Probably Improved Gameplay Mod

Yaotlatoani said:
How about a Sentry Promotion for Scouts and Explorers? They really need that promotion. That'll give you enough warning to avoid danger.
Click to expand...

IMO they're already a decent unit if used intelligently, especially now that W3 is available to them as muxec also notes.

muxec said:
Woodsman 3 to recon units coupled with larger bonus against enemies makes sub-super healers to0 easy to get for hunting-starting civs, IMO.

Other changes are reasonable, well done. I guess we should start a SG to test the changes sometime in the future.
Click to expand...

Is it a problem that hunting civs get a slight boost? They also get archery earlier than other civs and now that archers have an extra 25% vs. axemen it could be argued this is another boost to hunting civs.

Scouts won't usually get W3 without upgrading it to an explorer. Non-hunting civs will just have to try a bit harder, by building an explorer with 5xp to get it.

IMO the way GGs are used as super medics is really weird. The idea that a combat-hardened war veteran is attached to a weak unit to become a medic is kind of funny.

Anyway, if allowing recon units to get W3 a bit more easily helps to dissuade people from attaching GGs to scouts or W3 melee units, then all the better IMO.

As for starting a SG, it's up to you but I wouldn't personally recommend it just yet. There's still a few things I think need changing that we haven't addressed yet.

At this point I'm still looking for people to hack it to pieces by way of criticisms.
 
v0.3 has been posted.

Changes:
  • Archer given +25% defense vs. axemen.
  • Axeman and all associated unique units restored to original stats.
  • Cost of all axeman type units increased to 40:hammers: from 35.
  • Increased carrier cost to 250 but allows 4 air units. BtS 3.19 was 175:hammers: for 3. v0.1 and v0.2 of this mod allowed 3 for 200:hammers:.
  • Added in Global Warming mod (merged DLL) v1.01


Added Marathon Accelerated Mod, along with Lighting as well (of my own)
This will only be enabled if you navigate to the XML/GameInfo folder and extract the .7z file located there. These gamespeeds are somewhat experimental, and not likely to be adequately balanced yet. Included mainly for testing or people who want to try the Marathon Accelerated mod.
Click to expand...
 
PieceOfMind said:
- Archer given +25% defense vs. axemen.
- Axeman and all associated unique units restored to original stats.
Click to expand...

That sounds a lot more intelligent and elegant than changing the Axeman and all its UU's.
 
It may not be necessary with there already being enhancements to the drill line, but I've switched the first strike chance of drill I with a first strike from drill IV. If I only have one promotion available then it's hard to take something that only has a 50% chance of activating. This way the first one isn't such a questionable choice on it's own and the line still has the same total number of first strike/chances.
 
I've thought about that as well Minor Annoyance. What I worry about is that it would give Protective civs a very material boost from the very start of the game.

My view has always been the drill line is a bit weird because drill 3 is more or less identical to drill 2. With your change, drill 1, 2 and 3 will all be essentially the same promotion, except drill 1 doesn't get the collateral protection.

Now I haven't played many games with either setup, but since I am aiming for minimal impact on the existing game, the extra strike chance on drill 3 seems a little safer. Yes, it does make the drill line worth 3-7 first strikes instead of 3-6 overall, but I can live with that.

By the way, your change would also add an instant boost to any unit that starts with drill 1 (samurais, omoro warriors, panzers (in this mod) ).

Also, making drill 1 stronger may unbalance siege units even further. At the moment, drill 1 is sometimes useful on siege because it usually makes them more likely to hurt the top defender. With 1 fs instead of 1 fsc that chance of hurting the top defender increases.
 
I don't understand, what's so bad about having the same promotion at different tiers? Combat I, II, and III are the same +10% strength. Navigation I and II are the same +1 movement, and Range I and II are also the same.

As long as the values are additive and stack up, I see now problem with it.

