[BtS] Dales Combat Mod!

Yes, coll damage occurs (I literally call the same function collateralCombat(..)).

Bombarding uses 1 movement point, and is classed as an attack for purposes of combat (so you can either bombard or attack, not both in one turn).

Got it....although I suppose this means that the 2-move Mobile Artly can bombard AND attack in the same turn?

EDIT: Is there a cheat sheet that explains the new rules for the mod someplace?
 
Got it....although I suppose this means that the 2-move Mobile Artly can bombard AND attack in the same turn?

EDIT: Is there a cheat sheet that explains the new rules for the mod someplace?

No you can't do both in one turn (regardless of movement points). Bombarding calls madeAttack(true) which stops you from assaulting in that turn.

Here's the rules:
1. iDCMBombRange in Civ4UnitInfos.xml allows ranged bombarding and what range in radius on unit.
2. Can bombard plot improvements for a chance to destroy it.
3. Can bombard city defenses (old style bombard mission rules).
4. Can bombard units in the open (or units in cities when defense is 0%) for collateral combat (standard siege collateral combat function). Initial damage is based on unit's bombRate.
5. Cannot bombard and assault in the one turn (regardless of movement points).
6. Bombarding uses one movement point.
7. Bombarding units without the iDCMBombRange tag (catapults in my mod) can only do the old style bombard mission (bomb city defenses).

That's about it really. :)
 
In your first post you said you included the source code, "All source code is included in the folder \CvGameCoreDLL\ inside the Mod's folder." Did i miss it? Excellent work as always Dale, Thank you for your efforts to help the modding community. This is very exciting.
 
Hey Dale

Great mod as always. I gave it a trial last night and I have a couple of notes/questions.

1 - One issue with civ customizer. This was discussed before when you first released the modcomp. When adding more than two traits for a leader only two of them are effective. Mousing the flag correctly lists all the traits I chose.

I made an experiment playing Egypt with Bodica (Agg/Cha) I added Fin/Ind/Spi. All five traits appear when I mouse the flag. Only Agg/Spi work. Other traits don't work.

2 - CASA is nice. I was actually hoping for more of it. Any way it is still a beta release. Right now I noticed that combat is actually resolved as one-on-one. What I hoped for is somehow each unit in each combat round gets the chance to attack a different unit of the opposing stack. Also I hoped that the presence of Unit A in stack can affect the combat of Unit B (kind of support).

I just wonder what ideas you are going to implement in CASA and what we should expect in the final release.

Once again thanks for your great work.
 
The main reason I like archers to have range bombard is to be able to attack without moving to another square. For example, I want my longbow (or regular archer) to stay within my city walls while still being able to attack (not just defend).

It bothered me that I had to either sacrifice my archer (by attacking) or let the attacker escape (and heal) because of not being able to range attack.
 
Although I'm still looking into this, I disagree with this enthusiasm for bombarding archers. If you're going to engage a unit -- especially a foot soldier type unit -- in this game, it has to be put at risk for damage, too. Otherwise, you create a situation where there's no risk/all reward for engaging in combat.
 
Although I'm still looking into this, I disagree with this enthusiasm for bombarding archers. If you're going to engage a unit -- especially a foot soldier type unit -- in this game, it has to be put at risk for damage, too. Otherwise, you create a situation where there's no risk/all reward for engaging in combat.

What is the purpose of developing a weapon that can strike at the enemy from a long distance away? It is to strike a blow to the enemy without the risk of directly engaging in face to face combat. A bowman can kill or severely injure the enemy from a safe distance away. It is reasonable to believe archers can safely attack from behind high city walls. It is also reasonable to believe that archers can attack from a safe distance between two armies in the open field. And if you fill the sky with arrows, you have a barrage attack against the enemy, not bombarding.

Can an Axman hurt anyone from 100m away? No! But a bowman can easily hit the enemy from that distance, without risk to himself. The fact is the bow is like any other weapon of artillery, as it can deliver a projectile, called the arrow, over a given range. There is no doubt in my mind, that archery barrage is a realistic capability of ancient war fighters. In this game, archers should be able to attack without moving into the square, where the enemy is.

Even after all this justification to add the archery barrage capability to this mod, you still may not want or like the feature. Realizing this I have asked Dale to make archery barrage a selectable option, which gives everyone the choice of whether or not to use the feature. That should make everyone happy, :) as you can play the game the way you want. Isn't that what we all want? I think so.


Very Respectfully,

Orion Veteran :cool:
 
Archer Bombard will be in the next update, and like every other component will be optional via a tag in GlobalDefinesAlt.xml to turn it on or off. :)
 
First post updated with current bug list and future components list.
 
What is the purpose of developing a weapon that can strike at the enemy from a long distance away?

If you want lots of realism in combat, check out the games at http://www.matrixgames.com.

As it is in Civ4 longbowmen and archers serve a role as a defensive unit. To give it the ability to bombard is, I think, too much.
 
