40k Mini-mod?

They are city killers in the sense that they can damage the defenders and withdrawal.
And thus allow you to weaken them enough for your base units to take the city.

A few Assault Marine Squads and a single Tactical Squad will do the job of say 10 normal tactical squads and with fewer loses.

I think actual artillery should be what you use for softening up cities before attacking.
Jump troops should be field skirmishers, their withdraw chance should probably be ~30% or so. So there is still a big cost of losing them.

As far as I recal, 1st strikes meens that you hit your enemy before combat begins.
No, not quite. First strikes give you a free combat round, with the same normal chances of winning and losing, if you win you inflict damage, if you lose, nothing happens.

So, imagine a strength 5 unit A with 1 first strike vs a strength 6 unit B with no first strikes.
In the first strike round, unit A has a 5/11 chance of winning and doing damage, and a 6/11 chance of doing nothing.
Then they enter normal combat.

I forget how much damage is done in a single round of combat.

Again, this will depend on the weapon being used. I was thinking of allowing plasma canons and grenade launchers to make ranged atacks.
I would leave actual bombardment attacks of other tiles to real artillery type units (whirlwind, basilisk, etc.)
Grenade launchers definitely aren't terribly long-range weapons.

Becouse even 100 guarsmen shooting their las canons would not kill a baneblade.
Take a bilion men, hand them AK-47s and let them shoot at a tank.

Remember that units aren't individuals, they're squads or regiments or whatever, particularly if this is on a planetary scale. And a couple of hundred infantry with small arms and minor explosives could eventually destroy a tank; take out the treads, shoot out the sensors,
Tanks aren't invulnerable.

Also remember that if you make the cost differential too much, the AI will get screwed, because it won't know how to properly send out AT units with its stacks. The game will be too easy if a tank can wade through any number of non-AT units.

Think of how this works in vanilla civ with technological advancements.

Yes, in the real world, no number of 19th century riflemen will take down an armored division. But in the game, instead you need ~3:1 numerical superiority. Anything more than that breaks gameplay.

Adopting Bannor? You mean Crusade? Or you mean like units spawning when towns are attacked?
 
I think actual artillery should be what you use for softening up cities before attacking.
Jump troops should be field skirmishers, their withdraw chance should probably be ~30% or so. So there is still a big cost of losing them.
Yes, but artilery comes much later in the game than jump troops.
They are the tech equivalent of horse archers.

No, not quite. First strikes give you a free combat round, with the same normal chances of winning and losing, if you win you inflict damage, if you lose, nothing happens.

So, imagine a strength 5 unit A with 1 first strike vs a strength 6 unit B with no first strikes.
In the first strike round, unit A has a 5/11 chance of winning and doing damage, and a 6/11 chance of doing nothing.
Then they enter normal combat.

I forget how much damage is done in a single round of combat.
In that case, I will make sure that the units have apropriate damage along with the extra rounds.

I would leave actual bombardment attacks of other tiles to real artillery type units (whirlwind, basilisk, etc.)
Grenade launchers definitely aren't terribly long-range weapons.
Artilery will have 2+ range with strenth 10 or so and coletral. Infantry weapons like grenade launchers and plasma canons will have range 1 with about 3 damage. I think it is well balanced.

Remember that units aren't individuals, they're squads or regiments or whatever, particularly if this is on a planetary scale. And a couple of hundred infantry with small arms and minor explosives could eventually destroy a tank; take out the treads, shoot out the sensors,
Tanks aren't invulnerable.
But the key is to kill it before it kills them.
And no amount of guardsmen with their basic weapons will take out a tank or worse a baneblade before it kills them.

Also remember that if you make the cost differential too much, the AI will get screwed, because it won't know how to properly send out AT units with its stacks. The game will be too easy if a tank can wade through any number of non-AT units.
With armor restricted it will be much less of a problem. A melta gun or plasma rifle upgrade is a promotion the AI can take if you have armor.
The same prinicpal already works with promotions in FfH and the AI is fine with it.


Think of how this works in vanilla civ with technological advancements.

Yes, in the real world, no number of 19th century riflemen will take down an armored division. But in the game, instead you need ~3:1 numerical superiority. Anything more than that breaks gameplay.
Baneblade: Limit 2 or 3 per player, expencive.
Guardsmen: No limit, dirt cheap
...

Adopting Bannor? You mean Crusade? Or you mean like units spawning when towns are attacked?
Crusade or as I like to call it Warrrgh!
 
Yes, but artilery comes much later in the game than jump troops.
They are the tech equivalent of horse archers.

But in the early game city defenses are probably pretty weak too. So skirmishers will help, but won't make it too easy.

Taking cities should be expensive; there should be no easy way of doing so without losses unless you have overwhelming force.


In that case, I will make sure that the units have apropriate damage along with the extra rounds.
I don't think you can easily change how much damage is done, but you don't really need to, you can just do it with strength adjustments.
But the key is to kill it before it kills them.
And no amount of guardsmen with their basic weapons will take out a tank or worse a baneblade before it kills them.

The same prinicpal already works with promotions in FfH and the AI is fine with it.

No it doesn't, there are no units that are immune to basic normal combat strength in FFH.
And the AI won't know that it has to have AT weapons with every stack in order to not get slaughtered by vehicles.
Every unit in FFH can eventually be defeated by enough application of brute strength. There are no units that are immune to physical damage, and can only be affected by fire or poison or death damage.
You'll break the game if you treat vehicles like this.

Baneblade: Limit 2 or 3 per player, expencive.
Guardsmen: No limit, dirt cheap

Not really relevant, if the AI becomes a pushover because it cant' deal with your 2 baneblades and wastes units trying.

