuverable despite any size they go back to the benefits of steam - double moves on coasts and oceans alike.

Levitation, Troid, and Gravity Drive ships simply ignore terrain costs. We don't actually have to set this for them as they 'bFlytoMove' and that should handle it as a batch. Flat movement will also be a part of that once we can get the pathing engine to not assume a group to have flat movement if one unit in the group has it.

I do still need to look into some movement issues for those ships - it's one thing that we've made it possible for DOMAIN_LAND units to travel over water but I need to research a bit more what it will be like for DOMAIN_SEA units to travel (and fight) over land. I know actually taking a stand and defending a city or being helpful in an attack against a city should be possible as well and I think there'll be a number of recoding points to enable this properly. Also, they should lose INVISIBILITY_SUBMARINE if they are overland!

But for now, at least movement cost harmony and strategies I think has been achieved between the various stages.

I've also updated the Tech Prereq Datasheet but changed nothing on the wood ships... they're listed just to get an idea of their highest x grid tech prereqs. Didn't even list ALL of their tech prereqs on each ship, just what I believe I found to be the highest x-grid tech among them. I needed to put these on this sheet to help me define the upgrade layers - they were found to be pretty well arranged along these lines making the defining of some naval tech layers quite easily achieved.


Although there are the above-mentioned remaining coding tasks, among some others, my NEXT step here is to work out the new Healing by Combat Class VALUES. The Combat Classes themselves are in place on the Combat Class Datasheet (which is still awaiting some review and commentary from you btw.) So at this point I just need to assign some base healing values to the units themselves. And iSelfHeal and bNoSelfHeal values need to be considered here as well. So that's up next...


EDIT: Completed the evaluation for Naval Healing on this Healing Datasheet. Will discuss a bit more in the Healing by Combat Class thread.
 
2 points:

1. No cargo space information in City View
Inside the city view I just can´t find the amount of cargo space of transport ships. It doesn´t matter whether I hover with shift, ctrl or alt the information just doesn´t show up. I get this data when I have built a unit and alt-hover the mouse over the unit symbol. If I hover over the unit itself and not over the symbol then again I don´t get this information. So it is very difficult to decide inside the city view which and how many transport ships I should built (this is true for all ships that can transport units). An oversight or by design?


2. Automatic pathing of ships
I have a serious issue with the automatic pathing of ships, no matter whether I have selected AI pathing in the BUG options or not. It seems that ships in fact are searching for reefs. Whenever a reef is close to a path the AI will definitely travel directly on top of it. True for m ships and also for the other civs. Maybe they see a kind of defence bonus with reefs or any other benefit?? Therefore I always get damaged ships whenever I let them travel long distances. I think the AI pathing should try to avoid reefs but it seems to be just the other way round.
 
1) An unfortunate design constraint. It's not compiled until the unit is in play. I might be able to work something out but it's not a simple issue. Size Matters greatly complicates this of course.

2) Pathing... eugh... there's a number of pathing problems in the mod. I'm not sure what to do about that ultimately... not yet anyhow.
 
1) It used to be the case that you could see the cargo space available in a ship even before you build it.

2) reefs and coral have no defensive bonus so that is not the reason. Just did a quick check. I suspect that ship pathing has not been touched and BtS pathing just assumes that any features that someone would add must have a defensive boost. I know we had to do away with storms because of the problems it caused with ship pathing and the cost of finding paths.
 
1) It used to be the case that you could see the cargo space available in a ship even before you build it.

2) reefs and coral have no defensive bonus so that is not the reason. Just did a quick check. I suspect that ship pathing has not been touched and BtS pathing just assumes that any features that someone would add must have a defensive boost. I know we had to do away with storms because of the problems it caused with ship pathing and the cost of finding paths.

1) I know... is it not showing still on a non-size-matters game? If I'm not mistaken this is the only way it causes a problem there because the amount is compiled once the unit is in play. I'll have to have the system do all the math to determine this for the unit help hover to fix it. IF its not showing on a NON SM game then that can more easily be resolved too and might've just been an accidental casualty of some readjustments to display process.

2) Koshling changed all pathing extensively and its one of the most complex regions to decipher anything about in the code now. Makes any kind of debugging there a nightmare (there's a number of other issues in it we know of now like inappropriate handling of grouped units where some units have ignoreterrain etc...)
 
1) I have been only playing with NO SM of late and there is no cargo space shown.

2) He did pathing on land. He may not have touched pathing on water.
 
1) I have been only playing with NO SM of late and there is no cargo space shown.

2) He did pathing on land. He may not have touched pathing on water.

1) Ok, it's helpful to have those who don't so that sort of info can be shared. I'll note it to look into further.

2) I don't think pathing follows any different processes between land and sea - just makes some differences in various checks made on the unit info. (So... same procedure with some differing results.)
 
A lot of the sea stuff is a cut down version of the land stuff because the sea is simpler. Part of the problem with workboat automation was that it skipped the section of land work that concerned features for example.
 
At some point soon I'll take a deeper look into it... just sayin' it's a really REALLY complex side of the coding since Koshling unleashed the full degree of his skills onto that side of things.
 
1. There must be a basic cargo space for every ship somewhere in the xml. Wouldn´t it be possible to display this in the city view (as "base cargo space")? What we see now after the ship is built could be called "actual cargo space". This would also be very helpful to understand how the cargo space changes, e.g. after merging units or after using a promotion.

2. On pathing: I never play with terrain damage on, but if you do, will the AI avoid the damaging terrain when auto-pathing? Maybe something could be learned for the reef issue.
 
3. Another annoying thing I have observed with ships (this is already in the base game): When I have multiple transports in a harbour city and I want load a unit then I can decide on which ship I load. This is very helpful if I have ships with different movement points left, damaged and undamaged ships, different cargo sizes etc.
But when I have a number of transport ships just lying at the coast then I can´t decide which ship to load, one is chosen automatically. There also seems to be a tendency to load especially on damaged ships, even if they currently are on repair/heal modus.

It would be great to have the option to select a ship all the time and not only in a city.
 
That is not something I would want. I tend to load a whole army at once filling many transports. Having to select a transport then select the stack again to load into the next transport and so on would really irritate.
 
Top Bottom