Good stuff and naturally you make the merged unit easier to hit the bigger it is.
(NEW)Players Guide to the C2C Combat Mod - Size Matters game option VERSION 2.0
- Thread starter Thunderbrd
- Start date
Good stuff and naturally you make the merged unit easier to hit the bigger it is.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
You've expressed the math better than I could
I'll pause here and say this should not be entirely true. Combat Quality has some very similar weaknesses. As it gets higher it costs more to maintain and upgrade as well. And most crippling is the XP gain diminishes the higher the Combat Quality. I suppose I was talked into applying the same diminishing value on Group Volume as well BUT with Combat Quality, the greater the level of CQ, the farther you are away from being able to enhance it. The level prerequisite of the next Combat Quality promotion increases exponentially with each Combat Quality level the unit is currently at. Not so much a problem if you're plugging units out with a lot of xp but then you get units that are pretty much trained and that's that if you decide to select the Combat Quality one-up as their last promo. They'll never see the light of promotion day again. But at lower combat qualities they still have room to improve and the capacity to recover from the zeroing xp after taking a CQ upgrade, which has much the same effect as what you were saying about the impact of having room to merge later in your post.
I've done all I can to make them equivalent (different yet equivalent.) If I need to take the XP modifiers OFF of group size to assist in this then I will...
You understand from my previous post that I cannot use this option to ever justify changing the iCombat on a unit definition right? It would affect the units without the option unless I wrote out a whole unit redefinition entry which could then make for update headaches and needless added data.Likewise, changing S value is not really equivalent to changing CQ or V.
My point is, you should be able to chose CQ/V/S independently depending on what you want to achieve for the unit. However, this might lead to different final strength values - this is why I suggested either to change iCombat so that the same final strength is achieved, or to changecost so that players may reach the same final strength at the same original cost by merging/splitting units should they wish to. However, now I think about it, it's nearly the same as directly increasing/decreasing base Volume...
The hammers might work but I would've made the same point you just did
If we don't anchor to the original base values except where an offset is maintained throughout an entire unit upgrade path and is well justified at every stage throughout it we risk too much chaos y'know?In any case, I perfectly understand if you find the impact of this change not worth changing many unit definitions, but at least I wanted to be sure I made myself understandable
The reduction of CQ is generally a good thing for the unit and makes it more ripe for potential improvement of the same magnitude as Merging. The concept here is to show how our growing reliance on our improving weaponry is actually making us softer. Imagine pitting a Viking warrior in a fist fight against any Army soldier today... yeah. My money's on the Viking. Improving weapons make the battlefield require more thought and less savage force. And if we give more people bigger guns with mediocre training we have an overall more lethal force than a few highly trained people with smaller guns. You lose some raw combat skill by the individual, yes... but that just means they can absorb more of the battlefield lessons still - they have yet to lose their green skin but once they have gotten used to being IN warfare (on the job advanced training as it were) then they'll be a larger force with bigger guns with excellent training.That said, there's one related important balance issue that has appeared to me while pondering about all this. If (base) Volume is not the same across the various units, it's possible that upgrading units will ultimately result in a less useful unit.
Let's take the following example:
Unit1 is a 3 str unit with CQ/V/S of 7/3/5. Further in the tech tree, you have Unit2 with 4 str and CQ/V/S of 6/4/5. The second unit appears better at first sight (not considering
This means that you should be careful that upgrading a unit will not lead to a unit with in fact less fighting capabilities. In terms of gameplay, this means that any upgrade for which a -1 in CQ/+1 in V is required should result in a unit whose base strength (iCombat) is at least 50% higher than the non-upgraded version. If you agree with this view, I can extract the list of such upgrades and assess whether their meet the criteria or not.
Don't forget that's where the conversation started... As we consider how 'having room to merge' is a major balance point for units, we should also consider that the whole discussion emerged from 'room to split' as well... and finding the early units were imbalanced in THAT regard.(the discussion has stranded quite a bit from the original "splitted clubman" issue, but the more I look into this mod, the more I get its underlying implications
Perhaps ultimately the answer here is to leave things as they are with the units' Combat Class assignments and simply limit the number of merges or splits a unit can make away from its base values based on era (though a 1:1 ratio may not be wise either... Maybe a Tech tag would be best to control this limit for # of Splits allowed and # of Merges allowed...)
Not so much easier as the units under Ranged Bombardment attack aren't really checked for the 'to hit' roll but the bigger the unit is the more likely it will become the struck target IF the Ranged Bombarding unit does strike A target.
OK, I missed the lower xp gain - but it's the same for Volume, isn't it? Still, I don't think CQ and V are really on the same level. Assuming the xp effect is stronger for CQ, CQ's handicap is more a "long-run" effect, while V is immediate: you may immediately get the benefit of splitting or merging if you need to.
Let's say you're waging war (or planning to). Your primary concern is to have units with str on par with or better than the ennemy. With low CQ/high V units, sure, on the long run, you units may get better a bit faster, but it seems to me that it's much more useful to be able to merge units to quickly increase strength - and survive or conquer!
Likewise, regarding the last point in my last message (effect of -1/+1 on upgrade) where you stated that lower CQ was a good thing, this mean that the player is forced to a change (the former unit can no longer be built) which is, your new units will improve faster over time, but have less fighting capability now. An enemy who hasn't the tech might then have (all things equal) slightly better fighting capabilities compared to you now. Of course, this might very well be depending on the situation and on many parameters, but the main point is, after you unlock an upgrade, you no longer have the same option - you're forced on a path that might be a drawback.
Still, I think there's some great strategic potential in this opposition between short term and long term. An option to prevent the aforementioned problem could that the kind of -1/+1 upgrade would happen about at the same time as the increase in Volume limit (this would mean a tech-unlocked limit instead of an era limit).
Also, to reinforce the xp vs immediate strength, would it be possible to make the base xp gain (from buildings, civics...) dependent on the CQ of the unit? Then you'd effectively have a true choice when chosing a low CQ/high V unit versus a high CQ/low V unit: the first would not be able to increase its base strength as much, but would have more starting xp (thus promotions) to compensate. A bit counterintuitive that low CQ would help in this way, though...
By the way, I don't know how frequent are CQ promos, I don't recall seeing one in my current game. Are there some promos prerequisites?
OK, I now understand
I wasn't aware at first that non-SizeMatters game would use the same iCombat value (though it seems absurd it wouldn't now I see that...).Hm, true. I'm not sure how I'd see the limitation of number of split/merge away from base. Currently this mod has a lot of new mechanisms, but the only significant thing you are able to directly interact with (apart from the rather rare CQ promotion) is splitting/merging; it would be regrettable to limit that possibility. On the other hand, I'm not sure more than 3 or even 2 split/merge will be that common...
More broadly, I feel this mod would benefit from having more way to interact with what has already been developed; a few random ideas (not necessarily good, but to give some food for thought): possibility to reduce an enemy's CQ or V, ability to pick different CQ/V/S versions of a same unit (or have available units with widely different CQ/V/S combinations), buildings or civics that change the CQ of the units built in a city, promotions (automatic or gained through xp) that give special bonus/malus versus high or low S, ability to directly upgrade CQ of a unit by paying (a lot of) gold and/or time...
In any case, I'll sort out the upgrades for the starting brute and stone thrower as we discussed earlier.
A few other unrelated comments:
- In case you missed it, I reported earlier that the merge limit wasn't increased when I reached Ancient era. Don't know yet if it's the same when reaching Classical era.