POM, you're much more knowledgeable on the mechanics of first strikes. What would you say to something like this:

  • Drill I - +1 First Strike
  • Drill II - +1 First Strike; Suffers 20% Less Collateral Damage
  • Drill III - +1 First Strike; Suffers 20% Less Collateral Damage
  • Drill IV - +2 First Strikes; Suffers 20% Less Collateral Damage

So a total of 5 first strikes and 60% less collateral damage suffered.

So a drill IV longbowman would simply have 6 first strikes all the time, instead of 4-7 (4-25%, 5-25%, 6-25%, 7-25%). As Minor Annoyance said, it makes the initial investment in the drill promotions better. The tradeoff is you take away that 25% chance to do 7 first strikes (in the longbowman's case). You were also going to add another first strike chance anyway to drill III to buff it, perhaps that may not be needed with this approach.

Also, I think you wrote that a first strike "chance" is roughly 50% of the value of a first strike. So Drill III is already pretty much what I proposed above, with its 2 first strike chances in the default game. Since you're also adding another first strike chance into the drill line mix, you can just add that to Drill I and that equals 1 first strike. The buff to the drill line promotion is that initial investment value.

I think we rely on the fate of the RNG enough already within regular combat "rolls". Why not just make first strikes a definite upgrade and not just another roll of the dice?

As you said, it does give protective civs yet another small buff as well as units that come with Drill I. Though, how significant this is, I'm not sure.
 
PieceOfMind please continue with this mod, i look foward ! ;)

i expecially like the GW mod incorpored! (thx minorannoyance!)
 
Jaroth said:
I don't understand, what's so bad about having the same promotion at different tiers? Combat I, II, and III are the same +10% strength. Navigation I and II are the same +1 movement, and Range I and II are also the same.

As long as the values are additive and stack up, I see now problem with it.

POM, you're much more knowledgeable on the mechanics of first strikes. What would you say to something like this:

  • Drill I - +1 First Strike
  • Drill II - +1 First Strike; Suffers 20% Less Collateral Damage
  • Drill III - +1 First Strike; Suffers 20% Less Collateral Damage
  • Drill IV - +2 First Strikes; Suffers 20% Less Collateral Damage

So a total of 5 first strikes and 60% less collateral damage suffered.

So a drill IV longbowman would simply have 6 first strikes all the time, instead of 4-7 (4-25%, 5-25%, 6-25%, 7-25%). As Minor Annoyance said, it makes the initial investment in the drill promotions better. The tradeoff is you take away that 25% chance to do 7 first strikes (in the longbowman's case). You were also going to add another first strike chance anyway to drill III to buff it, perhaps that may not be needed with this approach.

Also, I think you wrote that a first strike "chance" is roughly 50% of the value of a first strike. So Drill III is already pretty much what I proposed above, with its 2 first strike chances in the default game. Since you're also adding another first strike chance into the drill line mix, you can just add that to Drill I and that equals 1 first strike. The buff to the drill line promotion is that initial investment value.

I think we rely on the fate of the RNG enough already within regular combat "rolls". Why not just make first strikes a definite upgrade and not just another roll of the dice?

As you said, it does give protective civs yet another small buff as well as units that come with Drill I. Though, how significant this is, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

There are two main problems I have with boosting Drill 1 by making it a FS instead of FSC.

1) Siege units get a much more substantial boost from Drill 1. Without any testing, it is hard to say whether this could be a bit unbalancing. Siege units being unable to reach Drill 3 in a typical game is one of the reasons I'd prefer to put the boost nearer the end of the drill line.

2) As discussed already, the very real boost to Protective civs. Protective civs will now have archers and longbows with 2 first strikes to start. Archers have already been boosted, and Protective civs as well with the better castles and half price sec bureaus.

A lesser concern is that putting more first strikes nearer the start of the promotion line (in this case just 0.5 effectively) means earning the xp to get further along the line becomes easier. IMO this is part of the reason it is necessary for drill promotions to get better as you go. This won't effect siege units since they can only take 1xp on withdrawal.

Since the drill promos now unlock the same promos as combat ones, this also makes drill 1 worth a lot more than it might initially look.
 
I just noticed. Somewhere along the line I restored March to be available after Combat 3, and now Drill 3. But it is now not available with Medic 1.

