You have to see that 1+1 is not always 2. There are a lot of other effects to consider meaning you cannot simply add up the numbers (while I still think that it could be something more than 20%).
On a very different topic:
The health bars become "screen filling" in the late game again. While it is not game breaking it is, umm, not looking too nice
...
View attachment 371375
Interesting... numerically, it shouldn't look any different than it would on a 'normal' game based on the way it divides back to basic values there... I wonder if it has to do with units that have more than 100 hp? I suppose I could easily get it to divide further than the standard to give a bit more range there. There are still aspects of this I can't manipulate. But I can look at the formula I CAN manipulate and see what I can do perhaps. I'd almost prefer they all had basically the same width and it was all just a matter of ratios within that width.
So all this illogical fuss from you because the system can't handle realistic values and linearity within group sizes. Wow.
Well... if we were going to go with a mechanism that operated the way you're proposing, we'd have to take the following steps:
1) Adjust the modifiers to be all positive from the first level of each category upwards rather than zeroing out at the 5th stage.
2) Assuming we did make a +200% per category adjustment then we'd have to change the overall divisor of end total str to get the base values of the units to reflect (mostly) the same as the core mod (a priority in developing this option.) So lets see... 5 * 200% = 1000% * 3 categories = 3000%. So we'd just have to divide the end total of all unit strengths by 3000 to get our units to reflect similar 'base' values. Could be done but I do worry about potential overflows at higher totals. If you get a unit with lets just say 150 strength, size category 8, quality 8, group volume 8, each at * 200 to the modifier, then that's 1600 * 3 = 4800 * 150 = 720,000... I suppose we still have some margin before overflow... So it COULD be done. A 200 strength unit with size Category 10, quality 10, group volume 13 would be about the maximum possible (for now) so that would end up being (before division which is where we must be concerned about integer overflows) 2000 * 3 = 6000 * 200 = 1,200,000. Should be fine I suppose but it doesn't leave us much room for the galactic era (strength would never be able to be changed to something other than a base integer).
3) All three categories would need to progress the same way. A +200% gain from a quality promotion would make it pretty obvious you'd select that - no 'interesting' decisions here.
4) We'd of course have a system where there is no benefit to splitting but lots of benefit to merging so I might as well program the AI to produce as many troops as it can and make sure to merge them as much as possible, which was not the goal of the structure but I can see how some might want an option that acts in this manner.
5) We'd also have to keep in mind that the interplay between unit types will suddenly become very second fiddle to how many of one given unit type could be produced. Who cares about cross stacking your units when you can blast through any clever unit type combinations in a stack simply by making one super powerful unit? More important to have many of one type this way then it is to have a well designed combination of unit types in your stacks. This might not be as bad an effect as I think it would be but it's part of the balance problem I was talking about. If an adjustment in the game influences strategic decision making too much you're taking away from the original strategies built into the game structure... I was not wanting to overwhelm the pre-existing game design. Game balance concerns are not ALWAYS about maintaining conflict equality.
6) Also recognize that the math may very well play out much the same way as it currently does since, again, a unit's power would still be a reflection of its base, modified by 1/3d its size, 1/3d its quality, and 1/3d its group volume. A 3 pt unit would really be a 3 pt unit with a +3000% modifier divided by 3000. You'd only be adding 200 more to its overall modifier then dividing again by 3000 so you'd have 3 * 3200 / 3000 which = (wait for it...) a final of 3.2. Huh? You mean to say that it would be LESS than the 20% modifier is now (which leaves the unit at 3.6)??? How DOES this math make sense?
Think about it.
Of course, let's think this through again... perhaps 300% is what we should really be using right? The unit is 3 times the size so 300% modifier right? Ok. So then if we start at 0% modifier for rank 0 and then go with a 300% modifier, 300 * 5 for each rank to get back to the current 0 balance point = 1500 * 3 for three categories = now we have a divisor of 4500 for the amount that the unit will be modified to get the unit back down to its base value for the display on most units. Ok so then we have a 3 point unit with rank 5 on all. So now we have a unit that is multiplied by 4500 then divided back down by the balance point modifier of 4500 and it's still displayed as a 3 pt unit in-game. So then you add a +300% modifier from a merging. So now you have a 4800% overall modifier. 3 * 4800 = 14400 then divided back down by 4500 then we have... 3.2 again.
Wait... does this mean that this system would always give a .2 strength adjustment rather than an actual percentage modifier the way it works out? Let's do the same math with a 5 pt unit... 5 * 4800 = 24000 then divided by 4500 = 5.3... No... that's not it. hmm... this must be the actual realistic value adjustment when you have a system where strength IS considered to be the sum total of base overall damage and accuracy homogenized into a score we call strength, then modified by 1/3d the unit's size factor, 1/3d the unit's combat quality (mental preparedness to be in a fight), and 1/3d the unit's group volume.
