Players Guide to the C2C Combat Mod - Size Matters game option.
- Thread starter Thunderbrd
- Start date
- Status
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Strange things are going on in the attached screenshot. Could have to do with the strength of 100 but then other fights with Tesla Infantry are OK.
BTW, I lost the fight...
View attachment 371432
Yeah, that IS odd. I've been noticing some slightly over 100% chances being displayed on my games too and was thinking it could be a reflection of a 'problem'. Apparently when the unit has gotten to a strong enough point then the issue is exacerbated. It also looks mostly like a display issue as there's probably some reality there when you look at the comparison between final values after all modifiers puts his unit extremely more powerful than yours. But certainly something isn't quite as designed there so its definitely worthy of a code profiling to see where it falls off the rails. I'll be trying to find such a situation in my single player test game - yours is far too developed there if you're working with tesla infantry. Too developed a game for me to want to spend the hours it would take to profile that one spot when I can eventually find a lesser version of the bug in a much less developed game.
It's possible that size matters tweaking may be part of why this is possible... won't rule it out. I'm just wondering if it's something being seen on games without size matters on. That might help to narrow the evaluation field. I've found the variable HP to have some unanticipated consequences in code at times and that may be what's afoot here but it looks like both units are equal in that regard (at default if I'm not mistaken) so that may not be the issue at all.
I see. V34 has already generated two repeating crash points in my first game. Luckily they can be dodged. Random crashes have been almost nonexistant.
To all about size matters who don't yet know it. Don't use it, it is fatally broken in it's current form :
- Totally unrealistic strength accumulation throughout the entire size range. Favors smaller units far too much. This has been tried to go around by various other gimmicks and bonuses but to no avail.
- Units upgrade into mode advanced but weaker ones and mystically shrink in size. Try upgrading a clan sized modern infantry to a exoskeleton for example. Thousands of men suddenly disappear from unit, it loses strength and so do all reasons to use size matters. Favors lack of upgrading.
- Major artillery invulnerability problem. Put millions of men "together" and arty can't touch them. At all. Naturally favors far, far too heavily bigger unit sizes.
- Major transport capacity problem. Million subs put "together" have as much missile carrying capacity as one. Same goes for unit transports. Hugely favors remaining with smaller unit sizes.
Sm is a most excellent idea in it's fetus state, pushed into the mod far too soon. Sadly it seems that with current system of concepts and mind sets of it's makers and propagandists, many of problems will remain or will be made even worse.
Don't use it in any game you want to play seriously. V34 is so much better than V33 and a delight to play, just leave this very raw and unfinished option out.
It is like eating raw meat while the server of the meat keeps claiming the meat is cooked. Well, maybe a little clingy and placid here and there but it is cooked. If the eater does rather believe the meat itself and his own senses instead of 'it is cooked'-epistle, a hurdy-gurdy player might start babbling about myths of ancient Greece and say that in there this kind of meat was really cooked and if you don't believe me, there is no reason to discuss anymore. At least in the last part, he is very right.
True captions from real life really are stranger than fiction.
- Totally unrealistic strength accumulation throughout the entire size range. Favors smaller units far too much. This has been tried to go around by various other gimmicks and bonuses but to no avail.
- Units upgrade into mode advanced but weaker ones and mystically shrink in size. Try upgrading a clan sized modern infantry to a exoskeleton for example. Thousands of men suddenly disappear from unit, it loses strength and so do all reasons to use size matters. Favors lack of upgrading.
- Major artillery invulnerability problem. Put millions of men "together" and arty can't touch them. At all. Naturally favors far, far too heavily bigger unit sizes.
- Major transport capacity problem. Million subs put "together" have as much missile carrying capacity as one. Same goes for unit transports. Hugely favors remaining with smaller unit sizes.
Sm is a most excellent idea in it's fetus state, pushed into the mod far too soon. Sadly it seems that with current system of concepts and mind sets of it's makers and propagandists, many of problems will remain or will be made even worse.
Don't use it in any game you want to play seriously. V34 is so much better than V33 and a delight to play, just leave this very raw and unfinished option out.
It is like eating raw meat while the server of the meat keeps claiming the meat is cooked. Well, maybe a little clingy and placid here and there but it is cooked. If the eater does rather believe the meat itself and his own senses instead of 'it is cooked'-epistle, a hurdy-gurdy player might start babbling about myths of ancient Greece and say that in there this kind of meat was really cooked and if you don't believe me, there is no reason to discuss anymore. At least in the last part, he is very right.
