C2C - Units

Thanks for the reminders. Some of that I did not know... I had thought there was a difference between unitcombat_wild_animal and unitcombat_trained_animal according to the way the hunter's combat bonuses were displaying.

I believe some of the late game dog units have unitcombat_melee as well, going by their access to promos and the tag that shows up in the unit help mouseover. I'm not sure this is really a good way to go though it does make the dog units get a bit more capable later in the game and it also keeps anti-melee useful later as well. Still, I think the better solution is to give Canines their own unitcombat that gives them their own unique promo lines and combat interaction.

I'm thinking we should define a difference between the unitcombats for animals entirely. You listed the appropriate categories right there, Wild Animals, Subdued Animals, Trained Animals, and Canines. Each should have their own promo line accesses and should be taggable for combat effects such as the hunter's bonuses. I don't really think its an elegant solution to be giving the hunter a bonus vs those set to be 'animal' by generic tag.

I suppose that in general, among those categories, Wild Animals and Subdued Animals are those designated as 'bAnimal', right?


So I will make looking at animal ai's a priority soon. It will harmonize nicely with some of what I'm up to now to do a review there and upgrade their attitudes to match their Real World natures somewhat. But I've got to finish what I'm up to now first. (and apparently I have some debugging review on DP too... ugh)

What's the difference between ...

+50% vs Wild Animals

and

+50% vs Animal Units

When I was playing my last game I noticed that my wanderers seem to have trouble surviving animals at all, at most they kill one then die to a near by one, which is the exact opposite of hunters which can solo every animal in most the games I play.
So what if the Wanderer was kept at 1 str but got bonus 200% vrs animals, giving it a 3 str instead of a 1 when fighting animals, which should make them able to survive a little easier well keeping them weak to other barb units

Hydromancerx said:

What's the difference between ...

+50% vs Wild Animals

and

+50% vs Animal Units

Click to expand...

Perhaps nothing... since 'animal units' mean both wild animals and subdued animals, the latter of which pretty much never see any combat use really (aren't intended to anyhow.) Good point.

When I was playing my last game I noticed that my wanderers seem to have trouble surviving animals at all, at most they kill one then die to a near by one, which is the exact opposite of hunters which can solo every animal in most the games I play.
So what if the Wanderer was kept at 1 str but got bonus 200% vrs animals, giving it a 3 str instead of a 1 when fighting animals, which should make them able to survive a little easier well keeping them weak to other barb units

Click to expand...

I don't think its bad the way it is. Wanderers are supposed to have trouble surviving, making them a bit of a gamble as to their true usefulness. At scouts, which isn't far down the way if you shoot for them purposely, the survivability difference is astounding.

hmph... thought I was editing the last post... sorry for the doublepost!

Thunderbrd said:

Thanks for the reminders. Some of that I did not know... I had thought there was a difference between unitcombat_wild_animal and unitcombat_trained_animal according to the way the hunter's combat bonuses were displaying.

I believe some of the late game dog units have unitcombat_melee as well, going by their access to promos and the tag that shows up in the unit help mouseover. I'm not sure this is really a good way to go though it does make the dog units get a bit more capable later in the game and it also keeps anti-melee useful later as well. Still, I think the better solution is to give Canines their own unitcombat that gives them their own unique promo lines and combat interaction.

I'm thinking we should define a difference between the unitcombats for animals entirely. You listed the appropriate categories right there, Wild Animals, Subdued Animals, Trained Animals, and Canines. Each should have their own promo line accesses and should be taggable for combat effects such as the hunter's bonuses. I don't really think its an elegant solution to be giving the hunter a bonus vs those set to be 'animal' by generic tag.

I suppose that in general, among those categories, Wild Animals and Subdued Animals are those designated as 'bAnimal', right?


So I will make looking at animal ai's a priority soon. It will harmonize nicely with some of what I'm up to now to do a review there and upgrade their attitudes to match their Real World natures somewhat. But I've got to finish what I'm up to now first. (and apparently I have some debugging review on DP too... ugh)

Click to expand...

- bAnimal =1 means can't enter cultural borders and units with this set are those that iAnimalCombat is applied against in combat.

Wild Animals are those with
- bAnimal =1.
- Unit combat class = UNITCOMBAT_ANIMAL
- Default Unit AI of UNITAI_ANIMAL

Subdued Animals are those with
- bAnimal = 0 and
- Unit combat class = UNITCOMBAT_ANIMAL
- Default Unit AI of UNITAI_SUBDUED_ANIMAL

Canines and Tamed Animals
- bAnimal = 0 and
- Unit combat class = UNITCOMBAT_ANIMAL
- Default Unit AI of UNITAI_PILLAGE_COUNTER
- also can see some invisible units

I did ask Hydro to fix his mid to late game canines to be the same combat class as the early ones. I did have a combat class for canines at one stage. The Tamed animals and the canines should be in the same combat line imo.