- Why is merging/splitting free? Given the abundance of gold in C2C, having a cost (like 1/10th of the cost of the unit splitted, with a /1,5 or *1,5 per previous split/merge) would still let the players use it often, but require a bit of thought. You never know what kind of yet undiscovered cheesy tactics there might be when allowing it without limitations
- Upkeep cost could also be raised for staying away (in either direction) from the base V, to prevent both swarms of little units artificially protecting a city or preventing enemy's moves as well as huge superunits staying somewhere forever. Raising temporarily a big force or deploying occasionnally several agile small tactical units is realistic and strategically sound, but maintaining that forever should come at a cost; units with base volume should be the norm - giving the base volume a further importance.
For example, merging could increase upkeep by *6 (instead of *3 when there are 3 separate units, meaning the merged unit would cost twice as much as its components), while splitting would reduce it by -33% for each unit (instead of -66%, meaning that splitted units would cost twice as much as the original unit).
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Wow... you're a wellspring of ideas and discussion here Rwn! Kinda cool but I can't promise I can address all concepts here anytime soon. At some point I have to put a stopper on the project and work on some other combat mod options so that the 'bigger picture' can more fully emerge. But just because I might shelve some of the suggestions here doesn't mean I don't necessarily like them - just that I'm only budgeting so much more time for this mod for now.
I'll comment more directly...
The VERY big downside to this is that when you take a Quality upgrade promo, your unit loses all XP. So to do so is a very huge benefit for the unit but also not only resets the XP for the unit (making it need to earn a LOT of XP to get another level) but ALSO diminishes the XP the unit earns (AND this has a major effect on your Great General earning rate too!) So yes you do have a very immediate vs longterm gain strategy difference as to whether you take the Quality upgrade in the first place and even merging will have some impact. You'll have super powerful units by Quality upgrading AND merging BUT those units won't be gaining much in XP and will probably NEVER levelup so I tend to only do so for standing defenders, leaving my attack army capable of continuing to develop further before 'locking them down' with a Quality upgrade.
You do realize that when you upgrade, a merged unit will keep the same merge offset value and the newly upgraded unit will come into play with an extra Group Volume over the base right? (and that goes for quality as well... size isn't really yet malleable.)
Just clarifying to make sure that's not what you're getting at here...
But I don't think one Type of category having more prominence than another makes all that great a significant difference IF the limit to merging/splitting is based on the tech level and the 'base group volume' of the core unit definition. The more I think on this the more I'm feeling the need to prioritize that adjustment so it should be coming very soon.
The problem I have had is that you can merge these lesser group size units up to the max then upgrade them to where they are now breaking the group size limit... but IF the limit was based on the unit base group size then the limit could never be broken because we're limiting the offset value not the absolute group size, which probably applies better in later eras anyhow.
'
This will also kinda be possible via the ongoing training mod I've got waiting in the development wings (it's pretty much done in code and just needs some serious xml planning and help to implement.) With ongoing training, units in a city will gradually earn xp over time due to present training buildings. After enough xp buildup, they can level up enough to take greater combat quality promos.
I'm also not a fan of working with gold cost charges in the code because of how it must really be considered for the AI... I might get over this for the final Equipment mod project and then be more willing to revisit the idea here.
I'll comment more directly...
It IS but only because someone made a valid point as to how it's somewhat imbalanced if I don't with the way units split and merge and so on... I'd not intended the side effect of making Volume have a little more meaning over CQ but this would just mean I need to consider another penalty for high CQ perhaps.
It's the same handicap but you can often get a CQ upgrade right out the gate if you get enough XP output for your units so you may well find CQ upgrades more accessible than merging once you're a little deeper into the Ancient era... provided you settle a number of GGs in your military production center. The lower the unit's CQ, the more rapidly you can earn the next CQ upgrade (the lower the level the upgrade opens up and becomes accessible at.)
The VERY big downside to this is that when you take a Quality upgrade promo, your unit loses all XP. So to do so is a very huge benefit for the unit but also not only resets the XP for the unit (making it need to earn a LOT of XP to get another level) but ALSO diminishes the XP the unit earns (AND this has a major effect on your Great General earning rate too!) So yes you do have a very immediate vs longterm gain strategy difference as to whether you take the Quality upgrade in the first place and even merging will have some impact. You'll have super powerful units by Quality upgrading AND merging BUT those units won't be gaining much in XP and will probably NEVER levelup so I tend to only do so for standing defenders, leaving my attack army capable of continuing to develop further before 'locking them down' with a Quality upgrade.
It's your primary concern to have units that are better than the enemy and if you CAN do it without merging or upgrading CQ, you'll be all the better off as you'll be raking in the XP in comparison (and the Generals with it.)
But the unit base strength has gone up and most likely quite considerably so it's only less power when you consider it by the individual IN the unit. Overall the upgraded unit is almost always more powerful right? Regardless of how it's SM categories balance out differently or as it used to.
You do realize that when you upgrade, a merged unit will keep the same merge offset value and the newly upgraded unit will come into play with an extra Group Volume over the base right? (and that goes for quality as well... size isn't really yet malleable.)
Just clarifying to make sure that's not what you're getting at here...
If I change the limitation on how often a unit can merge to a 'by tech' achievement then I remove the potential for imbalance here I think. Yes, it's very possible for a civ behind in techs to build very powerful armies through merging and quality upgrades that can rival more advanced neighbors that don't have quite the production or military training focus... and that's part of the charm here... I've always felt this should be more possible for Civs.
But I don't think one Type of category having more prominence than another makes all that great a significant difference IF the limit to merging/splitting is based on the tech level and the 'base group volume' of the core unit definition. The more I think on this the more I'm feeling the need to prioritize that adjustment so it should be coming very soon.
I'm not sure I followed you here very well but if you're supporting the aforementioned assertion that I should be adjusting the merge/split limit mechanism then we're on the same page I think.
First I've considered this and after a couple of times reading this suggestion and musing on it my immediate reaction is that it would seem a little unfair as the player doesn't get the option to build a lesser group or quality rank version of the same unit type. Now... IF that was an option (which would be a VERY advanced modification to make that would be highly complicated (probably too much so) for the AI to adapt to properly without the player getting too great an edge from it) that the player had then yes, this would be an appropriate way to go about things to modify the base XP gain at the moment the unit is trained. Otherwise I think the ultimate effect would be to drastically reduce the XP on truly special units and would weight players more towards building the largest units possible because the size would be compensated by reductions in volume and quality and thus the larger SIZE units would be getting the lion's share of XP.
The prerequisites for these are all level based (level is the amount of times the unit has earned a promotion via xp) and the lower the CQ, the lower the level prereq. Pisspoor units at fighting can use a very minimal amount of xp to gain further quality and will gain that xp at a much faster rate if it can survive the conflicts it gets into.
Actually I think it's kinda cool that the reliance on the non-size matters version of the game is concealed enough that they can feel that different such that there's a presumption that develops that the combat strength bases are differing between the two. And then I think it's just as cool that they DON'T and it's JUST an impression the system gives. That's kinda what I was shooting for.OK, I now understand
It would be a solution to what brought up the conversation in the first place, no? If your first units, regardless of the group size they start with, can only split or merge once until you can unlock further merges/splits with more advanced military strategy techs then we've solved the original issue quite gracefully... there's also a few problems I've noted with the ultimate merge limit being established by era, not the least of which is the 'bug' you're pointing at which I've not been able to verify.