I had not mentioned this in the features list, so I will fix this now. I think this change was in v0.3. Previously, I had made Medic 1 the only prerequisite for March, which someone commented in the negative about.
 
The OR prerequisites are unfortunately stored in separate fields rather than an array like other OR prereqs. Thus, adding a third is not as easy as changing a constant, but it is possible. They are checked in only two places:

  • isPromotionValid() in CvGameCoreUtils.cpp
  • CvUnit::canAcquirePromotion()
You'll also need to read the value into a new variable in CvInfos.cpp.
 
The_Reckoning said:
I'm no programmer, but surely there's the same tag on chariots for +100% vs. Axemen on attack?
Click to expand...

He means the attack or defense bonuses are only possible on unit classes. For combat types (e.g. all melee units) the bonus can only be general i.e. applied in both attack and defense.

Look at it this way, there is no unit in the game that gets an attack or defense bonus against a whole combat type like all melee or all archery units.

It's possible to just give the attack or defense bonus against every melee unit separately, but it will definitely look clumsy, especially in the unit help hover text and the civilopedia.
 
PieceOfMind said:
He means the attack or defense bonuses are only possible on unit classes. For combat types (e.g. all melee units) the bonus can only be general i.e. applied in both attack and defense.
Click to expand...

Ah, I understand now.

I wonder if there's a way to manually edit the unit rollover bonuses? Then even with a clumsy-looking solution, it wouldn't appear to be so to the player.

That's assuming the bonus is worth it.
 
aday said:
One of the biggest things I think needs fixed is the experience gained from retreating. It sucks for your siege weapons that winning (i.e. "retreating from") a 3% odds battle only gives 1 exp. Similarly, I think mounted city attackers would gain more "experience" from a near-death battle that they barely escaped from. However, changing the value in GlobalDefines to 2 causes your siege units to gain 2 exp even from their >99.9% battles, resulting in some ridiculously well promoted siege weapons. Does anyone have any ideas on how this could be improved?
Click to expand...

We could modify the combat XP award such that the XP from Withdrawal is capped by the XP you would have earned from Victory. The other option is to add the concept of Withdrawal separate from Retreat. Units can Retreat (are going to die but run away) and get 1XP, but units that Withdraw get 2XP (capped by Victory value). Withdrawal would only apply to Siege units or any other unit that has a maximum damage value. Or the third option: treat it like Victory (no new XP value, just award Victory XP).

The_Reckoning said:
I wonder if there's a way to manually edit the unit rollover bonuses? Then even with a clumsy-looking solution, it wouldn't appear to be so to the player.
Click to expand...

It would be easier and preferable to add a new differential bonus for Combat Types.

Jungles

I agree that it would be nice to do something about Jungles. +1:hammers: is a good start as is the :hammers: value when chopping, but I would prefer something that would really make you think twice about clear-cutting the Jungle.

  • +1:yuck: goes away at some tech, perhaps Medicine/Biology
  • +1:health: with a building available at some early tech such as Acquaduct
Also, I read long ago that much of the initial farmland of Central and South America was created by slash-and-burn of forests and jungles. In this case you would get no :hammers: from clearing it. Perhaps that gain should come with some Medieval tech? Probably not worth the effort though.
 
EmperorFool said:
Jungles

I agree that it would be nice to do something about Jungles. +1:hammers: is a good start as is the :hammers: value when chopping, but I would prefer something that would really make you think twice about clear-cutting the Jungle.

  • +1:yuck: goes away at some tech, perhaps Medicine/Biology
  • +1:health: with a building available at some early tech such as Acquaduct
Also, I read long ago that much of the initial farmland of Central and South America was created by slash-and-burn of forests and jungles. In this case you would get no :hammers: from clearing it. Perhaps that gain should come with some Medieval tech? Probably not worth the effort though.
Click to expand...
I have given some thought to this (I was the one who suggested the production options for jungles). This is what I came up with originally:
Dragonxander PR said:
- +1:hammers: on a jungled tile
- give the same production yield forests give, but for jungle chopping
- increase the jungle clearing cost (from 6 to 8 turns in Epic)
- allow lumbermills to be built in jungles (then chopping them might not be so attractive after all)
- make them grow on Plains tiles (the barren land obtained from jungle chopping in reality isn't that fertile)
Click to expand...

