DOWNLOAD Warhammer Version 1.5

Ronin 42 · Jan 11, 2009

Ahh, I was also thinking along the same lines for the ambush effect if what I originally proposed would be hard for the AI to understand. I think your proposals for them are good. What do you think of there being a 10% chance that the ambush promotion is retained by the unit if it is successful in the battle (obviously).

I was wondering whether the units would become more specific in terms of being specialised against other unit types, so that basically makes up for that, I completely understand what you say about archers being very tough city defenders, bombarding was just annoyng for me because the AI would send over a stack where one unit was much stronger than the others and it meant I could only bombard that one unit and not that effectively, as I hadn't researched any seige weapons yet.

Also, I like the idea of influence changing with battle outcomes, but it seems quite strong - if you're attacking a unit much stronger than you and its within your boarders you expect to lose a unit or two to save your improvements but then you can lose lots of influence on your boarder which can be really significant, also I even lost influence when enemy units pillaged my improvements, annoying - but the overall concept is fun.

Ahriman · Jan 11, 2009

What do you think of there being a 10% chance that the ambush promotion is retained by the unit if it is successful in the battle (obviously).

It could work I guess but its harder to code, and I prefer that the ambushing unit have to spend a turn in the open where it is vulnerable.
The other nice thing about this mechanic is that it encourages using recon units that can spot invisible units. We're trying to encourage combined arms more.

Yeah, its annoying that you can't bombard past the top of a strong unit even when there are other vulnerable units, but it mostly works ok.

The influence-driven combat mechanic is one of my favorite parts of this mod. We're trying to make city conquest more difficult (though there are some bugs in how city defenses arent' stacking properly), but make field control more significant to compensate. You have to protect your lands to keep influence, not just your cities.

PPQ_Purple · Jan 11, 2009

Ahriman said:
Airstrikes from fighter units (such as chaos furies) need to have a damage cap; they shouldn't be able to eliminate entire units outright. Chaos furies are also a bit short on requirements; they should probably require corruption of chaos tech and state religion.
These units should probably also only have 1 move, so they can't relocate and attack in the same turn. Forces them to be use slightly more strategically. As it is, a stack of 5 of these is just nasty for picking off lone units.

I disagre with you compleatly.
Give me one good reason why a squad of chaos furies should not be able to rip a squad of infantry to shreads.
And the current 2 move thing is quite ok, no need to reduce it. With the current 3 unit cap it is dificault to cover your entire empire as it is. And you can only have 3 air units, not 5 and picking off lone units is kind of the point of using air support.
Close support aircraft and their compartable creatures (Ju-87, Il-2, Giant Eagles, Chaos furies...) are suposed to be used for picking off lone units. Since they do not have coleteral damage if you removed their ability to kill you would make them practicly usles.
I have tried using them against stacks of units and found that they are simply inadequate as they deal no coleteral damage. Hence picking off lone strong units (jugernauts, trolls and the like) and ships was the only thing they are realy good for.

Also, I have noticed a few things about the influence sistem that are probably bugs.
1. Spells that sumon projectiles (like Doombolt), when the projectile hits a enemy unit if it is defeated the nearby players city looses influence. I am not sure if this is how it is suposed to be but I can not imagine a failed spell having the same effect as the death of friendly soldiers.
2. Mercanaries are suposed to be of hidden nationality. But if one defeats one of your units near your city your citi gains some influence from the units real owner. (e.g. A Imperial mercanary kills a Dark elven citi defender. The dark elven citi gains some Imperial influence, rather than it beaing barbarian.) You can actualy read who sent the mercanary from the towns influence.

Ahriman · Jan 11, 2009

Give me one good reason why a squad of chaos furies should not be able to rip a squad of infantry to shreads.

Balance.
These aircraft fighters will be too powerful (particularly in the hands of the player vs AI) if they are able to effortlessly kill entire units from 5 tiles away. 3 furies can kill 2 units every 3 turns.

picking off lone units is kind of the point of using air support

No. Weakening ground units is the point of air-support aircraft. Air warfare has never been able to wipe out entire regiments; instead they are designed to weaken the units so that your ground units can defeat the remnants.

Even with just the 3 furies, with 2 moves you get *massive* defensive power through your entire empire, from very early in the game. It basically makes you immune to anything but the largest invasion.
3 90 hammer units shouldn't be able to defend your entire empire - what other units can be so effective at such low cost and tech requirement?
Catapults are good, but they have 1 move, and so can't always be where you need them.