The problem I have had is that you can merge these lesser group size units up to the max then upgrade them to where they are now breaking the group size limit... but IF the limit was based on the unit base group size then the limit could never be broken because we're limiting the offset value not the absolute group size, which probably applies better in later eras anyhow.
Again, I'll preface this with 'I like most of these
'Discussed - not simple but cool enough to possibly work in before I move on from further developing this option.
Might have some complexity issues and is probably something I'd wait on for a while.
You mean a few choices among a given unit type? Consider that there ARE heroes, elephants, canines and so on that do offer some varieties among the various 3 categories. But if you mean for one unit type to have a couple of definitions... it would be difficult to work with unit selection lists for the city selection tool while at the same time making it the same actual type that COULD then remerge with others of the same type... And again, it would be tough to get the AI to see the differing values in the same advanced way as a player might. I've already got a number of AI deficiencies to address here (probably more than I think!)
Interesting... at the moment that's kinda what XP gain really accomplishes though not in any way REDUCING CQs... Someone had previously suggested a Quality VS Quantity setting for unit production and perhaps something along those lines could directly affect all CQs... Not something I'd look to do immediately though.
Yes... lots of work still to be done here before I put the stamp of temporary completion on this project... this is a big area - and not just high or low size but group volumes too - and terrain/city modifiers by group volume and so on.
hmm... or perhaps a new great general action?
This will also kinda be possible via the ongoing training mod I've got waiting in the development wings (it's pretty much done in code and just needs some serious xml planning and help to implement.) With ongoing training, units in a city will gradually earn xp over time due to present training buildings. After enough xp buildup, they can level up enough to take greater combat quality promos.
Yeah, even if I change the merge/split limitation mechanism I still think this would be cool because I think we start getting into battalion sized base units a bit too early.
Didn't miss it but was thinking about it and I believe you may have experienced the increase of the group size with an upgrade and was thus confused as to why you couldn't further merge... but I'm not sure. Regardless, changing the mechanism means it'll get debugged by default if it IS bugged somehow.
Waiting to let those be discovered yet. I don't see much justification for costs to be incurred to merge or split as it's pretty much just a command decision - unless perhaps we're talking about more advanced units but usually those would already have some internal prepared definitions of splits that could take place - in the Army we knew which battalion, company, squad we were a part of etc... even if we were all deployed as a group - and this strategic preparedness would be a part of what enables greater merges/splits with increasing military strategy technology right?- Why is merging/splitting free? Given the abundance of gold in C2C, having a cost (like 1/10th of the cost of the unit splitted, with a /1,5 or *1,5 per previous split/merge) would still let the players use it often, but require a bit of thought. You never know what kind of yet undiscovered cheesy tactics there might be when allowing it without limitations
I'm also not a fan of working with gold cost charges in the code because of how it must really be considered for the AI... I might get over this for the final Equipment mod project and then be more willing to revisit the idea here.
This is actually quite interesting AND quite possible... Would affect those units that start with an offset though so is that quite fair? hmm... I dunno I kinda like this idea though. Usually units with an offset were already kinda elite in the way they are the only ones that can really perform their roles and may well be worth charging more for them (though ironically this would mean that some of those - take canines for example - would be made cheaper when merged... lol) Anyhow, it's something to consider - I might have to define the Unit Base definition offset and base the upgrade and upkeep cost modifier on THAT rather than the normal 5/5/5 balance point.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Civic tags introducing a quality or volume offset to the base? Interesting... could be done. AI on new Civic tags is hell though. Seriously. And THIS would be something you'd think the AI would really want to pay attention to! (Though at points it could be a double edged sword which way it went...)
Yeah, I tend to be a bit carried over when finding something I like
Don't worry, I certainly don't expect that everything should be implemented, but if this inspired or helped you, I'll be more than happy.I'll shorten my answer to the most constructive issues then
In fact that would probably be required if you implement the extra cost for being further than base volume - otherwise you'd just split/merge to the base volume and quickly change when need arises...
If there's an issue for AIs, a possible solution could be that AIs do not incur any cost for splitting/merging; it's not like AIs are going to abuse it anyway.
Also, here are a few tables about several issues that you might find interesting.
First, regarding lowering Brute and Stone thrower to Party instead of Squad:
UNITCLASS_BRUTE | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_WARRIOR | 0
UNITCLASS_STONE_THROWER | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_SLINGER | 0
| | | | |
UNITCLASS_WARRIOR | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_SPIKED_CLUBMAN | UNITCLASS_WOODEN_SPEARMAN
UNITCLASS_SLINGER | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_ATLATL | 0
| | | | |
UNITCLASS_SPIKED_CLUBMAN | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_STONE_AGE_AXEMAN | UNITCLASS_STONE_MACEMAN
UNITCLASS_WOODEN_SPEARMAN | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_STONE_AGE_SPEARMAN | 0
UNITCLASS_ATLATL | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_ARCHER | UNITCLASS_JAVELINEER
Bottom line is, if Brute and Stone Thrower are lowered to Party, their next upgrades Clubman (Warrior) and Slinger should be lowered to Squad, then the next upgrades can stay with the same volume.