From the critiques I received from these changes, I suggest the following:

- Preserves built atop jungles remove their unhealthiness, all other benefits remain (similar to your idea)
- Make chop yields 1/2 of a forest's (many people complain about the original propossal being overpowered & thus unbalancing), yet remaining with the increased worker time I suggested (double that of the forest's).
- Limit jungles to grassland.

Another version for this that I propose would rather be a major change, but consider it too:

- My original changes remain (not the ones I just propossed).
- Jungles will have the :health: bonus from preserves I mentioned above
- Jungles would require Biology instead of Iron Working in order to be chopped (like in RFC)
- Improvements don't have to remove the jungles (also like in RFC).
 
Regarding the jungles, if I am going to implement changes I need them to be simple. Implementing lots of little changes that have very little actual effect on gameplay I'd prefer to avoid, since it will just make it more confusing for someone trying to adjust from the regular game, and clutter up the changes list.

I like the criteria AveiMil proposed earlier in the thread:

AveiMil said:
1. Does this change actually improve or impact game play in a positive way?

Then remember that less is more and ask your self:

2. Is it really necessary?
Click to expand...

Now it's quite possible that some of the changes will have little effect on gameplay so I don't want that to be the limiting criterion for most suggestions. For example, giving walls +25% trade route yield is likely to have little real effect on gameplay but I believe it to be a balance change that is realistic enough.

I guess my expanded list of questions to ask regarding a potential change would be:

  • Does the change address a balance problem in a way that is not likely to unbalance further?
  • Does the change make a particular decision making process more interesting, or allow alternative strategies to existing ones?
  • Is it likely the change will have a negative impact on the AI's performance. If so, is the effect minimal?
  • Does the change have at least some degree of realism?
  • Could a similar effect on gameplay be achieved through a simpler change? i.e. Less is more.
  • Is the change likely to confuse new players to the mod?
  • Is the change going to be difficult to implement? Is it worth the programmer's time?
  • Will the change be popular?
  • Will the change be small enough to not unnecessarily increase the overall size (in MB) of the mod?

With the changes so far, these are the various criteria I have used to justify making the change, or to oppose suggestions. I'm not going to make a list of formal criteria a change must pass before being implemented but the above questions are important and most of them should be considered in each case.
 
I really like your reasoning and approach PoM. Keep up the good work.

I played my first game with 0.3 yesterday and noticed a bug. Not sure what's causing this bug, if it's something you've done or if it's a mod you've incorporated or if it's something on my system.

Anyway, whenever I prepare to attach barbarians the following pink area appears:

http://www.aveimil.com/PIG_Barbarian_Bug.JPG

It seems to only occur when attacking Barbarians.

Do you experience this?
 
It doesn't happen for me but I think I know what's causing it. There are some missing art files. They should be in Assets\Art\ACO, but it looks like the entire Art\ACO folder is not in the v0.4 package. Having now just noticed that, I don't even know why it's working for me.

I'll get a fix for this asap.

In the meantime, can you tell me whether the Assets\Art\ACO folder exists? If so does it have a number of .dds files in it?
 
Yep. Basically, the necessary art files are missing. If you can hold out til v0.4, it'll be fixed.

Should be uploading some time soon hopefully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bvanevery
SMACX AI Growth mod
Replies
5
Views
2K
Blake00
Blake00
f1rpo
Taurus
2 3
Replies
43
Views
5K
f1rpo
f1rpo
The_J
Old World update #115
Replies
0
Views
786
The_J
The_J
Blake00
Heroes of Might and Magic 2 Scenario Mod (& HoMM1 Addon) - Release Thread
Replies
6
Views
2K
CurtSibling
CurtSibling
D
[C3C] Civilization Reborn - gameplay balance mod
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Civinator
Civinator
Top Bottom