True captions from real life really are stranger than fiction.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Couple of questions here:
Is there a determination in your code that needs to be changed as to the tech the NEW recalc's are doing?? ie the pics below show that the units are alot LESS than they are in a normal game, and it doesnt make sense for these units to even be in the game is they are that LESS str at the tech they are currently in?? Useless units??
Cuir: No need for them at this str
Wardogs, useless; better spy notice units, cheaper if thats all these are good for now??
Game Hunters, absolutely useless at this str.
Is there a determination in your code that needs to be changed as to the tech the NEW recalc's are doing?? ie the pics below show that the units are alot LESS than they are in a normal game, and it doesnt make sense for these units to even be in the game is they are that LESS str at the tech they are currently in?? Useless units??
Cuir: No need for them at this str
Wardogs, useless; better spy notice units, cheaper if thats all these are good for now??
Game Hunters, absolutely useless at this str.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Tech has nothing to do with any adjustments to unit strengths.
I don't have your pictures to go off of but...
1) By Cuir I imagine you're saying Cuirassier? These units should zero out and end up starting at the same strength as they usually do in a non-size matters game.
2) Wardogs - All dogs are a little less powerful than they are in a standard game. This does not make them useless, just more useful as spy spotting and overall visibility obtaining units. Furthermore, in a game with Fight or Flight, their primary purpose is to send them after wounded units that have proven strong at withdrawal. They are VERY good at pursuit and their diminished strength does not hinder them in mopping up the remnants of a damaged withdrawn unit. I do think even the first canine units should be given an extra movement, handler imagined or not, so they can dart out to get the withdrawn foe and have enough movement to return.
3) Game Hunters - No Hunter unit should ever be useful in battle against a non-animal unit. However, that said, the game hunter is far beyond a match for the most powerful animal units that can be brought to the field. Since some clever armies may indeed include some animal units - and I'd love to see some more advanced application of this later in the game, particularly with genetic engineering, that will make further hunter lines more useful - the hunter, although he has a diminished value later in the game, does remain somewhat worthwhile to have around. I was also thinking that some sniping ability might be beneficial for these units. Additionally, like the canine but even more powerful at it, these guys have the strongest pursuit values of any unit in the game so they make for great mopping up units. Use them against the wounded.
I must admit that I cannot attest to any one combat mod option being fully balanced without the presence of others. I only break them up at all so as to allow for some preferences to be considered. The appropriate way to bump these units that are starting with less strength up to their normal starting values in a non-size matters game would be to manipulate the xml. Give them the next higher ranking group or quality category as a default to start rather than the one they've been given.
@Reisk@: I have been working on solutions to your problems. Give me a bit to make sure there's no bugs. Seems every day here I think of something else that needs to be taken into consideration to alleviate your concerns but I've hit on a solution that would work for all sides of the debate.
You should understand that the mathematical method involved in every other tag application needed to be completely re-invented to achieve any size matters category modifiers more than 20%. However, I'd had a conversation with n47 a while back that introduced a new way to go about manipulating a unit's values and I'd wanted to test it out anyhow. Seems to work to achieve what it is you're looking for though I cannot say I believe it will be balanced at all until many other game factors are adjusted. But that will be the ongoing goal for a while thereafter.
The way it will work is to remove an inclusive modifier value (meaning one that modifies the base and is additive to other % based modifiers) at all for these unitcombats and make each rank up or down on any of them an over-ranking adjustment of a % to the overall previously resulted str (and other factors.)
To one who isn't coding this must seem like something that would be easily achieved but its something that's never been done in CivIV mathematical models so there was no precedence to go off of at all. Nevertheless, it's been sorted out and I'm just wrapping up some final tasks to make it worthwhile.
As to how to then go about appropriately establishing the underlying % adjustment will then be open to some debate as to what will maintain reasonable game balance.
At the same time I'll be opening up air units, siege units, tamed animals and workers to the list of those that may merge/split. This leaves GPs, Entertainers, Traders and Settlers incapable still and I don't believe there's cause to make them mergeable at all and in fact would be some good reasons not to from gameplay perspectives.
I've also gotta figure something out regarding property modifiers to make it possible for law enforcement, healers, and criminals to merge/split but I cannot promise this will be possible - property modifiers work on such a dedicated mechanism that is so difficult to manipulate as their values are not actually owned by the unit itself but rather the unit's base definition and promotions. So if it's to be made possible it's going to be something very tricky with promotions themselves.