Out of curiosity, I looked into all the possible ugrades (excluding irrelevant non-combattant units), there are in fact quite a few whose either CQ V or S change by 2 or more. Here's the list in case you'd like to modify it:
UNITCLASS_BOOMERANG_THROWER | 1 | 1,33 | 6 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_ARCHER | 4,00 | 5 | 5 | 5
UNITCLASS_CARIB_BLOWGUNNER | 1 | 3,00 | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_ARCHER | 4,00 | 5 | 5 | 5
UNITCLASS_GALLEY | 1 | 4,00 | 5 | 4 | 6 | UNITCLASS_COG | 6,00 | 6 | 2 | 7
UNITCLASS_TOMOL | 1 | 1,33 | 6 | 2 | 6 | UNITCLASS_GALLEY | 4,00 | 5 | 4 | 6
UNITCLASS_TRIBAL_GUARDIAN | 1 | 2,00 | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_TOWN_WATCHMEN | 3,33 | 5 | 4 | 5
UNITCLASS_CHARIOT | 2 | 6,00 | 6 | 3 | 6 | UNITCLASS_CARROBALLISTA | 7,00 | 7 | 1 | 7
UNITCLASS_EGYPT_WARCHARIOT | 2 | 7,00 | 6 | 3 | 6 | UNITCLASS_CARROBALLISTA | 7,00 | 7 | 1 | 7
UNITCLASS_HITTITES_HITTITE_CHARIOT | 2 | 4,00 | 6 | 3 | 6 | UNITCLASS_CARROBALLISTA | 7,00 | 7 | 1 | 7
UNITCLASS_SHANG_CHARIOT | 2 | 6,00 | 6 | 3 | 6 | UNITCLASS_CARROBALLISTA | 7,00 | 7 | 1 | 7
UNITCLASS_ZEBRA_CHARIOT | 2 | 4,00 | 6 | 3 | 6 | UNITCLASS_WAR_WAGON | 8,00 | 7 | 1 | 7
UNITCLASS_BELLYBOWMAN | 3 | 5,00 | 5 | 5 | 5 | UNITCLASS_OXYBELES | 6,00 | 6 | 3 | 6
UNITCLASS_CHINA_CHOKONU | 4 | 13,50 | 7 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_HEAVY_CROSSBOWMAN | 12,00 | 5 | 5 | 5
UNITCLASS_CRUSADER | 4 | 15,00 | 8 | 2 | 5 | UNITCLASS_MUSKETMAN | 20,00 | 5 | 5 | 5
UNITCLASS_EARLY_IMP_GUARD | 4 | 18,00 | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_REN_IMP_GUARD | 13,33 | 6 | 2 | 5
UNITCLASS_JAPAN_SAMURAI | 4 | 11,00 | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_MUSKETMAN | 20,00 | 5 | 5 | 5
UNITCLASS_MONK | 4 | 10,00 | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_MEDIC | 3,56 | 4 | 4 | 5
UNITCLASS_CHEROKEE_RIFLEMAN | 5 | 30,00 | 7 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_TRENCH_INFANTRY | 30,00 | 5 | 5 | 5
UNITCLASS_CITY_GUARD | 5 | 12,67 | 5 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_SHERIFF | 16,67 | 7 | 2 | 5
UNITCLASS_FANATIC | 5 | 15,00 | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_RIFLEMAN | 26,00 | 5 | 5 | 5
UNITCLASS_HERERO_REBEL | 5 | 26,00 | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_SNIPER | 13,33 | 7 | 2 | 5
UNITCLASS_INNISKILLING | 5 | 26,00 | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_SNIPER | 13,33 | 7 | 2 | 5
UNITCLASS_REN_IMP_GUARD | 5 | 13,33 | 6 | 2 | 5 | UNITCLASS_MODERN_IMP_GUARD | 60,00 | 6 | 4 | 5
UNITCLASS_SIEGE_WAGON | 5 | 16,00 | 7 | 1 | 7 | UNITCLASS_ARMORED_CAR | 36,00 | 5 | 3 | 7
UNITCLASS_GUERRILLA | 6 | 38,00 | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_MSNIPER | 40,00 | 7 | 2 | 5
UNITCLASS_MEDIC | 6 | 3,56 | 4 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_HOSPITAL_SHIP | 11,11 | 4 | 2 | 7
UNITCLASS_MODERN_IMP_GUARD | 6 | 60,00 | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_ROBOT_IMP_GUARD | 200,00 | 8 | 1 | 6
UNITCLASS_HITECH_MARINE | 7 | 90,00 | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_POWER_ARMORED_INFANTRY | 120,00 | 7 | 2 | 6
UNITCLASS_MODERN_ARMOR | 7 | 105,00 | 5 | 3 | 7 | UNITCLASS_DROID_TANK | 210,00 | 7 | 2 | 7
UNITCLASS_MODERN_PARATROOPER | 7 | 58,00 | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_DROPSHIP | 150,00 | 6 | 2 | 7
UNITCLASS_POLICE_APC | 7 | 40,00 | 5 | 2 | 7 | UNITCLASS_POLICE_MECH | 66,67 | 7 | 1 | 6
UNITCLASS_SAM_INFANTRY | 7 | 54,00 | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_MOBILE_SAM | 70,00 | 6 | 2 | 7
UNITCLASS_SPECIAL_FORCES | 7 | 60,00 | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_SPECIAL_INFANTRY | 110,00 | 5 | 5 | 5
UNITCLASS_WALKER | 7 | 85,00 | 8 | 1 | 6 | UNITCLASS_DROID_INFANTRY | 130,00 | 7 | 3 | 5
UNITCLASS_ANDROID_INFANTRY | 8 | 180,00 | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_CYBORG | 200,00 | 5 | 5 | 5
UNITCLASS_ANDROID_INFANTRY | 8 | 180,00 | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_HITECH_ROBOT | 290,00 | 7 | 1 | 7
UNITCLASS_ANDROID_INFANTRY | 8 | 180,00 | 7 | 3 | 5 | UNITCLASS_SENTINEL | 220,00 | 7 | 1 | 7
UNITCLASS_AUTOMATONS | 8 | 120,00 | 4 | 6 | 5 | UNITCLASS_BLEEDER | 140,00 | 7 | 3 | 5
UNITCLASS_CYBORG | 8 | 200,00 | 5 | 5 | 5 | UNITCLASS_HITECH_ROBOT | 290,00 | 7 | 1 | 7
UNITCLASS_CYBORG | 8 | 200,00 | 5 | 5 | 5 | UNITCLASS_FERAL | 220,00 | 8 | 2 | 5
UNITCLASS_EXOARMORED_INFANTRY | 8 | 90,00 | 6 | 4 | 5 | UNITCLASS_POWER_ARMORED_INFANTRY | 120,00 | 7 | 2 | 6
UNITCLASS_NLOS_CANNON | 8 | 90,00 | 6 | 2 | 7 | UNITCLASS_WALKER_ARTILLERY | 160,00 | 8 | 1 | 6
UNITCLASS_SPECIAL_INFANTRY | 8 | 110,00 | 5 | 5 | 5 | UNITCLASS_SENTINEL | 220,00 | 7 | 1 | 7
UNITCLASS_SPECIAL_INFANTRY | 8 | 110,00 | 5 | 5 | 5 | UNITCLASS_FERAL | 220,00 | 8 | 2 | 5
UNITCLASS_THERMOBARIC_TANK | 8 | 140,00 | 5 | 3 | 7 | UNITCLASS_DREADNOUGHT | 240,00 | 5 | 1 | 9
Also, a table of units that lose strength when upgraded. A few of them might be intended (such as the post-apocalyptic grenadier upgrading to ancient flamethrower - is that an easter egg ?), but other might not be, so just so you know:
UNITCLASS_AEGIS | 6 | 1,00 | 8 | 80 | 80,00 | UNITCLASS_LITTORAL_COMBAT_SHIP | 5,00 | 1 | 8 | 110 | 73,33
UNITCLASS_AMBUSHER | 7 | 3,00 | 5 | 3 | 3,00 | UNITCLASS_ROGUE | 7,00 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2,00
UNITCLASS_CHINA_CHOKONU | 7 | 4,00 | 5 | 9 | 13,50 | UNITCLASS_HEAVY_CROSSBOWMAN | 5,00 | 5 | 5 | 12 | 12,00
UNITCLASS_EARLY_IMP_GUARD | 6 | 4,00 | 5 | 18 | 18,00 | UNITCLASS_REN_IMP_GUARD | 6,00 | 2 | 5 | 30 | 13,33
UNITCLASS_MONK | 7 | 3,00 | 5 | 10 | 10,00 | UNITCLASS_MEDIC | 4,00 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 3,56
UNITCLASS_HERERO_REBEL | 6 | 4,00 | 5 | 26 | 26,00 | UNITCLASS_SNIPER | 7,00 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 13,33
UNITCLASS_INNISKILLING | 6 | 4,00 | 5 | 26 | 26,00 | UNITCLASS_SNIPER | 7,00 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 13,33
UNITCLASS_POST_APOCALYPTIC_GRENADIER | 6 | 4,00 | 5 | 13 | 13,00 | UNITCLASS_ANCIENT_FLAMETHROWER | 6,00 | 4 | 5 | 12 | 12,00
UNITCLASS_ROCKET_ARTILLERY | 6 | 2,00 | 7 | 65 | 65,00 | UNITCLASS_HOVER_ARTILLERY | 6,00 | 2 | 7 | 50 | 50,00
UNITCLASS_WALKER | 8 | 1,00 | 6 | 85 | 85,00 | UNITCLASS_SCOUT_MECH | 7,00 | 1 | 6 | 90 | 60,00
UNITCLASS_URBAN_HORSEMAN | 6 | 3,00 | 6 | 18 | 18,00 | UNITCLASS_CUIRASSIER | 5,00 | 4 | 6 | 15 | 15,00
UNITCLASS_NLOS_CANNON | 6 | 2,00 | 7 | 90 | 90,00 | UNITCLASS_LEVITATION_ARTILLERY | 6,00 | 2 | 7 | 70 | 70,00
UNITCLASS_WW1_DESTROYER | 6 | 1,00 | 8 | 46 | 46,00 | UNITCLASS_DESTROYER | 5,00 | 1 | 8 | 62 | 41,33
(in case you're wondering, all those tables are mostly automatically generated, I did not manually look and fill each entry...)