Spells that sumon projectiles (like Doombolt), when the projectile hits a enemy unit if it is defeated the nearby players city looses influence. I am not sure if this is how it is suposed to be but I can not imagine a failed spell having the same effect as the death of friendly soldiers

I agree that it would be nice if summoned units didn't count for the purposes of influence-driven combat. But no-one who wrote that code is involved in this mod, so I suspect we're unlikely to see that changed.

Mercanaries are suposed to be of hidden nationality. But if one defeats one of your units near your city your citi gains some influence from the units real owner. (e.g. A Imperial mercanary kills a Dark elven citi defender. The dark elven citi gains some Imperial influence, rather than it beaing barbarian.) You can actualy read who sent the mercanary from the towns influence.

This is of much less importance. The point of hidden nationality is to be able to fight without declaring war; its never really been difficult to tell who produced hidden nationality land units in any mod; its always whoever it was that was sharing the border with you near where the HN units were.

Psychic_Llamas · Jan 11, 2009

welcome back Ronin!

regarding magic, the AI are much more competent with some branches than with others. i played a game against Cathay where they cast a LOT of jade magic at me, and inteligently. however this isnt common. if the AI targets magic in the tech tree and advance far enough they usually get quite good at it. but as ahriman says they are by no means brilliant at it and a player can easilly counter them.

What do you think of there being a 10% chance that the ambush promotion is retained by the unit if it is successful in the battle (obviously).

actually this is impossible to code with the current promotion xml. as it stands promotions may wear off in a few ways:

after the unit is fully healed
after combat
have an x% chance of wearing off each turn

you can combine these to be a 'whichever occurs first' thing, ie we could make ambishing expire after combat OR have a 5% chance of expiring each turn, but this would not make the promo last longer than the combat and would actualyl tend to make it last shorter.

Yeah, its annoying that you can't bombard past the top of a strong unit even when there are other vulnerable units, but it mostly works ok.

im sensing a 'accuracy' promotion for archers which makes them target the weakest unit (like an assassin) after they have the first strike 2 promo?

regarding the fighter units and all, im kind of torn between ahriman and PPQ Purples arguments, you both raise valid points.

I agree that it would be nice if summoned units didn't count for the purposes of influence-driven combat. But no-one who wrote that code is involved in this mod, so I suspect we're unlikely to see that changed.

i also agree with this, and ill take a look at it (i remember seeing the code for it somewhere once...)

Ahriman · Jan 11, 2009

actually this is impossible to code with the current promotion xml.

The gains from such a feature would be minimal anyway. I think my design is implementable. HN might be exploitative though and unnecessary, but invisibility on its own (detectable by rangers) might be sufficient.

im sensing a 'accuracy' promotion for archers which makes them target the weakest unit (like an assassin) after they have the first strike 2 promo?

The issue we were discussing was from bombardment - I'm not sure that there is any easy way of merging some kind of marksmen promotion with bombardment; bombarding the weakest unit will tend to be a penalty because the weakest unit will already be at its damage cap and so the bombardment would have no effect. What would be nice is if the strongest unit in the stack was already at the damage cap, but there was a weaker full strength unit "underneath" in the same stack, the archer's bombardment would target the full strength unit rather than the stronger unit on top, which it can't bombard any further. This would be hard to code though.
But its not that big a deal; archers are already pretty decent, particularly when the high end ones have a 20% damage cap.

regarding the fighter units and all, im kind of torn between ahriman and PPQ Purples arguments, you both raise valid points.

Perhaps we can reach a compromise and then playtest further; either eliminate the two moves OR put a damage cap on, and see how it plays.

As it stands though, I was able to steam-roll pretty easily in the early game as Kurgan once I had some trolls and chaos furies.

I'm also really looking forward to seeing the higher end demons implemented....
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=290986&page=3
*hint hint*

Bloodletters ftw!

Psychic_Llamas · Jan 11, 2009

The gains from such a feature would be minimal anyway. I think my design is implementable. HN might be exploitative though and unnecessary, but invisibility on its own (detectable by rangers) might be sufficient.

yeh yours is easy to implement.