Archer Bombard will be in the next update, and like every other component will be optional via a tag in GlobalDefinesAlt.xml to turn it on or off. :)

Like a kid on Christmas Eve, I look forward to your next update. :clap:
The optional tag should make everyone happy. :)

:thanx:

Orion Veteran :cool:
 
here ya go dale, another button for ya
 

Attachments

  • abomb.zip
    6.7 KB · Views: 249
  • abomb.jpg
    abomb.jpg
    5.4 KB · Views: 541
Perfect! :)
 
Borders came out fine. :)
 
Status update for the new version:

Code:
Dales Combat Mod Fixes:
===================

DCM General:
-------------
- Interface mode bug.  FIXED

Battle Effects:
--------------
- Removes stats from tile (EG: Defense bonus for forest).  FIXED
- Affect comes in for animals.  FIXED

Air-Bombing:
------------
- Replace AI random code with logical code.

Civ Customiser:
---------------
- Traits not applying correctly.  INVESTIGATED

CASA:
-----
- Finish Stack Attack combat.

DCM New Ideas: (Not guaranteed to be added)
==========

- Archer Bombard (Orion Veteran).  ADDED - Thanks FfH team (same idea, different implementation)
- Civ Renamer for new Civs (Ekmek).
- Atomic Bomber Mod (Gaius Octavius).		ADDED - Thanks GarretSidzaka
 
I'm very sorry but I still don't like the battle-solutions. But I've got a suggestion...

First let's think about the problem.

Thoughts:
1. The dimensions of a single square are some 10km or even much more!

2. Bowman can hit units but no city defenses from a distance.

3. Defenders with the same or a higher range would shoot back if they are attacked

4. Heavy weapons can also destroy buildings

5. Planes can bombard city defense and units but for example artillery can only bombard city defense at the moment

My suggestion:

1. Decide if a unit can bombard <iCanBombard>0 or 1
2. If it can bombard give it a range <iBombardRange>0,1,2,... (squares)
3. If it can bombard define what can be damaged (like airbomb-missions)
a) <iCanBombardUnits>0 or 1 (1 for bowman, catapult...)
b) <iCanBombardPort>0 or 1 (1 for artillery, mobile artillery)
c) <iCanBombardCityDefense>0 or 1 (0 for bowman, 1 for catapult,...)
d) <iCanBombardBuildings>0 or 1 (1 for cannon, artillery, mobile artillery)
e) <iCanBombardFactories>0 or 1 (1 for cannon, artillery, mobile artillery)
4. Define a battle distance <iBattleDistance>0,1,2,3,4,...
example:
warrior, swordman... 0
bowman 1
longbow, crossbow, ballista, trebu 2
catapult 4
...

Hint:There should never be higher range and smaller battledistance!

What is it good for? The way of battle could be improved. There are two types of battle - bombard and attack

bombard
When a unit bombards for example a city there should be direct counterfire from the city if there is a unit in the city that:
can bombard <iCanBombard>1
has the needed range <iBombardRange>0,1,2,...
and has the same or a higher battledistance

The defender allways uses the best unit with this feature. If the attacker has the longer or the same battledistance he hits first. If the defender has the longer distance he hits first. The defender hits the bombarding unit, the attacker hits what he choosed. If he choosed "bombard units" he maybe hits the counterunit.

bombard examples
1) You want to bombard a city with a cannon and the defender only has bowman. You can do bombard without counterhit because the battledistance of the cannon is higher than the battledistance of the bowman. If you now bombard the city with a bowman yourself there will be counterfire because of the same range and battle distance. But because of the same battledistance you hit first (moment of surprise) and so your bombardment will take maximum effect.

(The effect of the counterhit and bombardment must depend on the health and the power of the units.)

2) You want to bombard a city with a catapult but the defender has a cannon. You can bombard but he hits your catapult first because of the longer battledistance. That means he hits the first catapults while they are going into position. So because of the damage to the catapult it will cause less damage to its aim.


attack
It doesn't matter who attacks. The defender is chosen as always. But now all other units of the defender with the same or a higher battledistance than the attacking unit will have one firststrikechance.

attack examples
1) There are three longbowman in a city and a longbowman will attack the city. Than the strongest longbowman of the defender will defend as always, but before he fights the other two longbowman have a firststrikechance against the attacking longbowman. The rest of the battle is done as usual.

2) There are a swordman and a bowman in the city and a longbowman is going to attack. Than there will be no firststrike from the bowman and the battle goes as usual.


What do think about this suggestion?

I forgot something.

BattleDistance doesn't depend on CanBombard.

example
The rifleman should have <iCanBombard>0 but <iBattleDistance> >0 (for example more than a bowman).
So he can't bombard, but he has a firststrikechance when defending for example against an attacking bowman!

So if a rifleman wants to attack a city with two bowman he can't bombard them. He has to attack. But because of his larger battledistance there will be no firststrikechance for the second bowman.

And so if a longbowman wants to attack a city with two rifleman he can bombard without being hurt. But if he attacks the city he will fight against the strongest rifleman and will be maybe hurt by a firststrike of the second rifleman.
 
Top Bottom