I wonder if you've considered slotting a naval unit in there? I've occasionally griped that there's no steam powered warship apart from the mid 19th century ironclad, and noted that (for instance) WWI navies were mostly steam powered - granted by then the turbine had just been introduced and they were supplementing the burn with sprayed fuel oil. There seemed too big a gap between the 1850-ish and the 1950-ish navies.
Vokarya's Workshop: Units
- Thread starter Vokarya
- Start date
I wonder if you've considered slotting a naval unit in there? I've occasionally griped that there's no steam powered warship apart from the mid 19th century ironclad, and noted that (for instance) WWI navies were mostly steam powered - granted by then the turbine had just been introduced and they were supplementing the burn with sprayed fuel oil. There seemed too big a gap between the 1850-ish and the 1950-ish navies.
I will have to take a look. There is the Iron Frigate which is available with Steel tech, but based on how I've reshuffled the techs, that might have pushed Steel into the mid-Industrial Era. The rule I have with new units is that a replacement unit should not show up in the same third of an era.
I do think there is some work that can be done in the Industrial Era navy, as I'd like to rename the Pre-Dreadnought to something less anachronistic, and the Battlecruiser seems too good for when it appears. There might be room for some other ships if we can find an appropriate role for them to play.
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
I am currius why workers/settlers/missionaries/etc have a strenght of 0?
I think they could get a +1
with Iron working or some other tech, just to be able to deffend themselves with their iron tools from injured, half-blind, two legs broken 0.3/2 barbarian warrior. 10 workers should be able to scare away 1 wolf too. Strength in numbers.
Are there any gameplay mechanics why this should not work?
I think they could get a +1
with Iron working or some other tech, just to be able to deffend themselves with their iron tools from injured, half-blind, two legs broken 0.3/2 barbarian warrior. 10 workers should be able to scare away 1 wolf too. Strength in numbers.Are there any gameplay mechanics why this should not work?
I am currius why workers/settlers/missionaries/etc have a strenght of 0?
I think they could get a +1
Are there any gameplay mechanics why this should not work?
From what I am aware, the game really does NOT know how to handle workers with Strength. It causes all sorts of issues with workers trying to be combat units.
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
To bad 
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
I am currius why workers/settlers/missionaries/etc have a strenght of 0?
I think they could get a +1
Are there any gameplay mechanics why this should not work?
It was tried several times in C2C to do as you suggested. Each time a worker, etc. type unit was given a str greater than 0 all kinds of bugs and ctds followed. So after several attempts the C2C team abandoned that idea, for the most part.
JosEPh
I recently got a bunch of units with a sufficiently high withdraw chance that the odds said "survival guaranteed". So, I started attacking with them every turn, even though they were all pretty much on the verge of death all the time: they were immortal in attack after all. Attacking with virtually zero odds and still surviving (withdraw) earned them a great many XP, and I started to have Great General over-load (which was certainly fun, with seven settled in the Heroic Epic/Confucian Shrine city). The Great Commander who was with them effectively got 10 free experience points every turn, and quickly notched up even more promotions. Additionally, I could attack any stack I wanted to and start destroying the crossbows and longbows within the stack (by flank attack) without losing any units of my own. I'll never ever upgrade these superhero units, just keep them for breeding Great Generals.
In fact, it all became a little silly.
The units in question were light cavalry. The Great Commander who was with them had a bunch of extra-withdraw-chance promotions. I'm playing rev 670 (I think): the units have in-built withdraw chance, no free promotions, but ARE eligible for the flanking promotions.
Is this intended behaviour? I mean it was certainly fun, but stupidly overpowered. Perhaps a Great Commander with 300+XP really deserves to lead units like this...?
Just thought I'd put this in the "Units" thread for discussion after Vokarya mentioned them earlier.
In fact, it all became a little silly.
The units in question were light cavalry. The Great Commander who was with them had a bunch of extra-withdraw-chance promotions. I'm playing rev 670 (I think): the units have in-built withdraw chance, no free promotions, but ARE eligible for the flanking promotions.
Is this intended behaviour? I mean it was certainly fun, but stupidly overpowered. Perhaps a Great Commander with 300+XP really deserves to lead units like this...?