The issue we were discussing was from bombardment - I'm not sure that there is any easy way of merging some kind of marksmen promotion with bombardment; bombarding the weakest unit will tend to be a penalty because the weakest unit will already be at its damage cap and so the bombardment would have no effect. What would be nice is if the strongest unit in the stack was already at the damage cap, but there was a weaker full strength unit "underneath" in the same stack, the archer's bombardment would target the full strength unit rather than the stronger unit on top, which it can't bombard any further. This would be hard to code though.
But its not that big a deal; archers are already pretty decent, particularly when the high end ones have a 20% damage cap.

ah i see the issue. i wonder... A_H what do you think? is it possible, and easy to code a python check to see if an archer unit is bombarding to only target full health units?

I'm also really looking forward to seeing the higher end demons implemented....
*hint hint*

they will be quite fun to implement actually, but i might wait till A_H's unit combats changes (so i dont have to edit the same thing twice)

PPQ_Purple · Jan 12, 2009

What Ahriman seemes to want is to have more furies that are weeker. while I prefer having less of them but retaining their current strenth as they are the only air units so far.
I think the best thing to do would be to make furies more expencive (Maybe 2x), but retain their combat capabilities.
Also, add archers the ability to intercept air units, would also be a good reason to retain some after crosbowman and hunter warbands are out.
I usualy end up attacking mostly with hunter warbands rather than other units simply becouse they are both ranged and stronger than most units.
Making ordinary archers AA units would increase their share in battle.
For examply, a Dark Elven Band of shades has 6 points of strenght but a troll has only 7.

You have to remember that even 3 furies (the curent maximum) can only pick of 1 warrior warband per turn, thus making them good for softening up armies but not destroying them. The only thing I found them good at was destroying enemy trolls and the like.

Alternatively, you could create 2 types of air units: 1. Lesser units (they would be what Ahriman said), represented by say Chaos Furies and 2. Stronger air units (fewer of them, what I said) represented by say Screemers of Tzeentch (http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/Screamer).
These could than fit the Fighter and the bomber role. One unit doing coleteral damage and heavy attack but limited to 1 move per turn and 3 units per army. And the other doing light and caped damage but being more spread out (maybe 5 per race)

Ahriman · Jan 12, 2009

more furies

I'm ok with a cap of 3, or maybe with 5.

as they are the only air units so far

The design intention is that chaos furies, pegasai, dark pegasai, harpies, great eagles and a few others will all function as fighter aircraft. Gyrocoptors will function as bomber aircraft.

This is why the strength of such units needs to be toned down; the units need to be of similar strength to other units for their tech cost.
A pegasus (or chaos fury or Warhawk etc) needs to be roughly as strong as a troll; thats the unit slot that most of these are using.
Chaos furies aren't even using that slot; they're basically just a bonus unit available to the chaos religions; the main chaos UUs will be the demons (bloodletter, plaguebearer, etc.) that are available at the higher end chaos techs. As a minor flavor bonus unit, they shouldn't be a massive game-changing unit.

Also, add archers the ability to intercept air units

This is part of the design intention; archer units will have a 10% intercept chance; other flying units (griffons, dragons, manticores, etc.) will have higher intercept chances (probably 50%).

I usualy end up attacking mostly with hunter warbands rather than other units simply becouse they are both ranged and stronger than most units

.... what?
Hunter warbands are strength 4, have no ranged attack, have a city attack penalty, and are much weaker that tier1 melee or mounted units with bronze weapons (axeman warband or ancient cavalry with bronze weapons are strength 5).
Hunters/rangers are also being redesigned slightly to make them slightly stronger.

For examply, a Dark Elven Band of shades has 6 points of strenght but a troll has only 7

I don't quite understand your point here; shades are a ranger UU with higher tech requirements than a troll and 2 moves and other abilities; they're getting even more abilities in the recon unit redesign. Trolls are fine, they fit very well IMO for their slot.

You have to remember that even 3 furies (the curent maximum) can only pick of 1 warrior warband per turn

Talking about a warrior warband is stupid; the reason why these units are so strong is because the damage they do is largely independent
Yeah, they can only kill 1 warrior warband.... or they can kill a knight or giant or steamtank.

To give an example: I got in the early game one of the dragon spawning events that created a barbarian dragon. Now, any normal faction would be pretty screwed at that point, they're likely to lose many units and a city. But me with my chaos furies, I was able to kill the dragon in 2 turns with bombardment, losing only 1 fury to being shot down.
Thats what I call overpowered.

essi2 · Jan 12, 2009

I didn't see a bug thread for version .5 so I'll post this here.