Use the basic civ mechanics as a guide; if you deviate too far the AI will fail, there will be no challenge, and the mod won't be fun to play.
 
But in the early game city defenses are probably pretty weak too. So skirmishers will help, but won't make it too easy.

Taking cities should be expensive; there should be no easy way of doing so without losses unless you have overwhelming force.
This is actualy ment to destroy the need for huge stacks of doom. Becouse armies like the SM will phisicly be limited and disabled to field SODs.
It basicly combines catapults and archers into a single unit.

I don't think you can easily change how much damage is done, but you don't really need to, you can just do it with strength adjustments.
That is what I ment.

No it doesn't, there are no units that are immune to basic normal combat strength in FFH.
And the AI won't know that it has to have AT weapons with every stack in order to not get slaughtered by vehicles.
In FfH, the Ai cheats. It knows what units you have and upgrades acordingly.
That is why they buy promotions the way they do.
Xienvolf explained it a few days back.

Every unit in FFH can eventually be defeated by enough application of brute strength. There are no units that are immune to physical damage, and can only be affected by fire or poison or death damage.
You'll break the game if you treat vehicles like this.
Er... I think that you eather mised the point or I have failed to explain it properly.
Baneblades are super units. Think Avatar of Wrath and Basilium. Other wehicles are not as durable.
A Leaman Rus is the current FF War Chariot with about the same level of durabilty it is just applied diferently.
But I want to put emphesis on Combined arms rather than simply updating your SOD to the next unit type.
Players will not be able to simply spam armor to crush oponents.

Not really relevant, if the AI becomes a pushover because it cant' deal with your 2 baneblades and wastes units trying.

Use the basic civ mechanics as a guide; if you deviate too far the AI will fail, there will be no challenge, and the mod won't be fun to play.
Again, in FfH the Ai can handle super units. If it can handle FF dragons, it can handle a baneblade.
Witch BTW becomes a pushover if you have a guardsmen with a promotion that you can get for free.
 
Super units in FFH can be killed by regular forces though, they don't rely on particular promotions in order to have any affect at all, the sole exception being the Godslayer for Auric Ascended, and there is specific AI coding there to give the sword that kills him to a powerful enemy and have them beeline for auric.
They are also nearly impossible to build, and the AI definitely never builds them.

But I'm glad that you're thinking of this just for a couple of super units, and not regular tanks.
 
map switching uld be cool for that kind of thing actually. but i do not (ever) plan to do a 40K mod. but im not stopping anyone else who wants to. who knows, i might end up chipping in anyway hehe

btw. the main reason for this post was to check out my awsome new avatar MUHUHAHAHAHA
 
Well, just to note that this is generaly a nice deisgn idea I have been working on.
But that is about it untill I can get people to work for me.
Alone, I can only go so far...
So I am trying to keep to what can be done without any major work.

PS. MR. Lama, that avatar is "interesting". Reminds me of something I saw from a porthole in my battle barge while I was traveling through the AOT.
 
Sorry for a double post but I need the present balance expert (Ahriman) to look at this:

Damage Types:
1. Infantry Light (las canons, bolt pistols ect.)
2. Infantry Heavy (bolters, heavy bolters, Tau pulse rifles ect.)
3. Plasma (Plasma weapons)
4. Melta (Melta weapons, Power Weapons)
5. Infantry AP (Las canons, misile launchers ect.)
6. Fire

Armour Types:
1. Infantry Light (no resistance)
2. Infantry Heavy (50% resistance vs Infantry Light Damage)
- This is power armour for example, also should I tune it down to 25%?
3. Vehicle Light (50% resistance vs Infantry Light Damage, 30% resistance vs Infantry Heavy Damage, 25% resistance vs Plasma Damage)
- This is for example the armour of a land speeder, or similar light wehicles
4. Vehicle Heavy (70% resistance vs Infantry Light, 50% resistance vs Infantry Heavy, 50% resistance vs Plasma Damage)
- This is the armour of all heavy vehicles, from the Land Raider to the Leaman Russ
5. Demon Light (25% resistance vs Infantry Light Damage,-40% resistance vs Fire Damage)
- Example: Horor
6. Demon Heavy (25% resistance vs Infantry Light Damage,25% resistance vs Infantry Heavy Damage,-40% resistance vs Fire Damage)
- Example: Demon Prince

Esentialy, the diferent weapons will give you diferent damage types, and units will start with promotions giving them the armour type witch is unchangable.
Also, note that infantry armour provides no defense resistance to plasma damage, witch will be a great equaliser to them, and nothing has any resistance to Melta Damage witch is the ultimate equaliser.

So, what do you think?
 
Its impossible really do judge balance without throwing in some sample unit strengths; the balance of relative strength adjustments depend on the core unit strengths. For example, +100% strength vs vehicles +50% strength vs light vehicles is reasonable if a tac squad is strength 6, a landspeeder is strength 8 (with a withdraw chance) and a Predator is strength ~14, but not ok if the tac squad is strength 7.

Also; are you planning to have stronger versions of some of the core units as you advance through the tech tree? Or just more upgrades/different weapon types?

For example, many Rome type mod/scenarios or WW2 scenarios have multiple levels of legionaries/infantry/tanks.

But, as it stands:

1. Maybe flame weapons should:
a) get a city attack bonus
b) ignore defensive terrain bonuses

2. I would recommend making some differentiation between ranged and melee troops in your armor types; many weapons should have very different effectiveness against these. A Heavy bolter is great against melee units that have to charge forwards across open ground to reach you, but weak against units that can sit back behind cover. A flamer is good vs hordes of weak melee units, but is weak against ranged units.
The first strike system won't make enough of a difference here I think.