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
hmm... all that actually sounds like the best reason not to adjust the cost away from the 1:1 ratio it's at now. The AI would be charging itself a fortune the way its setup to simplify the AI structure for now. And I don't want to differ the AI costs from the Player costs... such differences between player and ai handling should be rare throughout the game code.
That's interesting... I'd thought each upgrade had a stage up but I suppose I'd kept the lower volume for another upgrade in. I suppose for the purposes we'd established originally, it might not be a bad idea to do exactly as you just stated. It'd certainly be easier.
An interesting list... size adjustments are what seem to bring these on in most cases. Either that or shifts from one type of upgrade chain to another where they branch, or from special unit to generic. All of those are probably ok reasons for this lack of graduality to exist. My main concern is keeping this graduality through basic generic unit type upgrades. (where possible)
Now THAT list is interesting and in some cases points more at some inconsistencies in the core than just the mod. I'll try to comment on each:
- Littoral Combat Ship is set one quality too low apparently - noted and will be repaired.
- Ambusher to Rogue hmm... this is due to the criminal line being offset by -1 while the strike team line which crosses over is not. There's always been debate about which should upgrade to which and perhaps I can convince Hydro/DH/SO that we should make Rogues upgrade into Ambushers now that here we actually have a reason... (and perhaps we should give ambushers 4 strength base - they seem a little underpowered to me and have for a while now.)
- Chokonu is one quality stage too high at the moment - noted and will be fixed.
- UNITCLASS_REN_IMP_GUARD is TWO volume ranks too low - noted and will be fixed.
- Monk - Medic Monks should not be upgrading to Medics in the first place... need to figure out which medical unit it SHOULD upgrade to but it'd lose a lot going 'up' to medic even in the core.
- Inniskilling - Sniper Another downward 'upgrade' in the base unit scheme... they should upgrade to the next stage on the strike team list at least. Will need to research the proper shift.
- Post Apocalyptic Grenadier - Ancient Flamethrower Another downward 'upgrade' that should be repaired though it may do so so that it can take on the next best thereafter that's actually available but it's still set to a potential upgrade for loss so that's not quite right.
- Rocket Artillery - Hover Artillery A downward upgrade perhaps but maybe due to an under strengthed Hover Artillery. I'll need Hydro to comment...
- UNITCLASS_SCOUT_MECH Scout units are generally given a -1 offset which it has... but the Walker isn't a scout is it? Maybe I should let scouts catch up to a 0 offset at this point and give it a +1 Group Volume or +1 Size... Or if Walker is supposed to be a scouting unit then it's an offset too high instead.
- Urban Horseman - Curraissier Another downward Upgrade that may just be set that way so it can upgrade to whatever the current 'best' unit in that upgrade chain may be.
- NLOS Cannon - Levitation Artillery I think the Levitation Artillery is simply underpowered... I'll let Hydro comment.
- UNITCLASS_DESTROYER is one Combat Quality rank too low. Thanks for pointing that out.
Keep this up RWN and I'm going to want you to join us on the team and help me with further XML tasks (like the fixes noted above!) lol
Not that I wouldn't want to help, but by experience I'm notoriously unreliable when it comes to staying committed to any kind of "work" unless it's fun (which for me translates in understanding/messing with anything new and complex - no surprise I'm totally in C2C!). But shoot if there are other analysis like those above that you'd like.
Another table: units whose CQ+V+S is not equal to 15, sorted by class then CQ+V+S. Probably irrelevant for civilians and feature for explorer and criminals, but some other may be a mistake.
UNITCLASS_POLICE_MECH | UNITCOMBAT_ASSAULT_MECH | 7 | 1 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_NOBLE | UNITCOMBAT_ATTACHE | 7 | 1 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_LORD | UNITCOMBAT_ATTACHE | 7 | 1 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_VICEROY | UNITCOMBAT_ATTACHE | 7 | 1 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_BEASTMASTER | UNITCOMBAT_ATTACHE | 8 | 1 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_6 | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7
UNITCLASS_JUDGE | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7
UNITCLASS_LAWYER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7
UNITCLASS_BARD | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_CHRISTIAN_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_ENTERTAINER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_1 | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_2 | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_4 | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_7 | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_BURGERWORLD | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_FASHION | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_MALLWART | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_MCDOWELLS | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_MILEHIGH | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_MOBBY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_RED | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_WONKA | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_MOONBEAN_EXECUTIVE | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_SCIENTIST | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_STORY_TELLER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_ENGINEER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 1 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_3 | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_5 | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_ADVENTURE | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_EMPCLOTH | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_EWTRADE | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_MAPSTER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_HINDU_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_ZOROASTRIAN_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_EGYPT_MYTH_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 2 | 5 | 10
UNITCLASS_ISLAMIC_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 2 | 5 | 10
UNITCLASS_JEWISH_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 2 | 5 | 10
UNITCLASS_APOTHECARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 3 | 5 | 11
UNITCLASS_NAGUALISM_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 2 | 5 | 11
UNITCLASS_FORTY_NINER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 4 | 5 | 11
UNITCLASS_MODERN_WORKBOAT | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 2 | 7 | 11
UNITCLASS_TREASURE | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 1 | 6 | 11
UNITCLASS_AIRSETTLER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 2 | 7 | 12
UNITCLASS_BAND | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 2 | 5 | 5 | 12
UNITCLASS_CLASSIC_WORKBOAT | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_EARLY_MERCHANT_C2C | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 3 | 5 | 12
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_SAFARI | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 5 | 2 | 5 | 12
UNITCLASS_EXTRACTION_FACILITY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 1 | 8 | 12
UNITCLASS_GATHERER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 4 | 5 | 12
UNITCLASS_HEALER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 3 | 5 | 12
UNITCLASS_MIDDLE_WORKBOAT | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_WORKER_INDUSTRIAL | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_SURGEON | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 4 | 5 | 12
UNITCLASS_WORKBOAT | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_WORKBUFFALO | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_WORKCAMEL | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_WORKER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 4 | 5 | 12
UNITCLASS_WORKLLAMA | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_WORKMULE | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_AGENT | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 7 | 1 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_BUDDHIST_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_CONFUCIAN_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_ECOLOGIST | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_WORKANIMAL | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 4 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_BULLSEYE | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_EXECUTIVE_ULTSOLDIER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_HELLENIC_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_IMMIGRANT | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 5 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_OFFSHORE_PLATFORM | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 1 | 8 | 13
UNITCLASS_RAPANUIWORKER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 4 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_MEDIC | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 4 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_PIONEER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 3 | 5 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_SPY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 7 | 1 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_SUBMERGED_TOWN_PLATFORM | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 1 | 8 | 13
UNITCLASS_SUPPLY_TRAIN | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 3 | 6 | 13