The bombardment issue is also at the moment going to remain an outstanding problem but it's not just an issue for size matters. Your complaint about bombardment is one we've had for a while now - that all it is is a one shot distance method to enact collateral damage. It actually uses the unit's collateral damage settings and all the collateral damage code. This is why it doesn't hit the lead unit in the stack - because originally collateral would only damage the units you weren't entering battle with when you attacked so as not to give the unit an unfair advantage once the actual battle began. We have the same problem though with units that are supposed to be able to bombard but are not given to have any collateral damage when they attack - such units are not doing any bombard damage when they go to bombard because they don't have any collateral values! So there's a lot to mop up there and I'm still debating how to best approach it.
SargontheGreat2
Modder
I've added Osei Tutu and Prempeh I
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Do siege weapons get to use size matters?? look at pic i have 8ish Ribal?? weapons and cant use size matters??
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Not currently. By the end of the weekend they should be able to however. That's actually part of the current restructuring of Size Matters project.
Northstar1989
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 116
I strongly disagree. As an avid outdoorsman trained in Wilderness Survival techniques, I can tell you that there are ALWAYS ways to adapt to your environment and "dig in" so to speak.
Whether that's setting up solar-still style water collectors in a desert (a more primitive version of the same technique was known even to prehistoric man- all it takes it the ability to dig pits and an object to condense water on), or building igloos in a permafrost region, there are almost always ways to make your environment livable if you take the time to stick around in one place and adapt.
I think the ability for units to heal in damaging terrain makes perfect sense- as it is currently implemented in the release (I don't have the SVN's), units both heal and take damage at the same time. This means that a unit can SLOWLY recover its combat strength when dug in- and this rate is greatly improved my promotions that either improve healing rate (such as Woodsman III) or remove terrain damage (such as Arctic Combat I).
This accurately reflects greater knowledge of the outdoors and survival skill leading to better recovery from illness/injury as units are able to build better camps (what I always thought of fortifying as representing- setting up and improving a camp). However if a unit it too badly injured or ill (their strength has been reduced to too low a percentage of maximum), they won't be able to survive well enough to get better (the way it is calculated, first terrain damage is applied and THEN healing- so if a unit is at less than 15% strength and suffers terrain damage, it always ends up dead no matter what).
Finally, smaller units better being able to survive in harsh terrain DOES make sense. Often, harsh terrain contains extremely limited sources of water and nutrition (that knowledgeable individuals can exploit) that could reasonably support one lone individual or a small party, but not an entire battalion of soldiers all concentrated in one place...
Regards,
Northstar
Northstar1989
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 116
Reisk is being a little stubborn and ungiving in his style of argument (in fact, I initially mistook it for trolling on reading his most recent post), but having extensively tested the system, I can agree a +20% modifier is a little underpowered.
A more balanced/realistic modifier might be +25%. The fact is, three units merged together cost 3 times as much in hammers as a single unit. Thus, the equation for combat should more heavily favor merging from a balance perspective, and certainly from a realism perspective (larger numbers enable tactics like reserves, tactical flanking, and feigned-withdrawal coupled with ambush that are carried out on a scale much smaller than flanking on the level of multiple-kilometer tiles...)
I have some actual real-life military training (officer training to be precise- so I'm also somewhat knowledgeable in tactics, as well as having independent outdoor survival training and extensive experience traversing the outdoors. I washed out of the military training- but due to medical clearance issues, not due to my tactical sense- one training officer broadly described me as a "genius"), so I must strongly disagree with Reisk about a triple-strength unit being three times as powerful as as a normal unit, and able to safely assault difficult terrain like forests. A small number of men can easily hold off a much larger force in strong defensive terrain in real life, and you DO get diminishing returns with increasing unit size. In fact, this was one of the main factors that drove most armies towards SMALLER unit sizes (and small-unit tactics) in World War II than in World War I.
Nevertheless, the balance *is* a little off. This becomes particularly noticeable when you consider how weakened the units become at S&D due to their reduced strengths when split up and facing an equal foe (they SHOULD be much more dangerous when split up if they are able to successfully encircle an enemy- 30 men attacking from three sides at once are a LOT more dangerous than 30 men all making a frontal assault). I'd say, once again, that a 5% increase to the scaling of combat strength with unit size would be justified.