3. Do demons really need separate armor type? I'd just give them a racial trait that gives fire resistance or something. How many flame weapons are there really going to be in the game anyway? If you do, I'd probably stick with a single demon armor type, and just make the heavy demons have a higher base strength.

4. I be wary of using elemental resistance, (that has a lot of bugs - it doesn't work currently in Warhammer), I'd try use strength adjustments instead whenvever possible. I would make the strength adjustments on weapons, rather than trying to add resistances to various types of armor.
And it sounded like you were just going to have different units for different weapon outfits.

So for example, you could have:
Tactical marine squad
Unit class: heavy infantry
Moves: 1
Strength: 6

Tactical marine squad w/ missile launcher
Unit class: heavy infantry
Moves: 1
Strength: 6
+100 % vs vehicles
+ 50% vs light vehicle

Tactical marine squad with plasma gun
Unit class: heavy infantry
Moves: 1
Strength: 6
+20% vs heavy infantry.
+10% vs demons.

Unit:
Imperial guardsmen
Unit class: light infantry
Strength: 5
Moves: 1
-20% strength vs heavy infantry.
- 10% strength vs demon

Unit:
Imperial guardsmen with plasma gun
Unit class: light infantry
Strength: 5
Moves: 1

Landspeeder
Unit class: light vehicle
Strength: 8
Moves: 4
20% withdraw chance.

Predator:
Unit class: vehicle
Strength 14
Moves: 2

Razorback:
Unit class: light vehicle
Moves: 3
Strength: 7
Can transport infantry.


An alternative design (using resistances) would be to pick one damage type as your "base" damage (say, bolter fire) and then have everything else as an elemental damage type, so for example you have:
IGuardsmen
Unitclass: light infantry
Moves: 1
Strength: 0+5 light
75% resistance to AT damage

Tactical marine squad
Unit class: heavy infantry
Strength: 6
Moves: 1
20% resistance to light damage
50% resistance to AT damage

Tactical marines with plasma gun
Unit class: heavy infantry
Moves: 1
Strength: 4+3 plasma
20% resistance to light damage

Tactical marines with missile launcher
Unit class: heavy infantry
Strength: 4+3 AT
20% resistance to light damage

Predator:
Unit class: vehicle
Moves: 2
Strength: 2 + 6 AT damage.
70% resistance vs light damage
50% resistance vs heavy damage
50% resistance vs plasma damage
80% resistance vs flame damage

Rhino:
Unit class: light vehicle
Moves: 3
Strength: 6
50% resistance to light damage
40% resistance to heavy damage
25% resistance to plasma damage

There are lots of different ways you can do this, just work out whichever design works better for you. But lots of different damage types will get very messy and cluttered, the UI wasn't really designed for multiple damage types.
I think you'll find it much cleaner to avoid resistances (except maybe for fire).

Something else to remember: unit class also determines what uprgades are available to particular units.
So you could have various demonic promotions only available to demon class units, various vehicle promotions (heavy plating, etc.) only available to to heavy vehicles, flanking (withdraw chance) promotions only available to light vehicles, etc.
 
Its impossible really do judge balance without throwing in some sample unit strengths; the balance of relative strength adjustments depend on the core unit strengths. For example, +100% strength vs vehicles +50% strength vs light vehicles is reasonable if a tac squad is strength 6, a landspeeder is strength 8 (with a withdraw chance) and a Predator is strength ~14, but not ok if the tac squad is strength 7.
You basicly guesed the strenths more or less. How did you do it?

Also; are you planning to have stronger versions of some of the core units as you advance through the tech tree? Or just more upgrades/different weapon types?
Just diferent weapon types, but elite units are esentialy upgrades of basic units.
For example, Space Marine Veteran Squad (limited to 4 or 6 not sure yet) is one of the upgrades of Space Marine squads.

But, as it stands:

1. Maybe flame weapons should:
a) get a city attack bonus
b) ignore defensive terrain bonuses
That, and if mounted on wehicles than they also get coleteral damage. A heavy tank with one tends to do that. They also get a bonus against mele units.

2. I would recommend making some differentiation between ranged and melee troops in your armor types; many weapons should have very different effectiveness against these. A Heavy bolter is great against melee units that have to charge forwards across open ground to reach you, but weak against units that can sit back behind cover. A flamer is good vs hordes of weak melee units, but is weak against ranged units.
The first strike system won't make enough of a difference here I think.
True, hence there will be diferent <unitcombat> types. Mele units will be seperate but not by armour but by their combat type. Just like they are now in civ. Mele units, ranged units, vehicles, walkers, ect.

The Armor values will be in the form of promotions, like the FF weapon system.
There Iron weapons get a bonus vs bronze weapons ect.

So for example, a Assault Marine Squad will be a T3 Mele unit that starts with the Power Armour promotion (giving him unit armour Infantry Heavy), and a guardsmen is a Infantry unit that starts with the Carpace Armour promotion that makes him count as (unit armour Infantry Light). So a guardsmen will be naturaly more vaulnerable to a Infantry Damage Heavy (space marine bolters) than a space marine is to a guardsmens rifle. But hand him a plasma gun and he ignores all infantry armour making him as good as the space marine.

3. Do demons really need separate armor type? I'd just give them a racial trait that gives fire resistance or something. How many flame weapons are there really going to be in the game anyway? If you do, I'd probably stick with a single demon armor type, and just make the heavy demons have a higher base strength.
A hell of a lot. The imperium loves fire weapons, the SOB live for them, and about every walker out there has a flamer or two. And in WH40K flame is considered the only way of purging demons properly by the zelous fanatical empire.
But you do have a point about the heavy demon thing. I will most likely boil it down to just one.