Rasma said:

When I was playing my last game I noticed that my wanderers seem to have trouble surviving animals at all, at most they kill one then die to a near by one, which is the exact opposite of hunters which can solo every animal in most the games I play.
So what if the Wanderer was kept at 1 str but got bonus 200% vrs animals, giving it a 3 str instead of a 1 when fighting animals, which should make them able to survive a little easier well keeping them weak to other barb units

Click to expand...

In my view the whole early recon and hunter lines need a bit of a change because they are now out of whack with the latest tech tree but my suggestions were rejected. the wanader is too weak and scout/tracker are too strong.

- bAnimal =1 means can't enter cultural borders and units with this set are those that iAnimalCombat is applied against in combat.

Wild Animals are those with
- bAnimal =1.
- Unit combat class = UNITCOMBAT_ANIMAL
- Default Unit AI of UNITAI_ANIMAL

Subdued Animals are those with
- bAnimal = 0 and
- Unit combat class = UNITCOMBAT_ANIMAL
- Default Unit AI of UNITAI_SUBDUED_ANIMAL

Canines and Tamed Animals
- bAnimal = 0 and
- Unit combat class = UNITCOMBAT_ANIMAL
- Default Unit AI of UNITAI_PILLAGE_COUNTER
- also can see some invisible units

I did ask Hydro to fix his mid to late game canines to be the same combat class as the early ones. I did have a combat class for canines at one stage. The Tamed animals and the canines should be in the same combat line imo.

Click to expand...

Ok... I was thinking that I could easily change the conditions on isAnimal (the way iAnimal is expressed in the dll) so that if a unit isAnimal but is NOT Barbarian, and if it does NOT have an established tag for an exception (such as bIgnoresBorders), than it can enter territories. This would allow you to tag all animals as iAnimal. There is however, I believe, a handicap given for fighting animals depending on difficulty setting, so that could get kinda screwy there.

I would like it if we could give Canines a unique combat class. I have promo lines planned for them that wouldn't apply well to say, bears and panthers. (Canine animals are uniquely excellent at taking to advanced training.)

So to go forward with some plans, I have two options:
1) to give units the ability to have any number of secondary combatclasses (something I've been wanting to do anyhow.)
and
2) to create some extra unique bool tags that apply by unit (ick...)

Anyhow... I think I got what I'm looking for there. Thanks for the sorting out.

@Thunderbrd

Even if you did not make a new combat class for the Dogs you could make a special promotion and then give it to all the Canine units. Then have your new canine promotions require that promotion. That way no one could get access to that line of promotions because the first promotion can only be given by default on the unit. This is what the Police Promotion line does.

I find it an inelegant solution as:

1) It forces that the initial promotion is given for free (which is not a big deal... you could give it a name and little more but then it just looks cluttery.)

and

2) It doesn't allow for other promos and unit abilities to get combat modifiers based on your type (the other half of the use for combatclass - or rather 'Combat'.)


It would really open up some interesting options if I could add the capacity for multiple combat definitions on a given unit.

Just one Example: Two-Handed Swordsman gaining a benefit against 'Polearm' combat units.

Well if you are worried about say having a unit vs dogs then you can always list a vs every type of dog upgrade since you can have vs individual units types. However its not as pretty.

Please clarify this:

I have unlocked Rogue limitations of 2 units per nation and I am playing slavery.
However, once I hit limit of 10 Rogues, whenever I am winning a battle with a rogue AND it enslave a unit, the Rogue itself disappears, vanishes.

Now, is this a feature or a bug ?

Koshling said:

I also only build them in one city, but I use my rogues extremely actively.

Click to expand...

Did we ever figure out if it was possible to have OR building prerequisites on a unit? Once v27 is released, I would like to turn Siege Weapons Workshop and Cannon Forge into a building upgrade line of Siege Weapons Workshop - Cannon Forge - Munitions Factory. Before that can be done, all the units that Siege Weapons Workshop unlocks have to be checked to make sure that once the Cannon Forge is built, all the units from the Workshop are obsolete or have another way to build them.

Siege Weapons Workshop is currently required for the following units:

• Ancient Flamethrower
• Ancient Hand Cannon
• Ancient Rocketeer
• Ballista
• Catapult
• Ornithopter
• Siege Ram
• Siege Tower
• Trebuchet
• War Wagon
• Building: Ballista Turret

By the time you can build a Cannon Forge, Ancient Rocketeer and Catapult are already obsolete (Ancient Rocketeer upgrades to Ancient Hand Cannon, and Catapult upgrades to Trebuchet). Cannon Forge allows Ballista, Siege Ram, Siege Tower, and Trebuchet to all upgrade to Bombard (Trebuchet can also upgrade to Great Bombard as well), and War Wagon to upgrade to Siege Wagon. Ancient Hand Cannon will upgrade to Arquebusier once you reach Matchlock, which is one tech away from Gunpowder, which is required for the Cannon Forge. Cannon Turret replaces Ballista Turret as well with Cannon Forge, which was one of my reasons for creating the Turret in the first place.