At the same time, the strength of some animals ought to be increased a little to compensate for merging of units (and to add realism- ThunderBird's wolf annihilating a bone comment from before comes to mind) in the early game.
Regards,
Northstar
P.S. I don't know if this has been finished being discussed, as I haven't had the time to read every page- but I also always strongly disagreed with the National Units limits in the first place. I don't think any restrictions should be placed on the merging or splitting of national units- as this would make them in many cases far less useful than their standard counterparts (especially in those cases where there basic advantage the UU has is higher strength- if a standard unit can just merge up for the same strength, and even exceed it with enough merging.)
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Later in the Combat Mod project as a whole I'll be seeking to focus in on terrain and terrain damage more. For now I did not have a problem enacting the rule as discussed despite feeling mostly agreement with your statements here. When developing equipment, the plan will be to work in some more advanced terrain damage rules and it can stop being a simple black and white matter.
Survival tactics, as you point out, (aka knowledge of how to survive and the gear to do so) will make a bigger impact on this than boolean rulesets.
You've made excellent points and it makes me a bit happier that I'm working on enabling a greater modifier than 20%... I most certainly did NOT want to do this in reaction to such a stupid comment as 'just bang em all together'.
We share a similar view that it's not quite enough but we also can't deny that there is in fact a strategic diminishing return from greater numbers. The way I'm setting this up now should blend better overall and will enable us to all play with whatever numbers we would like them to be. I can see anywhere from 25% as you suggest all the way up to 100% (which would still be missing out on any additional strength being added in from the 3rd unit.) At the moment that's what I have my testing set to (+100%). Of course, this bears in mind that Combat Quality and Size Categories mean just as much with each increase or decrease as well.
Going about it this way I'm beginning to feel that I'll need to bring units like the ones SO was pointing out earlier (hunters, canines etc...) up to a zeroing point rather than allowing them to start at -1 rank balance.
Your last comment suggests you'd prefer to play with Unlimited National units in the first place and in that case there's obviously no issue with mergings. This new structure does lessen the benefit of heroes in combat a bit though since there's no way to provide them with a means to merge. And it does impact the value of Warlord units a bit but they CAN merge and I think that if merged they can be overbuilt (even on Unlimited National Units they are still limited for good cause) so I MAY need to make the unlimited exception they use to still be affected under unlimited national units a factor that keeps the unit from being able to merge or split still.
Does anyone know what happens to In Combat Promotions when merging/splitting?
For instance a unit gets a combat promotion. Later it merges with two others that have no promotions (fresh recruits). What happens to that combat promotion?
Or if a unit gets a combat promotion and then splits. Does the combat promo stay with all 3 units?
If one of those later merge with 2 new units, what happens to the combat promotion then?
Is this like the astrological promos, that the initiator of the merge determines what promos the group has?
If so if I split a group, then all three get a combat promo on their own but 3 different ones, and then converge and merge up again, do I then lose the other combat promotions and the XP they would have generated had they not gotten a combat promo?
Might be a silly question but I felt I had to ask.
Cheers
For instance a unit gets a combat promotion. Later it merges with two others that have no promotions (fresh recruits). What happens to that combat promotion?
Or if a unit gets a combat promotion and then splits. Does the combat promo stay with all 3 units?
If one of those later merge with 2 new units, what happens to the combat promotion then?
Is this like the astrological promos, that the initiator of the merge determines what promos the group has?
If so if I split a group, then all three get a combat promo on their own but 3 different ones, and then converge and merge up again, do I then lose the other combat promotions and the XP they would have generated had they not gotten a combat promo?
Might be a silly question but I felt I had to ask.
Cheers
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yeah, it works like the astrological ones. Only the lead unit that initiates the merge will offer its free promos (battlefield promos are handled as free promos) to the group. This, in itself is a little imbalancing and manipulable. So the downside of the other two units losing theirs as they are brought into the group helps to balance out the gameability of propagating free promotions by merging and splitting. It's something to be careful with.
Sooo, basically have three units walking together. One gets a Battlefield Promo. They merge. Then split.
Repeat, rinse, get über units, all with those free promos.
Nah, I'll play with battlefield promotions off until such an exploit is stopped.
I'm also concerned about the XP gain on merged groups. Getting 9 together into 1 group effectively means all 9 gain full XP from battles whereas each individually would have to have a fight each to get the same amount of XP (slightly off due to battle odds increasing XP slightly for the 9).