4. I be wary of using elemental resistance, (that has a lot of bugs - it doesn't work currently in Warhammer), I'd try use strength adjustments instead whenvever possible. I would make the strength adjustments on weapons, rather than trying to add resistances to various types of armor.
And it sounded like you were just going to have different units for different weapon outfits.
It works in FF. The idea was that for example you would have a IG Guardsmen (strenth 3) unit fighting a Space Marine (strenth 5) unit. And a plasma gun upgrade would simply add +2 Plasma damage to the guardsmen unit. And since that +2 damage is not affected by the resistance of the power armour, sudenly the guardsmen count as a 1.5 + 2 = 3.5 unit, witch is almost as strong as the Space Marines.
So a plasma rifle + cover = dead space marines.

I want to push specialisation a lot in this maner.

An alternative design (using resistances) would be to pick one damage type as your "base" damage (say, bolter fire) and then have everything else as an elemental damage type, so for example you have:
IGuardsmen
Unitclass: light infantry
Moves: 1
Strength: 0+5 light
75% resistance to AT damage
...
...
This is esentialy the concept, only with promotions instead of hard coded resistances for a litle more bling and the weapons as promotions literaly working as you said, adding plasma damage or flame damage or what ever.

There are lots of different ways you can do this, just work out whichever design works better for you. But lots of different damage types will get very messy and cluttered, the UI wasn't really designed for multiple damage types.
I think you'll find it much cleaner to avoid resistances (except maybe for fire).
Well, FF has all those elemental damage types and they work more or less properly.


Something else to remember: unit class also determines what uprgades are available to particular units.
So you could have various demonic promotions only available to demon class units, various vehicle promotions (heavy plating, etc.) only available to to heavy vehicles, flanking (withdraw chance) promotions only available to light vehicles, etc.
This, I shall keep in mind.

What I shall not do is seperate the units based on their equipement.
I meen, only for the basic Tactical Marines there would have to be 6 units:
Normal, with melta, with plasma, with heavy bolter, with flamer, with missile.
This would be a devestating cluter on the interface.

Think about clicking on a city and chosing one out of 40-50 units witch to build.
(Let me show an example: 6 for tactical, 5 for support, another 3 for terminators, and about 2 or 3 for each veteran makes 19, and that is only infantry.)
 
Doing armor with promotions might work well. So what are your list of unit classes?

Its going to be very hard to get it balanced though.

3.5 is nowhere *near* strength 5. A strength 5 unit will beat a strength 3.5 unit 90+% of the time. Strength ratios are what matter, so strength 3.5 is to strength 5 as strength 14 is to strength 20. Do you see a lot of curaissers beating infantry in vanilla civ?

Also, if tac squad bolter fire is your "base" strength, then your example is wrong. You would have to have:

IGuardsmen = strength 0+3light+2plasma.

Otherwise you're treating their lasgun damage as if it were bolter damage.

This is what I'm worried about from an interface perspective; units with multiple elemental damage types are going to be crazy. Also, this is a big problem. IIRC, units only take damage from their base strength.
So, suppose there is a unit that is 4+4 death damage. Suppose it takes bombardment (from some spell, or artillery or whatever) that takes it down to half strength. Then, it will be 2+4 death = 6 total strength, not 2+2death=4 strength
So I *think* that the 0+3light+2plasma unit would either be full strength, or dead.
I am not certain of this, however.

Its never really an issue in FFH or Warhammer, because base strength is always what really matters, but it could be a big issue for your mod.

Also, if you really want to have weapon types be really significant, you're going to need their specialist damage type to be a bigger part of their core strength.
A tac squad that is 5+1 plasma isn't going to be that different from a tac squad that is 5+1missile.
So what you'll probably need to do is have the weapons *downgrade* the base strength.

So, if a tac is base strength 5, you need to make the plasma gun be -2 strength +3 plasma strength. So the net effect is a unit that is strength 3+3 plasma. This unit will behave differently against different targets much more than a unit that is 5+1 plasma.


Also, I think that creating separate units for tactical marine with plasma gun and tactical marine with missile launcher are going to be the only way you'll get the AI to produce an intelligent mix of different units.

If you can do it with a tactical marine squad that can choose 1 (and only 1) weapon promotion, and get the AI to intelligently choose promotions, that would be great. Might be tough though.

If you're going to do it the way I think you are with promotions, then you would have 1 base tech requirement for the tactical marine.
You'd have another tech that was required for a plasma gun upgrade ("plasma weaponry") another tech that was required for a missile launcher ("anti-tank weaponry I") and a third tech that was required for a melta gun ("anti-tank weaponry II"). So, the AI researches the base tech for tactical marines, and starts building tac squads. Then, it researches the tech for a plasma gun, and then immediately upgrades (or as soon as it has spare promotions, depending on whether or not they're free) its entire army of tac squads with the plasma gun promotion. 10 turns later, it researches anti-tank weaponry 1, but doesn't get any missile launchers, because all its tac squads are already upgraded with plasma guns.
In other words: the AI can't recognize opportunity costs. It won't realize that getting the plasma gun upgrade (which looks good, it increases the unit strength) is in fact a bad thing because it stops them from later upgrading to a missile launcher instead.
 
Doing armor with promotions might work well. So what are your list of unit classes?

Its going to be very hard to get it balanced though.

3.5 is nowhere *near* strength 5. A strength 5 unit will beat a strength 3.5 unit 90+% of the time. Strength ratios are what matter, so strength 3.5 is to strength 5 as strength 14 is to strength 20. Do you see a lot of curaissers beating infantry in vanilla civ?
It was an example. And besides, considering that a space marine costs at least 2x or 2.5x more than a guardsmen unit it will make sense.
3.5 + cover from a city, a hill or something (at least 50%) is 5.25.