1. I get an error while loading the mod, a minor problem as the mod continues to load after pressing OK.

2. The game CTDs when I try to play scenarios

Ronin 42 · Jan 12, 2009

I dont think chaos furies should be able to completely kill any unit - I would be more in favour of them being able to cause a high amount of damage thats capped - but if they do end up keeping the ability to kill units, then I think they should cause very low amounts of damage so it takes a very long time for them to fully kill a unit - the idea of them being able to take down a dragon in 2 turns is ridiculous!
I also think that two moves per turn is too high - I would only be in favour of keeping this if their damage limit per turn was very very low.

Also, could someone tell me, or point me in the right direction where it explains whats being changed or overhauled in regards to unit combat and unit strength values, as Ahriman mentioned something earlier about it, thanks.

Ronin 42 · Jan 12, 2009

essi2 said:
1. I get an error while loading the mod, a minor problem as the mod continues to load after pressing OK.

2. The game CTDs when I try to play scenarios

1. I'm pretty sure this also happens to me, but it doesn't affect the game at all so I've just ignored it.

2. As far as I believe, the scenarios are not ready to be played yet - so the best bet is to stick to random maps for the mod

Ahriman · Jan 12, 2009

1. I get an error while loading the mod, a minor problem as the mod continues to load after pressing OK.

Known bug, there was an issue with a particular event and terrain types.

2. The game CTDs when I try to play scenarios

The scenarios work for some people, but not for others. The most common cause of scenario crash is that the Flames graphic (from FFH) crashes for vista users. You can manually delete all the flames in world editor, and we'll probably create a modified version in future that doesn't have the flames.
Personally, the Warhammer world works fine for me.

Also, could someone tell me, or point me in the right direction where it explains whats being changed or overhauled in regards to unit combat and unit strength values, as Ahriman mentioned something earlier about it, thanks.

The main combat system changes will be in the next patch:

Spoiler :

essi2 · Jan 12, 2009

Ahriman said:
Known bug, there was an issue with a particular event and terrain types.

The scenarios work for some people, but not for others. The most common cause of scenario crash is that the Flames graphic (from FFH) crashes for vista users. You can manually delete all the flames in world editor, and we'll probably create a modified version in future that doesn't have the flames.
Personally, the Warhammer world works fine for me.

Thanks

I'll probably wait for a modified version or remove all the flames if you at a later date decide against making a modified version.

Psychic_Llamas · Jan 12, 2009

Alternatively, you could create 2 types of air units: 1. Lesser units (they would be what Ahriman said), represented by say Chaos Furies and 2. Stronger air units (fewer of them, what I said) represented by say Screemers of Tzeentch (http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/Screamer).
These could than fit the Fighter and the bomber role. One unit doing coleteral damage and heavy attack but limited to 1 move per turn and 3 units per army. And the other doing light and caped damage but being more spread out (maybe 5 per race)

i think this is quite a good idea. obviously not all civs would have level 2 air units. but chaos civs should at least get Screamers of Tzeentch (would make excelent bombers) and possibly discs of tzeentch (cargo 1 air transport) vampires could get bat swarms as fighters and doom bats as bombers etc.

Ahriman · Jan 12, 2009

I'm happy to change the Screamers design to fill an aircraft role; it could be a weak, short-range bomber.
The disc doesn't really seem particularly sensible or useful.

As for Fell Bats, they're already in the design.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=291659

DeathMasterRaya · Jan 13, 2009

hey i have a problem with the text of the mod, i cant see it... what can i do about this? i use a spanish version of xp pro sp3 and the mod show that error with and without the patch... please somebody help

here are some screens of my problem

essi2 · Jan 13, 2009

what language are you using in Civ?

If you're using Spanish, it might help changing it to English.

if it doesn't work, go to this thread and try some of the solutions suggested there:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=303033

DeathMasterRaya · Jan 13, 2009

ooooh thanks essi2 i did what llamas was saying and i solved my problem

well now to play!!!!

essi2 · Jan 13, 2009

no problem, I try to be helpful when ever I can

DOWNLOAD Warhammer Version 1.5

Chieftain

Tyrant

Purple Cube

Tyrant

Wizard in the Making

Tyrant

Wizard in the Making

Purple Cube

Tyrant

Chieftain

Attachments

Chieftain

Chieftain

Tyrant

Chieftain

Wizard in the Making

Tyrant

Chieftain

Chieftain

Chieftain

Chieftain

Similar threads