Before you say that you can do just that, have the 9 fight a battle each on that turn consider that enemies are finite, not infinite. If there are 10 enemies coming during a 5 turn span then that's it for those turns. A merged 9-unit can fight all of those, 1 by attacking, 1 by defending, while 9 units have to split them between each other.
The merged unit will effectively gain XP equivalent of 90 battles if splitting them up afterwards as each unit keeps full XP when split.
Less XP gain when bigger group perhaps?
Not saying it should be done this way but what if the XP was split when splitting too, and merged when merging, instead of equal when splitting and averaged when merging?
That way a merged group would get extra promotions (that of course should be removed again when splitting) to chose when merging up, symbolizing the "sum greater than it's parts" and going a little way towards Reichts (spelling, correct person?) wanting merged groups to be stronger than they are now, and splitting would reduce the XP, and the promotions, the smaller units would then have, again going towards smaller units not being nearly as powerful.
Meh, ignore me, don't think I'd like it myself, nor do I think it's feasible with current code to set up as it probably would be hard to implement.
Cheers
Repeat, rinse, get über units, all with those free promos.
Nah, I'll play with battlefield promotions off until such an exploit is stopped.
I'm also concerned about the XP gain on merged groups. Getting 9 together into 1 group effectively means all 9 gain full XP from battles whereas each individually would have to have a fight each to get the same amount of XP (slightly off due to battle odds increasing XP slightly for the 9).
Before you say that you can do just that, have the 9 fight a battle each on that turn consider that enemies are finite, not infinite. If there are 10 enemies coming during a 5 turn span then that's it for those turns. A merged 9-unit can fight all of those, 1 by attacking, 1 by defending, while 9 units have to split them between each other.
The merged unit will effectively gain XP equivalent of 90 battles if splitting them up afterwards as each unit keeps full XP when split.
Less XP gain when bigger group perhaps?
That way a merged group would get extra promotions (that of course should be removed again when splitting) to chose when merging up, symbolizing the "sum greater than it's parts" and going a little way towards Reichts (spelling, correct person?) wanting merged groups to be stronger than they are now, and splitting would reduce the XP, and the promotions, the smaller units would then have, again going towards smaller units not being nearly as powerful.
Meh, ignore me, don't think I'd like it myself, nor do I think it's feasible with current code to set up as it probably would be hard to implement.
Cheers
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Those certainly are a few valid points to consider. Not quite sure what the best way to handle special free promos would be but that's a very good point regarding merged units (with the exception that it shouldn't penalize GMP earnings even if it IS reduced actual award for the merged unit.) It would not be hard to manipulate the xp award - it's already being done for higher quality units. I'd have to get tricky to keep it from lessening the GMP award from a battle though.
Given some of the soon to increase value of merging units, such a modification to the xp gain would be more worthwhile to help with balance as well.
Loffas
Warlord
Hi
I loved playing with the size matters mod because i also play with limited units per square.
I used the size matters mod when playing C2C under the development of v.35 (updated trough svn turtle update), it worked fine atleast so long as i played witch was to the early middle ages.
Now how ever the mod dosen´t seem to work. I checked the box for the Size matter mod when customizing the game at startup but it is like i didn´t.
The units when being three small units on one tile they can´t merge. (Even if they have the same promotions)
Did the "rules" for the size matter mod change? Do i need more units in a tile or is it something else? Please help.
BR Loffas
I loved playing with the size matters mod because i also play with limited units per square.
I used the size matters mod when playing C2C under the development of v.35 (updated trough svn turtle update), it worked fine atleast so long as i played witch was to the early middle ages.
Now how ever the mod dosen´t seem to work. I checked the box for the Size matter mod when customizing the game at startup but it is like i didn´t.
The units when being three small units on one tile they can´t merge. (Even if they have the same promotions)
Did the "rules" for the size matter mod change? Do i need more units in a tile or is it something else? Please help.
BR Loffas
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
A recent fix went on the SVN that may have repaired the issue. If not I need a save to see what's up.
Loffas
Warlord
After my post it started working. Perhaps i just needed to restart the game.
I noticed that sometimes the button for merging don´t come up. If you have three units sometime you have to fibble around some with witch unit is selected. Pushing the split group or join group button usely helps. A tip if someone else experience problems.
BR Loffas
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yeah, if the unit is defined as part of a group it cannot be merged or split to avoid some errors I'm not sure how to otherwise address. Sorry for that but it is a necessary albeit notably annoying requirement.
- Status