Also, if tac squad bolter fire is your "base" strength, then your example is wrong. You would have to have:

IGuardsmen = strength 0+3light+2plasma.

Otherwise you're treating their lasgun damage as if it were bolter damage.
The base type is more likely to be the lasgun than the bolter, it would be the lasgun and not the bolter. Bolters are almost heavy weapons.

This is what I'm worried about from an interface perspective; units with multiple elemental damage types are going to be crazy. Also, this is a big problem. IIRC, units only take damage from their base strength.
So, suppose there is a unit that is 4+4 death damage. Suppose it takes bombardment (from some spell, or artillery or whatever) that takes it down to half strength. Then, it will be 2+4 death = 6 total strength, not 2+2death=4 strength
So I *think* that the 0+3light+2plasma unit would either be full strength, or dead.
I am not certain of this, however.
Think about it. When you are giving that guardsmen unit plasma guns are you equiping the whole unit with them?
No, you are making 2 or maybe 3 out of the 10 unit formation into plasma guners.

So if you damage it by 50%, you will still have the 3 plasma guners (as the remaining guardsmen would pick up any plasma guns left by their fallen friends) and another 2

So from a unit with 7 rifles and 3 plasmas you are going down to a unit with 2 rifles and 3 plasmas. It makes sense strategicly.

As for 0 or 100% I am going to test it now.
I have checked it out, and the damage is delt normaly. There is no problem with the Fire damage. (the test was on a fire elemental)

Its never really an issue in FFH or Warhammer, because base strength is always what really matters, but it could be a big issue for your mod.

Also, if you really want to have weapon types be really significant, you're going to need their specialist damage type to be a bigger part of their core strength.
A tac squad that is 5+1 plasma isn't going to be that different from a tac squad that is 5+1missile.
So what you'll probably need to do is have the weapons *downgrade* the base strength.
This goes without saying, but it will require a lot of balancing and testing.

So, if a tac is base strength 5, you need to make the plasma gun be -2 strength +3 plasma strength. So the net effect is a unit that is strength 3+3 plasma. This unit will behave differently against different targets much more than a unit that is 5+1 plasma.
This is a good idea, it is most likely how it will be done.


Also, I think that creating separate units for tactical marine with plasma gun and tactical marine with missile launcher are going to be the only way you'll get the AI to produce an intelligent mix of different units.

If you can do it with a tactical marine squad that can choose 1 (and only 1) weapon promotion, and get the AI to intelligently choose promotions, that would be great. Might be tough though.
Well, you have to consider that even in vanila civ the AI is smart enough to detect promotions like shock, cover ect.
These promotions work similary, I don't see the isue. But again, only testing will show and I am years away from that.

If you're going to do it the way I think you are with promotions, then you would have 1 base tech requirement for the tactical marine.
You'd have another tech that was required for a plasma gun upgrade ("plasma weaponry") another tech that was required for a missile launcher ("anti-tank weaponry I") and a third tech that was required for a melta gun ("anti-tank weaponry II"). So, the AI researches the base tech for tactical marines, and starts building tac squads. Then, it researches the tech for a plasma gun, and then immediately upgrades (or as soon as it has spare promotions, depending on whether or not they're free) its entire army of tac squads with the plasma gun promotion. 10 turns later, it researches anti-tank weaponry 1, but doesn't get any missile launchers, because all its tac squads are already upgraded with plasma guns.
In other words: the AI can't recognize opportunity costs. It won't realize that getting the plasma gun upgrade (which looks good, it increases the unit strength) is in fact a bad thing because it stops them from later upgrading to a missile launcher instead.
I have not seen such effects in FF. The AI seemed to work fine with most promotions there.
But I am looking for a way to make the pormotions tradable for one another. So that the AI can switch, prehaps this would help.
 
The base type is more likely to be the lasgun than the bolter, it would be the lasgun and not the bolter. Bolters are almost heavy weapons.

Find, then your tac marines are going to have to be strength 0+5heavy, and then 0+3heavy+3plasma. Same problem.
But if you limit any particular weapon to 2 unit types, its probably going to be ugly but not too bad.
It was an example. And besides, considering that a space marine costs at least 2x or 2.5x more than a guardsmen unit it will make sense.
3.5 + cover from a city, a hill or something (at least 50%) is 5.25

Strength differentials that are this large might still be too much, but thats easy to tweak with testing.
50% is probably too much bonus from hills.
Possibly you could give Guardsmen the Fortification promotion, where they gain double bonuses from fortification?
Seems reasonable that IG should be good at digging in.
They could also possibly get a boiling blood-type spell "bayonet charge". Maybe this could be a spell granted by a Commisar promotion or something? Its easy to see squad leaders as promotions.

(the test was on a fire elemental)
I forget; are fire elementals strength 0+X fire strength?
If so, cool, no problem.

I have not seen such effects in FF. The AI seemed to work fine with most promotions there.

But promotions in FF are not mutually exclusive. You can have the cover *and* shock promotions. But you shouldn't be able to get both the missile launcher and plasma gun promotions.
Its the fact that getting the first promotion prevents you from getting the second that is the problem.

Maybe it won't be a huge problem if you're building enough new units over time, since new units won't be locked by the old weapon promotion you picked.

Making them promotions that cost a levelup slot rather than being free will probably help this.

Another thought:
You can take advantage of weapons being promotions and armor being promotions by using multiple chassis' for serious veterancy/elite upgrades.

So, you can have an early game tec that lets you build tactical marines at strength 0+5heavy, that start with power armor promotion and can get 1 weapon promotion.
And then you could have another promotion late game that lets you build veteran tactical marines at 0+6heavy (maybe a national limit cap?).