Just thought I'd put this in the "Units" thread for discussion after Vokarya mentioned them earlier.
I think that would have to be fixed at the DLL level - maybe by putting a cap on max withdraw? It definitely feels like an exploit that should be patched.
I was thinking that if the light cav' didn't have the base withdraw chance, they might not reach the 100% withdraw chance - but I'd have to check where it all came from so this might not be the case. Perhaps without the inherent 25% base chance they'd still reach 100% if one attached a Great General and got Tactics (as well as the three normal Flanking promotions)... Not sure.
Cheers.
A Horse Archer (base 20%) goes to 68% with Flanking I-II-III and Tactics, and a Light Cavalry (base 25%) goes to 70% with the promotions. A Great General Field Commander with the Tactics I-IV promotion line pushes the Light Cavalry to 122% and the Horse Archer to 124%. So I think the problem is actually the Field Commander promotions stacking too much with inherent promotions.
I think a cap on withdraw % (90 or 95) makes more sense than reducing the extra % from the GG's "tactics" promotions. Because while cavalry does go over 100%, other units without any innate withdrawal chance benefit fully from them withouth becoming too absurd.
Though to be honest the Field Commanders are kinda overpowered in general, even if they are really fun.
Though to be honest the Field Commanders are kinda overpowered in general, even if they are really fun.
Re. your last point... I agree, overpowered but fun. I'm looking forward to my super-Commander meeting an AI general in the field. So far, the only AI generals I've come across are brand-new with virtually no XP. Perhaps the AI loses them too easily, and should be taught (?) to protect them better.
Isnt there xml-tag for that..? If I remember correct helicopters use this xml-tag witch disaples all terrain effects and movement costs, I always taught terrain based attack penalties includes?
Have you tried this in game and helicopters really have attack penalty for example crossing river?
To be honest, i haven't checked if helicopters get such penalty but i think that it's very simple to add Amphibious promotion through xml.However, terrain effects and movement costs have nothing to do with this matter.
Dont understand
penalty for crossing river or attacking from sea have everything to do with terrain effects, idea is that certain terrains cause problems to units not made/trained for example crossing river. Ambitious promotion means that unit is trained or equipped operating coast/rivers. Helicopters fly so theres no need promotions nor there should be any terrain penalties for them. Test it in game and if there really are penalties then ambitious promotion is justified solution
The only problem with the Amphibious promotion is that it comes with an extra +10% Strength that I don't think should be built into every Helicopter unit.
In fact, I'm not even sure that Amphibious needs the Strength bonus. It might make the Seafaring leaders a little too strong (especially Ragnar, who gets both Combat I from Aggressive and Amphibious from Seafaring). Amphibious has had the Strength bonus since at least RoM 2.92 - I searched the forums and couldn't find any reference to when Amphibious got that bonus. Having the bonus makes Combat III also sub-optimal unless you are aiming for another promotion that requires Combat III.
So what do you think? If we take the +10% strength off Amphibious, then I have absolutely no problems with adding it to the Helicopter units.
In fact, I'm not even sure that Amphibious needs the Strength bonus. It might make the Seafaring leaders a little too strong (especially Ragnar, who gets both Combat I from Aggressive and Amphibious from Seafaring). Amphibious has had the Strength bonus since at least RoM 2.92 - I searched the forums and couldn't find any reference to when Amphibious got that bonus. Having the bonus makes Combat III also sub-optimal unless you are aiming for another promotion that requires Combat III.
So what do you think? If we take the +10% strength off Amphibious, then I have absolutely no problems with adding it to the Helicopter units.
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
I don't think Amphibious really needs that +10%, unless there was some [preferably easy] way of making it only trigger when attacking from sea/rivers - which I'm not sure is possible. Amphibious should be useless when attacking on dry land, in the tundra or in the desert or wherever - but the +10% Strength applies everywhere.
There isn't a way to do bonuses for river currently in the XML. There are XML tags for attack/defense for terrain, hills, and features, but rivers aren't any of those. The only tag that mentions rivers is <bRiver>, which if set to 1, means the unit doesn't get any penalty for attacking across rivers.
Similar threads