This leaves the Ancient Flamethrower and the Ornithopter. I think the Alchemist's Lab or Chemistry Lab could create the fuel for the Flamethrower (and the Alchemist's Lab could also work for the Ancient Hand Cannon until you reach Matchlock). I'm not exactly sure what would work for the Ornithopter. I was thinking Foundry, but that creates a short lockout between Gunpowder and Metallurgy. Is there something else that might work? Like Gunsmith?

I suggest the following:

• Ancient Flamethrower requires Alchemist's Lab OR Chemistry Lab OR Siege Weapons Workshop
• Ancient Hand Cannon requires Alchemist's Lab OR Siege Weapons Workshop
• Ornithopter requires Siege Weapons Workshop OR some other building (not sure what)

What do you think?

@Vokarya:

Yes, with the Expression System we can have OR prereqs for almost anything. And I like those ideas, I'll look at implementing them after release.

ls612 said:

@Vokarya:

Yes, with the Expression System we can have OR prereqs for almost anything. And I like those ideas, I'll look at implementing them after release.

Click to expand...

OK. I would like to tie in your future artillery units with the Munitions Factory as well (at least for now - we may come up with a future weapons manufacturer).

Should Culture units have the technology prerequisite for their Culture (X) building listed as a prerequisite for the unit as well? I was trying to break down the list of units and I noticed that there are several (I count 23) Culture Units where you can have the unit's tech prerequisites as listed in the Civilopedia, but you wouldn't have the tech needed to build the Culture (X) building.

Example:

• Impi lists Spear Making as its tech requirement.
• Impi also requires Zulu resource.
• Culture (Zulu) requires Warfare tech, so you really need Warfare to be able to get Impi.
• Therefore, I suggest that Impi list Warfare as a tech prerequisite.

This would not apply to every Culture unit. Example:

• Cho-ko-nu requires Engineering technology (Medieval Era)
• Cho-ko-nu also requires Chinese resource.
• Culture (Chinese) requires Ancestor Worship tech.
• Ancestor Worship is Ancient Era, and I really don't think you would leave an Ancient Era tech undiscovered by the Medieval Era.
• Therefore, I don't think it's necessary to list Ancestor Worship as a tech requirement for Cho-ko-nu.

What do you think?

Why don't you just put in the true requirements, meaning for example "Requires spearmaking AND warfare techs"? Is this not possible for the pedia?

The last medic-unit that erduces disease is the WWII Ambulance. I propose to give the Medic-helicopters a reduce in disease as well or maybe add a new unit at smart drugs that is especially for reducing disease.

wolfensoul9 said:

Why don't you just put in the true requirements, meaning for example "Requires spearmaking AND warfare techs"? Is this not possible for the pedia?

Click to expand...

It's possible. I don't like to do that where a tech requirement is redundant. For example, on the Musketeer:

• The unit Tech requirement is Flintlock.
• The culture Tech requirement is Aristocracy.

You are going to have Aristocracy long before you research Flintlock, so listing Aristocracy is pretty much redundant.

What I am proposing is either:

• If the unit prerequisite comes earlier on the tech tree than the culture prerequisite, move the unit to the culture prerequisite.
• If the unit and culture prerequisites are nearby in the tech tree but aren't directly linked, list both prerequisites.

I think we have a couple of units that are too early in the Tech Tree and that is making the units they upgrade to have too short of a useful lifespan. The units are:

• Galley
• Ranger
• Workboat (Classic)

All three of these units are technically Prehistoric, and I think that's a bit early for them. I don't quite know where to put Ranger, but it feels wrong that we have four Prehistoric Hunters (Chaser, Tracker, Hunter, Ranger) and then nothing until Warden, and I created Warden to help bridge the gap to the Game Hunter. Galley should probably sit at Naval Warfare alongside War Galley, which would give you the Galley-War Galley pair at that time, with Trireme as the first pure warship at Metal Casting.

I think Workboat (Classic) needs to be moved from Sailing to Ship Building. That will make its name match up with its era.

What do you think?

The Tewhatewha (Maori Culture Unit) upgrades to the Axeman. It has the exact same stats as the Axeman except for its free Martial Arts I promotion. Its upgrade path should probably be changed to Heavy Axeman, as I don't think anyone would want to build the Axeman if they could build a Tewhatewha, but by having that be the upgrade path, you're cutting off the Tewhatewha. Usually upgrades are to a strictly-better unit.