And then you have another tech even later that lets you build terminator squads (again with a national limit hardcap?) that start with the terminator armor promotion, and are strength 0+7heavy.

Are melta guns, missile launchers and tank shells all going to be the same damage type? Is a melta gun going to just be a more powerful missile launcher? Should light infantry have some damage resistance to this weapon type?

* * *

On an entirely different note; you could make the mod more interesting (and different) by eliminating terrain improvements from the game entirely. As in; no race gets Worker units (or can pillage).
Improving the output of the planet doesn't really make sense with the scale that you're thinking about; an existing planet with a bunch of forces landing and fighting a war.
Make map generation scripts that place a bunch of map features and improvements over the map; a city here that generates commerce, a forgeworks there that generates hammers, roads linking the cities (but no new roads buildable), a spaceport here, a power plant there, farmland here etc.
No new roads will make a huge difference in how things play, making movement much more strategic. one of the big problems with civ is that everywhere ends up getting covered in roads, and so terrain movement costs become less interesting.

So, each race is going around building hq bases for their faction, but they are competing over the existing resources and planetary infrastructure. So, if you build a base (ie a city in civ terms) next to a "city" improvement, then you get a big advantage, because that tile has a high resource output.
You could even have really big metropolises that filled multiple tiles, these will be big focuses for players to get near.

Maybe remove food entirely from the game, and replace it with "manpower".

So your 3 resources are manpower (normal food), hammers and commerce. When your base accumulates enough manpower, it grows to the next population level level (you now have more manpower to police the surrounding terrain and force them to work for you).
Maybe make each city size only eat 1.5 manpower, rather than 2, so you can still grow a little without much nearby.

You get beakers and gold as normal for paying upkeep and researching techs, and influence replacing culture. Like in the Fury Road mod.

You could still have a few improvement types that had increasing outputs over time as you worked them more like cottages in normal civ (or depletable resources that had *lower* output over time as you worked them out; so an improvement that initially a high yield was converted into one with a lower yield after 10 turns, and then a lower yield again after another 40 turns, etc.).

I gotta say, I like this idea :)
Make you feel like you're actually landing on a planet and fighting a war there, rather than doing a standard civ-style slowly build up an empire and develop the world.
 
Ideas for various map improvements;

Base terrain tiles as normal (grassland, plains, tundra, desert, etc). This represents the normal population that lives in this area. You can get a bit out of them, but not much.

Tile yields in terms of manpower/hammers/commerce. (Obviously tech, unit and building costs will need to be scaled down to represent the lower city outputs available with this mod).

Village, town, city, metropolis improvements. (these are fixed; they aren't like cottages where one grows into the next; the population is already there).
1/0/0, 2/0/1, 3/1/3, 3/2/4.
Make it so city and metropolis improvements are likely to be in adjacent tiles, and that they count as cities for city attack/city defense bonuses for units.

Forgeworks.
0/2/0

Manufactorium.
0/3/0

Intensive farmland.
1/0/1

Spaceport:
0/0/5

Seaport (coast only)
0/1/3

Prison complex (conscripts!).
2/0/0.

Power plant
0/1/1
(maybe vary these by fuel source; hydro plant, fusion plant, etc.)

Growing "watchtowers" that provide small hammer bonus and defensive fortifications, like in FFH/Warhammer.
(the problem with watchtowers is that they get spammed, but when you can't build any new ones, no problem)

Mine
0/2/0

Offshore drilling rig
0/1/1

Armory. (depletable resource)
3/3/0. Degrades to looted armory after 20 turns (0/1/0).

Some resources could require that you have a particular civ-specific tech.

So there could be chaos shrines or portals that have big bonuses, but require a tech that only Chaos can research. Similarly for an SM reliquary, or a Necron Tomb, or orky breeding grounds (very high manpower yield), or eldar warpgates.

There could be various unique features that only show up one per world;
Planetary governor's palace. (1/2/2)
Capital city (2/3/6)
Defensive matrix hq (allows a unit standing in it to cast an orbital bombardment spell at long range, from planetary satellite defences)
Planetary space port (allows any units in it to use paratrooper drop in 8 tile radius)
etc.

Various techs could also increase tile yields of particular structures; more advanced subjugation could allow greater resource extraction from the planetary populace and resources.

Particularly for tyranids and necrons; they could get almost no resources from normal human resources, but have slowly growing tile yields over time. Tyranids could cover the land in infestation (like FFH apocalyptic terrain) that removed all tile yields and gave tyranids combat advantages.

Some powerful units (like some ork stuff) could be able to pillage, which permanently destroy enemy infrastructure.

Putting many standard city building type things onto the map leaves bases to focus on military buildings (defense bonuses, free xp, free promotions, military output bonus, manpower/hammer/commerce bonuses, etc) and unit production
 
With food being manpower, instead of health you could have some kind of "leadership".
For every size of your base, it becomes more and more difficult to manage, and so more and more difficult to subjugate the surrounding territory (and extract resources from it).
So, each point of population in your city adds a leadership burden, the equivalent of unhealth. If the leadership burden exceeds your organizational capacity in that city, then you lose 1 point of manpower income for each excess point (in the same way that unhealth reduces food income normally).

And then various administrative buildings you construct increase leadership in that base (equivalent to providing more +health bonuses).

I'd also consider making settlers very expensive. So much of the map will remain uncontrolled; people will attempt to settle near the good resources, but you'll still probably get big open areas that remain uncontrolled.