UNITCLASS_TAOIST_MISSIONARY | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_TRADE_CARAVAN | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 3 | 6 | 13
UNITCLASS_007 | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 8 | 1 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_COLONIST | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 5 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_WORKELEPHANT | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 5 | 2 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_WORKMAMMOTH | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 5 | 2 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_SETTLER | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 5 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_SPECIAL_AGENT | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 8 | 1 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_TRIBE | UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN | 4 | 5 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_CLONES | UNITCOMBAT_CLONES | 3 | 5 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_TOMOL | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_JEEP | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 5 | 3 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_MSNIPER | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_SNIPER | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_TRAINEDCAT | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 8 | 1 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_TRAINEDDOG | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 8 | 2 | 4 | 14
UNITCLASS_WARCAT | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 8 | 1 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_WARDOG | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 8 | 2 | 4 | 14
UNITCLASS_CHINA_CHOKONU | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 7 | 4 | 5 | 16
UNITCLASS_CHEROKEE_RIFLEMAN | UNITCOMBAT_COMBATANT | 7 | 4 | 5 | 16
UNITCLASS_MOBSTER_CAR | UNITCOMBAT_CRIMINAL | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_LITTORAL_COMBAT_SHIP | UNITCOMBAT_CRUISER | 5 | 1 | 8 | 14
UNITCLASS_MISSILE_CRUISER | UNITCOMBAT_CRUISER | 5 | 1 | 8 | 14
UNITCLASS_DESTROYER | UNITCOMBAT_DESTROYER | 5 | 1 | 8 | 14
UNITCLASS_MODERN_FRIGATE | UNITCOMBAT_DESTROYER | 5 | 1 | 8 | 14
UNITCLASS_HOSPITAL_SHIP | UNITCOMBAT_DIESEL_SHIPS | 4 | 2 | 7 | 13
UNITCLASS_HOSPITAL_SHIP_2 | UNITCOMBAT_DIESEL_SHIPS | 4 | 2 | 7 | 13
UNITCLASS_SPACESETTLER | UNITCOMBAT_EARLY_SPACESHIP | 2 | 1 | 7 | 10
UNITCLASS_ARTIST | UNITCOMBAT_ENTERTAINER | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_DRONE | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 5 | 1 | 4 | 10
UNITCLASS_LUNAR_ROVER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 4 | 1 | 6 | 11
UNITCLASS_SR71 | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 4 | 1 | 7 | 12
UNITCLASS_RECON_PLANE | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 5 | 1 | 7 | 13
UNITCLASS_ADVENTURER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_BIG_GAME_HUNTER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_CATAMARAN | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_CHASER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_CREE_TRACKER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_EXPLORER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_EXPLORER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_GAME_HUNTER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_GUIDE | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_HEADHUNTER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_HUNTER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_PACK_LLAMA | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_PACKMULE | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_RAFT | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 5 | 3 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_RANGER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_SCOUT | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_SIBERIAN_TRACKER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_SWAZI_TRACKER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_TRACKER | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_WARDEN | UNITCOMBAT_EXPLORER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_HIGHWAYMAN | UNITCOMBAT_GUN | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_OUTLAW | UNITCOMBAT_GUN | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_RIOTPOLICE | UNITCOMBAT_GUN | 6 | 3 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_SHARPSHOOTER | UNITCOMBAT_GUN | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_SHERIFF | UNITCOMBAT_GUN | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_DOCTOR | UNITCOMBAT_HEALTH_CARE | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8
UNITCLASS_EARLY_MEDIVAC | UNITCOMBAT_HELICOPTER | 5 | 2 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_MEDEVAC_DROPSHIP | UNITCOMBAT_HELICOPTER | 5 | 2 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_MODERN_MEDIVAC | UNITCOMBAT_HELICOPTER | 5 | 2 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_HTSNIPER | UNITCOMBAT_HITECH | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_BOOMERANG_THROWER | UNITCOMBAT_HUNTER | 6 | 3 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_INUIT_HARPOONER | UNITCOMBAT_HUNTER | 6 | 3 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_PARK_RANGER | UNITCOMBAT_HUNTER | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_WANDERER | UNITCOMBAT_HUNTER | 8 | 1 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_INQUISITOR | UNITCOMBAT_LAW_ENFORCEMENT | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_GUARDCAT | UNITCOMBAT_LAW_ENFORCEMENT | 8 | 1 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_GUARDDOG | UNITCOMBAT_LAW_ENFORCEMENT | 8 | 2 | 4 | 14
UNITCLASS_POLICE_CAT | UNITCOMBAT_LAW_ENFORCEMENT | 8 | 1 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_POLICE_DOG | UNITCOMBAT_LAW_ENFORCEMENT | 8 | 2 | 4 | 14
UNITCLASS_REN_IMP_GUARD | UNITCOMBAT_MELEE | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13
UNITCLASS_GUARD | UNITCOMBAT_MELEE | 5 | 4 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_CITY_GUARD | UNITCOMBAT_MELEE | 5 | 4 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_TOWN_WATCHMEN | UNITCOMBAT_MELEE | 5 | 4 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_PROPHET | UNITCOMBAT_MISSIONARY | 3 | 1 | 5 | 9
UNITCLASS_SEEDSHIP | UNITCOMBAT_NUCLEAR_SPACESHIP | 4 | 1 | 8 | 13
UNITCLASS_KAYAK | UNITCOMBAT_RECON | 5 | 2 | 6 | 13
UNITCLASS_OUTRIGGER | UNITCOMBAT_RECON | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_SCOUT_MECH | UNITCOMBAT_RECON | 7 | 1 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_DROID_TANK | UNITCOMBAT_ROBOT | 7 | 2 | 7 | 16
UNITCLASS_GREAT_SPY | UNITCOMBAT_SPY | 8 | 1 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_TAMED_AARDVARK | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 3 | 1 | 4 | 8
UNITCLASS_TAMED_TAPIR | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 5 | 1 | 4 | 10
UNITCLASS_TAMED_BISON | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 4 | 2 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_TAMED_BOAR | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 7 | 1 | 4 | 12
UNITCLASS_TAMED_CAMEL | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 4 | 2 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_TAMED_CATTLE | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 4 | 2 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_TAMED_LLAMA | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 4 | 2 | 6 | 12
UNITCLASS_TAMED_DONKEY | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 5 | 2 | 6 | 13
UNITCLASS_TAMED_HORSE | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 5 | 2 | 6 | 13
UNITCLASS_TAMED_MUSKOX | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 6 | 1 | 6 | 13
UNITCLASS_TAMED_BUFFALO | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_TAMED_HIPPO | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 7 | 1 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_TAMED_MAMMOTH | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 6 | 1 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_TAMED_RHINO | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 7 | 1 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_TAMED_WOLF | UNITCOMBAT_TAMED | 7 | 3 | 4 | 14
UNITCLASS_ASSASSIN | UNITCOMBAT_THROWING | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_ROGUE | UNITCOMBAT_THROWING | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_THIEF | UNITCOMBAT_THROWING | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14
UNITCLASS_BULLDOZER | UNITCOMBAT_TRACKED | 4 | 2 | 7 | 13
UNITCLASS_MERCHANT | UNITCOMBAT_TRADE | 4 | 1 | 5 | 10
UNITCLASS_CANOE | UNITCOMBAT_TRANSPORT | 5 | 3 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_EARLY_CARRIER | UNITCOMBAT_TRANSPORT | 5 | 1 | 8 | 14
UNITCLASS_FREIGHT | UNITCOMBAT_WHEELED | 4 | 2 | 7 | 13
UNITCLASS_AMBULANCE | UNITCOMBAT_WHEELED | 4 | 3 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_AMBULANCE_II | UNITCOMBAT_WHEELED | 4 | 3 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_MOTORCYCLE | UNITCOMBAT_WHEELED | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_POLICE_CAR | UNITCOMBAT_WHEELED | 5 | 2 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_WORKER_MODERN | UNITCOMBAT_WHEELED | 5 | 2 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_POLICE_APC | UNITCOMBAT_WHEELED | 5 | 2 | 7 | 14
UNITCLASS_WAR_WHEEL | UNITCOMBAT_WHEELED | 6 | 2 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_INDIAN_RHINO | UNITCOMBAT_WILD | 7 | 1 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_JAVA_RHINO | UNITCOMBAT_WILD | 7 | 1 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_WHITE_RHINO | UNITCOMBAT_WILD | 7 | 1 | 6 | 14
UNITCLASS_MERCHANTFLEET | UNITCOMBAT_WOODEN_SHIPS | 4 | 3 | 6 | 13
By the way, are Guards/Town Watch splittable? If so, there's probably an abuse with the Police promotion (not sure about the name, but the one that gives -5 to crime).