Upon THIS analysis, I'm almost thinking 20% modifiers are too much as an alternative method of approximation but of course the math is not as heavy on the machine to give this sort of approximation instead.
OR... perhaps you mean the first category would be modified by +200%. Then the next would be 200% OF 200% which of course would be 20000%. Then the next would be 200% OF 20000% which now you can see how we start to enter into an integer overload on base units.
Have you noticed how the modifiers you suggested only make sense when merging? If you split even once you have a unit with less than 0 strength (which will default to a minimum so you won't get a negative strength unit.) So whether you have a 3 pt unit or a 300 pt unit you still have 3 units with less than 0 strength if you split them once (provided you have done what the whole purpose of the adjustments are which is to have all three categories balance against each other thus all have 175% adjustments at each rank and you have a unit that is balanced between all three and doesn't already have an overall rank +1 over the balance point of 5 among all three.) Seems to work just fine for modifiers moving UP the chain but moving DOWN them you have a problem. This is because the modifiers are additive rather than multiplicative. When moving down a step you don't get a unit divided by 175%.
So we would thus have to also:
7) Alter the code so that it's multiplicative rather than additive. THAT would be a very significant change and WOULD often lead to overflows because THEN you have a progression of +200% at the 6th stage, then +200% OF 200% at the 7th, then +200% OF 200% OF 200% at the 8th. Would this be more realistic? Sure... but it would lead to HUGE base values that would easily overwhelm the few million points we need to stay within the integer limits.
Soooo... here we are with the decisions that have been made and you know what? The combat system supports it very well AS IT IS and as I have not altered it to begin with - at least not this aspect of it as it is the core of what makes Civ IV combat what it is - the ratio based combat determination mechanism.
Btw, i "had fun" with those and game didn't crash. I just tweak the smaller groups so that they are very weak but above 0. After all, a one little ship or a single man with a stone practically is a 0 str unit.
Curious to see what kind of progression you use and how it 'gets around' the problems explained above.
Pain here is that some units can be grouped and some cannot and there is no indication other than producing them and trying, clearly the system needs more work.
There is an indication. It's located in the definitions of the unit's unitcombats which is where the determination of whether a unit can merge or split or not exists. There are some deep technical problems with enabling all units to merge or split that's based on the many many many tags and unit abilities we already have that would need to be also modified as if they were base numbers like the base strength itself if we were to allow those unit types to merge/split. That would mean a LOT of new tags - quite possibly too many to handle, as we'd need modifier tags to many of the tags we already have. Healing abilities, City Defense Bombardment damage and property modifiers are just a few that come to mind. Even if a deeper evaluation proves there aren't so many of these as I'm thinking there would be, each one would be a very significant amount of new coding. The Property Modifiers are the ones that take up the majority of that complexity. Perhaps eventually they can all be addressed over time and it would then make more sense to re-enable merge/split on the units where the reasons for denying them have been overcome.
Merging of any number of units should be definitely possible as it is in real life but i wonder if this system handles that either. If not... well... in games where there are units waging war, there have been engines that allow stepless grouping of units for decades. 'You must have three, not five, four or two but three' feels so artificial. Unrealism and that only some units can be merged is still the worst here and of course that this system deals with a party of ships and party of men the same way, thus forcing them under the same set of merging rules, multipliers and variables. Definitely not good.
It's a bit gamey, sure, but in some ways that's intended so as to greatly simplify the system that is already quite an endeavor not only to design but to comprehend. Of course, you're welcome to learn programming and figure out how to design a better version.
Not going to or can't ?
You see that +200% still does not equal +20 %, even with all the "other hidden" gimmicks.
Refer to the above musings.
Masses of games from previous decades have solved this issue with just banging the units in one group and adding their values together. While not totally realistic, this age old system is far better and more realistic than this current construction. Hp triples but str does not because the system can't handle it. Meh and Bleh, crappy system then. How about a simple decades old system that just bangs the units and their values together ? Again it really feels that you are tripping into your strange need for overly excessive complexity where it is not needed.