Civ leaders with an expansive trait (half price settlers) would then be much better placed to build more bases. I'd imagine some ork, nid and IG leaders might have this trait.
 
oh no... please dont get me sucked into thinking about another mod O_O i have my resources stretched thin as it is haha

seriously though, PPQ, if your serious on making a 40K mod, i will more than likely help im the future. (all this talk is making me want to mod again... but i cant :'( )
 
Find, then your tac marines are going to have to be strength 0+5heavy, and then 0+3heavy+3plasma. Same problem.
But if you limit any particular weapon to 2 unit types, its probably going to be ugly but not too bad.


Strength differentials that are this large might still be too much, but thats easy to tweak with testing.
50% is probably too much bonus from hills.
Possibly you could give Guardsmen the Fortification promotion, where they gain double bonuses from fortification?
Hill + forest = +50% what is the isue?
Is this not the same way wariors handle lions, heavy barbarians and such in FfH, FF, and even vanila civ?

Seems reasonable that IG should be good at digging in.
They could also possibly get a boiling blood-type spell "bayonet charge". Maybe this could be a spell granted by a Commisar promotion or something? Its easy to see squad leaders as promotions.
Yep, squad leaders, heavy veapons, all are promotions.
And the IG would probably start with something akin to what you mentioned.

I forget; are fire elementals strength 0+X fire strength?
If so, cool, no problem.
They are after a XML change.

But promotions in FF are not mutually exclusive. You can have the cover *and* shock promotions. But you shouldn't be able to get both the missile launcher and plasma gun promotions.
Its the fact that getting the first promotion prevents you from getting the second that is the problem.

Maybe it won't be a huge problem if you're building enough new units over time, since new units won't be locked by the old weapon promotion you picked.
FF has several such promotions in place. And the way I see it, the AI or player in fact is going to get his inadequate forces killed, and than rebuild with properly updated forces.
So you lose your Shock + strenth 2 Axeman, to enemy archers, you build a cover + strenth 2 Axeman next to defeat them. Use the bad ones for foder and hit him with the good ones. This is my usual strategy in civ.

Making them promotions that cost a levelup slot rather than being free will probably help this.
This is an interesting idea. Will probably do so.

Another thought:
You can take advantage of weapons being promotions and armor being promotions by using multiple chassis' for serious veterancy/elite upgrades.

So, you can have an early game tec that lets you build tactical marines at strength 0+5heavy, that start with power armor promotion and can get 1 weapon promotion.
And then you could have another promotion late game that lets you build veteran tactical marines at 0+6heavy (maybe a national limit cap?).

And then you have another tech even later that lets you build terminator squads (again with a national limit hardcap?) that start with the terminator armor promotion, and are strength 0+7heavy.
This is exacly what I ment, a logical progresion of units.

Are melta guns, missile launchers and tank shells all going to be the same damage type? Is a melta gun going to just be a more powerful missile launcher? Should light infantry have some damage resistance to this weapon type?
Most AP weapons will be damage type: Infantry AP, and I forgot to add that infantry will get defense vs this damage type. I just forgot to type it in.

Only a few weapons will actualy be melta.

* * *

On an entirely different note; you could make the mod more interesting (and different) by eliminating terrain improvements from the game entirely. As in; no race gets Worker units (or can pillage).
Improving the output of the planet doesn't really make sense with the scale that you're thinking about; an existing planet with a bunch of forces landing and fighting a war.
Make map generation scripts that place a bunch of map features and improvements over the map; a city here that generates commerce, a forgeworks there that generates hammers, roads linking the cities (but no new roads buildable), a spaceport here, a power plant there, farmland here etc.
No new roads will make a huge difference in how things play, making movement much more strategic. one of the big problems with civ is that everywhere ends up getting covered in roads, and so terrain movement costs become less interesting.

So, each race is going around building hq bases for their faction, but they are competing over the existing resources and planetary infrastructure. So, if you build a base (ie a city in civ terms) next to a "city" improvement, then you get a big advantage, because that tile has a high resource output.
You could even have really big metropolises that filled multiple tiles, these will be big focuses for players to get near.

Maybe remove food entirely from the game, and replace it with "manpower".

So your 3 resources are manpower (normal food), hammers and commerce. When your base accumulates enough manpower, it grows to the next population level level (you now have more manpower to police the surrounding terrain and force them to work for you).
Maybe make each city size only eat 1.5 manpower, rather than 2, so you can still grow a little without much nearby.

You get beakers and gold as normal for paying upkeep and researching techs, and influence replacing culture. Like in the Fury Road mod.

You could still have a few improvement types that had increasing outputs over time as you worked them more like cottages in normal civ (or depletable resources that had *lower* output over time as you worked them out; so an improvement that initially a high yield was converted into one with a lower yield after 10 turns, and then a lower yield again after another 40 turns, etc.).

I gotta say, I like this idea :)
Make you feel like you're actually landing on a planet and fighting a war there, rather than doing a standard civ-style slowly build up an empire and develop the world.
This is a rather large text, and it is rather complicated. While it sounds entertaining and actualy fun. There is no way I can do that alone, working with my C++/XML skills.

I don't even know how to make a map script.

So for now, I plan on doing the fallowing:
1. Wait for you to throw out a new wersion of WHFB (I hope you will strip out all the usles bits like mana so I don't have to :)) and Asemble the ideas.
2. Asemble a moding team that knows what they are doing. (this will be the hardest bit as I am the oposite of a born people colecter.)
3. Work like forge world servators untill it is done.

But, as it is clearly visible, steps 2 and 3 (especialy step 3) depend extremely on step 1.

PS. For the cities I was toying with using the Living World idea, where the world is already populated by barbarian cities. So that as you expand across the planet you have to take these as your bases and not expand on your own.
 
Is this not the same way wariors handle lions, heavy barbarians and such in FfH, FF, and even vanila civ?