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Law Enforcement CCs are NOT splittable for that reason.
There are a few on that list that shouldn't be there and some of those there suggest that others that aren't should be... That list should help with some auditing yes.
Actually... there IS an analysis I could ask for help with.
And I can even let you know how to go about it rather quickly.
I'm sure at this point you've visited my Combat Mod Planning document in my sig line. On the RBombard Unit Eval page tab I'm in the middle of a project there. One step in this project is taking me some serious time to get through and slowing the process a lot. At the moment I've gotta shift over and look into some code issues so I'm going to be a bit distracted from this project for the moment. (Though it's a very high priority still)
You'll notice there that I'm putting the X value of the PrereqTech for each of the units listed on that page. This is part of how I'm arranging the units for bombard value adjustments. What it requires doing is finding the unit xml, scrolling down and finding the prereq tech for that unit, then searching for the tech xml entry and scrolling down and finding the iGridX value. I then put that value in the x slot in the document.
The WAY I go about this that does make it fairly fast as long as I can keep my focus on the project is as follows:
1) Open all Unit files and Tech files from the core into notepad++.
2) Use grepWin to search for "<Civ4TechInfos" and "<Civ4UnitInfos" in the Modules folder, select all results and right-click open in notepad++. (So now I have ALL unit and tech files in notepad++)
3) Find the next unit I want to look for the x value on in the document and copy it's reference tag there.
4) Go to notepad++ and ctrl-f and ctrl-v to put the unit reference into the search prompt then select 'find in ALL open documents'. Look for where the <Type>UnitReference</Type> result shows up and double click on that line taking me to the unit entry.
5) Scroll down to find the PrereqTech tag and copy the tech reference there. Repeat above steps with the tech reference to find the proper tech entry.
6) Scroll down to find the iGridX value and copy and past that value into the planning document for that unit.
7) Rinse and Repeat.
I also want to remove any units from that list that are DOMAIN_AIR. Apparently the RBombard mechanism omits them (though I did think earlier it was something they were able to do I was wrong.)
Once that's done I can arrange all the units in each category in ascending or descending (doesn't really matter which) x value order among that category and be ready to rather quickly determine unit values that would add to their base combat class derived bombard abilities.
There are a few on that list that shouldn't be there and some of those there suggest that others that aren't should be... That list should help with some auditing yes.
Actually... there IS an analysis I could ask for help with.
And I can even let you know how to go about it rather quickly.
I'm sure at this point you've visited my Combat Mod Planning document in my sig line. On the RBombard Unit Eval page tab I'm in the middle of a project there. One step in this project is taking me some serious time to get through and slowing the process a lot. At the moment I've gotta shift over and look into some code issues so I'm going to be a bit distracted from this project for the moment. (Though it's a very high priority still)
You'll notice there that I'm putting the X value of the PrereqTech for each of the units listed on that page. This is part of how I'm arranging the units for bombard value adjustments. What it requires doing is finding the unit xml, scrolling down and finding the prereq tech for that unit, then searching for the tech xml entry and scrolling down and finding the iGridX value. I then put that value in the x slot in the document.
The WAY I go about this that does make it fairly fast as long as I can keep my focus on the project is as follows:
1) Open all Unit files and Tech files from the core into notepad++.
2) Use grepWin to search for "<Civ4TechInfos" and "<Civ4UnitInfos" in the Modules folder, select all results and right-click open in notepad++. (So now I have ALL unit and tech files in notepad++)
3) Find the next unit I want to look for the x value on in the document and copy it's reference tag there.
4) Go to notepad++ and ctrl-f and ctrl-v to put the unit reference into the search prompt then select 'find in ALL open documents'. Look for where the <Type>UnitReference</Type> result shows up and double click on that line taking me to the unit entry.
5) Scroll down to find the PrereqTech tag and copy the tech reference there. Repeat above steps with the tech reference to find the proper tech entry.
6) Scroll down to find the iGridX value and copy and past that value into the planning document for that unit.
7) Rinse and Repeat.
I also want to remove any units from that list that are DOMAIN_AIR. Apparently the RBombard mechanism omits them (though I did think earlier it was something they were able to do I was wrong.)
Once that's done I can arrange all the units in each category in ascending or descending (doesn't really matter which) x value order among that category and be ready to rather quickly determine unit values that would add to their base combat class derived bombard abilities.
It's much easier to use than it looks; there are many underlying new mechanisms, but the only thing you'll probably notice and use is the ability to merge 3 identical, fully healed units to make a "superunit" with 150% strength (or to split one unit into three 66% weaker ones). That's about all you need to know before giving this option a try
OK, I'm glad you asked me about this, not only did it (hopefully) save you time for something else, but I think I'm doing much faster than the way you suggested.
Basically, I've gathered (hopefully) all UnitInfos files scattered everywhere into a unique xml file (I did most of it for the first table I've made for this topic, though this time I added the missing heroes and other subdued animals. I hope I didn't miss any...). Finding where those UNIT_ZEPHYR or UNIT_OSEI etc. were hidden was really a pain; I understand sorting out all those files is a rather unattractive grunt work, but I wonder, do you really go through each file when you want to make some changes (like when you added all the UNITCOMBAT_QUALITY_whatever tags), or is there a way to do it that I missed?
For tech it was much easier as almost all were in the same file, though the missing Clockwork and Canaanite techs were also a bit annoying to look for elsewhere.
Anyway, when I finally got the master files (luckily a one-time task if there are other things to look at later on), it was only a matter of importing in Excel, performing some vlookup or other formulas and sorting it out, maybe 15 minutes work.
So, here it is attached (too big to copy in a table here). I can also send it to you in .csv or .xls or another format if that's more convenient. A few comments:
- There's only one unit in DOMAIN_AIR, the Airship
- There are sometimes two PrereqTech; I put the iGridX for both. You can easily add a column with the highest or lowest iGridX of the two if needed.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
Wow, that was amazing 
How hard would it be to generate a list with all buildings, their tags and x-grith?
How hard would it be to generate a list with all buildings, their tags and x-grith?