Those systems you speak of are not so overly concerned with an odd combat resolution mechanism in the first place. They are simpler from the base of it. Civ does not lend itself to this at all. For example... take an axeman and a spearman unit and merge the two together and what... just add the modifiers so now you have an axe/spear blend that has the best of both worlds? Or do you average the two sets of modifiers (I'm speaking of the anti-melee and anti-mounted combat modifiers here.) If you do that, how do you then factor in promotion modifiers that were on one unit and promotion modifiers that were on another? How about the modifiers from unitcombats? Does everything then work the same way? Do you have a forested hill blend average the defense modifiers of a forest and a hill? Or should everything be completely additive and we just allow players to HAVE to build axe/spear (and more) combined armies so that we only ever worry about one intense force? Do we then concern ourselves with casualties in a different manner entirely? Once we start thinking this far we begin to realize we'd need to just scrap the whole civ combat system and start over from scratch to get what it is you're looking for it to be.
Not one good reason have i seen why make a simple merging of units so unrealistic and so complex. Heavy nerd-disease i guess and in your post you admitted that your below 0-system can't handle the realism. These really are not demands, you do with your product what you wish but a passionate amazement as why on earth to make such a awkward and unrealistic system when better and far simpler ones have been around for decades. Just bang them together and add up the values.
Not only myself but many others have attempted to share those 'good reasons' and you've not paid attention to any of them if you can still say not one good reason has been given. You're view of what the numbers means is simply flawed. Sorry.
Already back in mid -80, i could for example take separate "armies" of 10 infantrymen, 13 knights, 2 catapults and five more infantrymen and group them neatly at will with few clicks into any combos i liked. After that, countless games have used a simple just bang them together and add up the values-system. Very tried, working, realistic and simple system it is. It now really amazes me that this hasn't been seen in any core Civ games. Hey ! We too can allow unit grouping and create a whole new strategic layer ! I guess it just didn't occur to them or they ran into ai-problems. Still, countless games have managed to make very allowing and free groupings and units combinings very succesfully into the heart of their engines.
This perspective will be well to take into consideration when we decide to start with a new game entirely. Here, it doesn't apply.
I think that the very core, the heart of Size matters should be this beautiful simplicity, not clumsy you must have three-weirdness. You could make bonuses, addennums and other gimmicks working on the side of that. Thats how i would do it but hey, its your product. Just my two merged cents, that have simple wisdom you can't deny.
If one can only understand a simple wisdom it makes sense they'd balk at one more complex.
Now thats a laughter. No "further insight" whatsoever is needed to see that a decades old 'just bang the units and their values together'-system is far better than this one. Quite a many ais in wargames have also been able to cope with it. You are desperately trying to invent a very complex wheel here and ending up with blatant unrealism and ridiculous you must have three-rules. Adding more and more complexity isn't definitely always really more.
One thing you HAVEN'T shown is how you're suggestion is clearly 'better' aside from relying on that being a self-substantiated truth that completely ignores how strength changes are not a linear progression but rather an exponential one. An inability to grasp exponential progression is what makes it so apparent that a linear one would be 'better'. Just keep in mind that I was not the inventor of this exponential structure but one who works with it to make game adjustments that stay true to the original.
" Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away "
You might want to consider the wisdom in the game.
HAH! There it is... the battle cry of those who prefer to only THINK they're thinking when they approach a game! (Which is admittedly MOST people.) The C2C philosophy is, in the words of the immortal Hydromancerx: "More IS more!" If this is not the philosophy to which you ascribe, you are playing the wrong game my friend.
Big reason why i really want to use this is a elimination of micromanagement and ofcourse a convenient and most of all realistic way to give units punching power.
And this was entirely NOT the design intent of this mod, to make it easier to think less and overwhelm your enemies easier. In fact, the intent is quite the opposite - to force one to consider things deeper and weigh the differences in new ways to risk, to give more 'interesting (which is defined as impossible to determine one way or another as ultimately superior) decisions". The generation of Interesting Decisions is the Sid Meyer hallmark that has made this game great. Yes, we seek greater realism in our game models but that may not be found where you would expect it to be. And it certainly doesn't take a priority over improvements in game play itself. If we make merging the only valid strategy in this environment we have made a completely useless game modification that will strip the game of further enjoyability.
As it should but currently it is not.
And how realistic or reasonable is a 12 str unit to beat 3 10 str units with a 50/50 ? Huh ?
That is the issue here.
So what you're saying is you don't like Civ IV in the first place. This fact stems all the way from Vanilla through C2C and is not something unique to our mod. Each str pt is roughly ten times the strength of the previous strength point. It is non-linear, exponential progression.
Since the str of units is not linear: very realistic
Exactly.
Nuisance from svn added after V34 i presume, another good reason not to use constant svn patching.
Not really some those OOS errors and other errors we are fixing are old but they where never got fixed.
Very true alberts... very true. These problems have plagued us mightily for a very long time.