Well, the difference is that animals and barbarians will always attack you, so you can always defend. (And I forget the relative strength values - warriors are 2, lions are 3?, so its 50/50 win chance on a 50% defense tile?)
I'd forgotten that forests were 50% in vanilla, so long since I played it.
But this is all unimportant, relative defense values are fairly easy to tweak.
FF has several such promotions in place
Like what? The handful of equipment promotions? (That require that you have used a great engineer to make a particular structure, then buy an upgrade with gold.)
Those things are of very minor importance, whereas your weapon promotions are of central importance.
And counting on unit loss is not really a good idea; in a war, normally the units you use are the units you built before it starts.

But if the basic upgrades come from techs that are near each other in the tech tree, and weapon upgrades require a levelup promotion slot, then it will take a while for the AI to get them, and they'll have some units that can get the second upgrade by the time you get it.
So maybe the concept isn't broken.
1. Wait for you to throw out a new wersion of WHFB (I hope you will strip out all the usles bits like mana so I don't have to ) and Asemble the ideas.

If you're starting new, I'd probably recommend starting from the final FFH or FF codebase. There isn't really anything specific in the WHFB mod that will be needed for a 40k mod. I imagine taking out mana is a trivial change.

All my idea would require is someone who knows how to program mapscripts. (food functions the same as manpower, and leadership as health, so all it would need is a graphical tweak - you could ask on the Planetfall forums about that, they tweaked those graphics - or leave them mostly unchanged). Creating the improvements you could just do in xml, you just need a mapscript coder to get an algorithm for distributing them over the planet.
You could probably recruit someone like that if you advertised for it.

I have no coding skills at all, I'm pure design and playtesting.

Barbarian cities (and no new settlers) would work ok, but I still like my idea better.
Over the course of time that it takes to fight a planetary war, cities aren't really going to be growing and having worker units massively improve the output of terrain.
Space marines aren't going to be building up small towns into big metropolises during a couple of years of war, nor building banks or universities or marketplaces. They're going to be building a few military bases/barracks to help supply their war effort, and they're going to appropriate whatever resources they need from the populace.

I love the the idea of fighting over pre-existing resources, its just such a twist on the normal civ formula.

It also takes account of the fact that:
a) the AI is decent enough at building cities near areas with high tile yields
b) the AI isn't great at building improvements

With barbarian cities, you're still going to be basically playing vanilla civ with different units, building up your cities and improving the surrounding terrain.
 
Like what? The handful of equipment promotions? (That require that you have used a great engineer to make a particular structure, then buy an upgrade with gold.)
Those things are of very minor importance, whereas your weapon promotions are of central importance.
And counting on unit loss is not really a good idea; in a war, normally the units you use are the units you built before it starts.
I don't agree with this, have you played FF lately? &#1058;he AI tends to use the same strategy as I do, count on your units to eather die, or get so good from the XP that the wrong promotions don't mater any more. But maybe I have just been playing to much banor lately...

But if the basic upgrades come from techs that are near each other in the tech tree, and weapon upgrades require a levelup promotion slot, then it will take a while for the AI to get them, and they'll have some units that can get the second upgrade by the time you get it.
So maybe the concept isn't broken.
Wait, are you sugjesting that I add the ability for a single unit to have multiple weapons at once? This can get messed up...


If you're starting new, I'd probably recommend starting from the final FFH or FF codebase. There isn't really anything specific in the WHFB mod that will be needed for a 40k mod. I imagine taking out mana is a trivial change.
It's not only the mana. You take out the AC, you rename a lot of things, you add the Combat related culture changes (a favorite of mine), you do a lot of other things that I would need to do.

All my idea would require is someone who knows how to program mapscripts. (food functions the same as manpower, and leadership as health, so all it would need is a graphical tweak - you could ask on the Planetfall forums about that, they tweaked those graphics - or leave them mostly unchanged). Creating the improvements you could just do in xml, you just need a mapscript coder to get an algorithm for distributing them over the planet.
You could probably recruit someone like that if you advertised for it.
Maybe I will, depends on the time.

Barbarian cities (and no new settlers) would work ok, but I still like my idea better.
Over the course of time that it takes to fight a planetary war, cities aren't really going to be growing and having worker units massively improve the output of terrain.
Space marines aren't going to be building up small towns into big metropolises during a couple of years of war, nor building banks or universities or marketplaces. They're going to be building a few military bases/barracks to help supply their war effort, and they're going to appropriate whatever resources they need from the populace.
I can't blame you for this part, you mostly know only from the PC games. But in the world of 40K wars can take decades easy (think of the planet Armagedon, the wars of armagedon lasted for so many years...). And in a turn based game where a turn might be a week in a 2-3 decade campagine things start to seem diferent.

Also, this is not entirely corect with not building the population up.
Any force, be it eldar, Astartes or chaos will need some way of making use of the population, especialy space marines who will not exacly be recruiting from it.

They need to keep the population dosile, obediant, farely hapy and productive. Otherwise the comand will simply argue that the campagine is not worth it.
Even in the grim-dark world of 40K, you don't fight just for fight sake (unles your name is Angorn).

I love the the idea of fighting over pre-existing resources, its just such a twist on the normal civ formula.

It also takes account of the fact that:
a) the AI is decent enough at building cities near areas with high tile yields
b) the AI isn't great at building improvements

With barbarian cities, you're still going to be basically playing vanilla civ with different units, building up your cities and improving the surrounding terrain.

But the cities will be most likely set like this:
Barbarian at start, unpilagable city buildings, pilagable military buildings, pilagable population, unburnable.
And most of the improvements would not be burnable.

PS. The PC games give a horible impresion of all the races and blatantly break fluf at many points. I don't think they are a good source of information (other than the 1st part with the SM vs Orks campagine)
 
Top Bottom