Wow, that was amazing
How hard would it be to generate a list with all buildings, their tags and x-grith?
Not too much once I have a list of all place where the BuildingInfos are located... I'll try Thunderbrd's suggestion to use grepwin (didn't knew about this software), for the previous list I made the mistake of trying to simply complete the file I built earlier by manually looking for each file... One learns a bit every time
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
Haha so you both learn from each other 
Such a list would be incredibly usefull. This would be a big help
Such a list would be incredibly usefull. This would be a big help
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
It's much easier to use than it looks; there are many underlying new mechanisms, but the only thing you'll probably notice and use is the ability to merge 3 identical, fully healed units to make a "superunit" with 150% strength (or to split one unit into three 66% weaker ones). That's about all you need to know before giving this option a try
OK, I'm glad you asked me about this, not only did it (hopefully) save you time for something else, but I think I'm doing much faster than the way you suggested.
Basically, I've gathered (hopefully) all UnitInfos files scattered everywhere into a unique xml file (I did most of it for the first table I've made for this topic, though this time I added the missing heroes and other subdued animals. I hope I didn't miss any...). Finding where those UNIT_ZEPHYR or UNIT_OSEI etc. were hidden was really a pain; I understand sorting out all those files is a rather unattractive grunt work, but I wonder, do you really go through each file when you want to make some changes (like when you added all the UNITCOMBAT_QUALITY_whatever tags), or is there a way to do it that I missed?
For tech it was much easier as almost all were in the same file, though the missing Clockwork and Canaanite techs were also a bit annoying to look for elsewhere.
Anyway, when I finally got the master files (luckily a one-time task if there are other things to look at later on), it was only a matter of importing in Excel, performing some vlookup or other formulas and sorting it out, maybe 15 minutes work.
So, here it is attached (too big to copy in a table here). I can also send it to you in .csv or .xls or another format if that's more convenient. A few comments:
- There's only one unit in DOMAIN_AIR, the Airship
- There are sometimes two PrereqTech; I put the iGridX for both. You can easily add a column with the highest or lowest iGridX of the two if needed.
I feel a bit bad now that I didn't mention I'd taken all day yesterday and filled those in already BUT you did a great job on figuring out a faster method (I did too but it involved programming it so the pedia would show the x grid value of the highest prereq tech for the unit and it probably wasn't as fast as your method.)Additionally you sorted out some good methodology which could make things extremely helpful for future similar endeavors.
I could REALLY use this kind of help here on the team and I think Faustmouse sees the need for his efforts too. So your willingness to carry these little requests out is something I hope is not diminished due to our overlapping efforts here.
One of the next major projects I'm going to want to go into is something I'd love to get some help with setting up.
I've been wanting to get my Ongoing Training mod into the game and with your help I think we could get this done far more quickly together if you're willing.
The first step of that project would be to identify all buildings that add XP or possibly even free promos (or give access to new unit types) to units (regardless of any specified combat classes.)
Then we'd sort those by what types of units they currently assist. Then arrange them by x grid value.
Afterwards we'd want to review the rest of the building list to see if there's any buildings that perhaps SHOULD be included but aren't due to these filters not pulling that building. What we're looking for are buildings that will be set to add some slow accumulation of XP to units by unit combat class definitions. (As for one additional type of building I have in mind that may accomplish this but doesn't currently assist particular unit combats would be most of the 'sports' buildings.)
Then throw those into the lists and put them in the appropriate x-grid arranged position.
Once we've got that done (and you may feel free to use a new page on the Combat Mod Planning document for this purpose - and we have a semi-updated list of all buildings linked under Sargon's signature line) I can more fully explain how the tag structure works and we can go about assigning some values and seeking some balance in our planning. We might find some new buildings are even in order to fill some gaps.
Once we've arranged the way tags should be applied then we can get to applying them.
To answer you're question about the xml and inserting data there - yes I did it fairly the hard way and most of us have. Nimek had a vision of generating an entry and data derivation tool and has apparently done a lot to achieve it but I'm still confused on how to make it work best for us. You might find it more useful than I've been able to so far.
Thanks again and again I apologize - I figured you'd check the document and see that the x-grid values were filled in before going through with the request this far - I REALLY should've mentioned it'd been done.
Also... I'll be adjusting some units according to your great earlier review work here very shortly so again thank you for that as well.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
Did I understand you correctly that you want a building give more XP the later it comes? So a Basketball Court would give more XP then a Fighting Pit?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yes and no...
Once we identify which buildings can ongoing train a given combat class then yes, with THIS system there's only forward progression. There is no point to a building giving a worse benefit to a Unit Combat than one unlocked before it (unless obsoleted perhaps) because only the best building for a Unit Combat existing in a city would have any effect.
But for the sake of evaluation, some of those buildings may just be left with some base +XP and NOT then included into the ongoing training progression. Sports buildings may well be among those that are given +XP to a Unit Combat thanks to this eval but may not pick up the ability to improve the Ongoing Training time for that city.
Therefore arranging them by their tech progression level gives me a simple visibility on how the progress should be established.
If you're curious... The tags for Ongoing Training specify the UnitCombat that the building provides ongoing training to and an integer which represents the amount of turns that will count down since the last time an XP was awarded to a Unit of that UnitCombat situated on the city plot. Once the countdown is complete another unit o that UnitCombat will be awarded an XP. It will give to the least experienced and least bonused so far by ongoing training unit among those valid units in the city.
I MAY find I need to adjust the award amount based on Group Volume but it should be a workaround for getting high quality units some xp more easily.
Anyhow, the point being that the integer value assigned to the UnitCombat for an Ongoing Training tag use is a 'lower is better' value. 1 would be the minimum. So I'm thinking of starting with 10 or so and working down throughout the ages. (The ultimate turn time counter MAY need to be adjusted by the gamespeed... can't remember if it already is or not.) The building providing ongoing training to a given UnitCombat that has the least turn time counter among all buildings that award ongoing training to that unitcombat in the city will be the only one that's really effective, superceding the others.
Mind you... units have multiple Combat Classes so a crossreferencing of multiple types of ongoing training for a given unit could add up a number of xp for that unit.
The unfortunate side of Ongoing Training XP awards (for the player's perspective anyhow) is that it shouldn't add any XP awards for building up your Great Military Person Points.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
Ah makes sense now.
Is it always "only" 1 XP? And always to the least experienced unit with the correct CC?
Once we have a building list, I'd be happy to make suggestions for this system again, like for the captive mod. Unless RWN want's to do that of course. This list will also help me to suggest some capture resitance for buildings.
Is it always "only" 1 XP? And always to the least experienced unit with the correct CC?
Once we have a building list, I'd be happy to make suggestions for this system again, like for the captive mod. Unless RWN want's to do that of course. This list will also help me to suggest some capture resitance for buildings.
Nah, don't feel bad, as I said, most of the work was assembling the unit database, which will be useful for any subsequent analysis. I actually do feel a bit bad myself that you had to spend all day on this (I was on easter holidays in the last three days and only saw your request when I got back yesterday); I did see some values were already in your file, but thought you needed to see whether some were wrong or obsolete.
Certainly not
I'll build the building database and sort Faustmouse's request and yours in the coming days.At some point I'll try to build a truly complete and easy-to-read database of all units and buildings properties in a nice table; right now I'm doing some messy hackish things to extract the properties we're interested in, but I hope to find a way to do it for all at once so anyone can filter/sort whatever he wants.
