Naval Units Rework Project

Thunderbrd · Jan 10, 2015

Snofru1 said:
1. There must be a basic cargo space for every ship somewhere in the xml. Wouldn´t it be possible to display this in the city view (as "base cargo space")? What we see now after the ship is built could be called "actual cargo space". This would also be very helpful to understand how the cargo space changes, e.g. after merging units or after using a promotion.

I was thinking at least this yes. I'll try to address this very soon.

Snofru1 said:
2. On pathing: I never play with terrain damage on, but if you do, will the AI avoid the damaging terrain when auto-pathing? Maybe something could be learned for the reef issue.

Yeah, it's certainly worthy of note and I'll look into it but again - very complex stuff so I'm not sure I can promise success in this venture.

Snofru1 said:
3. Another annoying thing I have observed with ships (this is already in the base game): When I have multiple transports in a harbour city and I want load a unit then I can decide on which ship I load. This is very helpful if I have ships with different movement points left, damaged and undamaged ships, different cargo sizes etc.
But when I have a number of transport ships just lying at the coast then I can´t decide which ship to load, one is chosen automatically. There also seems to be a tendency to load especially on damaged ships, even if they currently are on repair/heal modus.

It would be great to have the option to select a ship all the time and not only in a city.

Snofru1 said:
A good point...

But maybe we (you ) could find a way that at first the unharmed transports are filled.

There would be a way to do this I think... it's a matter of rearranging the ship order by something other than the basic index. Of course they aren't trying to board ships that are damaged first - it's just whichever ships are considered 'first' in the list - and that does tend to mean the damaged ones more likely since the same order determines which ones are first to be damaged by ranged attacks, or collateral, or defend first when all are equivalent.

Dancing Hoskuld · Jan 21, 2015

I note that the ships with type recon, rafts etc., give points towards a Great Hunter, but don't get any exp from the GH only the G Admiral. Is it possible to give naval recon some exp from GH without giving all ships exp? I would suggest just 1 exp from GH rather than the 2 that land recon get.

Thunderbrd · Jan 21, 2015

Are you sure they don't get any experience from the GH? I'm pretty sure they do... They are Explorer type units aren't they? If they aren't it was taken off of them to keep from numerous land unit promotions being allowed but those would just need to be found and have the NotOnDomain tag applied at that point.

Dancing Hoskuld · Jan 21, 2015

Thunderbrd said:
Are you sure they don't get any experience from the GH? I'm pretty sure they do... They are Explorer type units aren't they? If they aren't it was taken off of them to keep from numerous land unit promotions being allowed but those would just need to be found and have the NotOnDomain tag applied at that point.

I'll check again but I am sure that I have 3-4 GH in the city and rafts, all I can build at the moment get no exp.

Thunderbrd · Jan 21, 2015

Yeah then they probably aren't setup as Explorer units so that's something to address then fix the promo access issues it creates (which may have already been repaired since I think some naval units do have an explorer designation... just going to be important to find the recon/hunter units that don't and add it to them.)

Reisk@ · Feb 7, 2015

Pre-modern and modern ships have way too much movement points, rendering carriers and naval aviation useless when battleships can leap from safe city, strike and run away with ease. They might even have more movement in a turn than a airplane of their time has striking distance.

Dancing Hoskuld · Feb 7, 2015

Reisk@ said:
Pre-modern and modern ships have way too much movement points, rendering carriers and naval aviation useless when battleships can leap from safe city, strike and run away with ease. They might even have more movement in a turn than a airplane of their time has striking distance.

Agreed. The movement points on ships was done to match reality eg clipper ships go half way round the world in six months but it just does not work well in a game.

Reisk@ · Feb 7, 2015

Dancing Hoskuld said:
Agreed. The movement points on ships was done to match reality eg clipper ships go half way round the world in six months but it just does not work well in a game.

Indeed, more realistic and thus carrier-favouring models would be most welcome. I like the idea that many techs increase the movement of ships so i guess good way to do this would be to just decrease their base movement points with heavy hand. Early- and middle age ship movement feels quite right and realistic.

One bug is in V35 about outriggers i think it was. They can enter into other nations territory without any problems or declaration of war. I haven't noticed the same with any other unit.

Dancing Hoskuld · Feb 7, 2015

Reisk@ said:
One bug is in V35 about outriggers i think it was. They can enter into other nations territory without any problems or declaration of war. I haven't noticed the same with any other unit.

I too have complained about this but it has been rejected. Apparently it is OK for water based recon to be able to enter borders without the proper treaty but not for land based recon!

Kayaks and caravels can also enter borders without a treaty. In BtS caravels can enter territory without a treaty so that is probably the precedent.

edit as to air unit range, if I remember correctly, there can only be one value for this and it is used for all planes.

Thunderbrd · Feb 7, 2015

Reisk@ said:
Pre-modern and modern ships have way too much movement points, rendering carriers and naval aviation useless when battleships can leap from safe city, strike and run away with ease. They might even have more movement in a turn than a airplane of their time has striking distance.

The issue at this point is bringing all the techs that add +1 naval unit movement down to a reasonable level again. There are far too many that are adding this bonus. We took stock of them earlier but they haven't been further evaluated. Many of them will simply lose the benefit at the tech and for some techs this may mean we need something more there now.

Dancing Hoskuld said:
I too have complained about this but it has been rejected. Apparently it is OK for water based recon to be able to enter borders without the proper treaty but not for land based recon!

Kayaks and caravels can also enter borders without a treaty. In BtS caravels can enter territory without a treaty so that is probably the precedent.

edit as to air unit range, if I remember correctly, there can only be one value for this and it is used for all planes.

1)It was like that before I got here but I support it. That said, maybe some kind of option can be developed. But the reason from a game play perspective, is that you are still only able to see just a little bit of the opponent's real territory from the coastline and because to do otherwise usually keeps your naval exploration far too limited in scope to the point it wouldn't often be worth building naval recon at all and leads to more commonly unfair situations between players where the one that's not sandwiched between opponent cities is free to go collect all the goody islands without challenge. So for me its a 'coastlines are too limited a corridor to allow these boundaries to be enforced on non-combat units' type of thing. Diplomacy is not available until after this problem stops being an issue.

2)As to air range, the size of the exposed area when doing a recon mission is fixed (and it would be nice to have some control over this too) but I don't know about the distance one can recon at... I'd have assumed it has to do with operational range.

Dancing Hoskuld · Feb 7, 2015

Thunderbrd said:
The issue at this point is bringing all the techs that add +1 naval unit movement down to a reasonable level again. There are far too many that are adding this bonus. We took stock of them earlier but they haven't been further evaluated. Many of them will simply lose the benefit at the tech and for some techs this may mean we need something more there now.

1)It was like that before I got here but I support it. That said, maybe some kind of option can be developed. But the reason from a game play perspective, is that you are still only able to see just a little bit of the opponent's real territory from the coastline and because to do otherwise usually keeps your naval exploration far too limited in scope to the point it wouldn't often be worth building naval recon at all and leads to more commonly unfair situations between players where the one that's not sandwiched between opponent cities is free to go collect all the goody islands without challenge. So for me its a 'coastlines are too limited a corridor to allow these boundaries to be enforced on non-combat units' type of thing. Diplomacy is not available until after this problem stops being an issue.

2)As to air range, the size of the exposed area when doing a recon mission is fixed (and it would be nice to have some control over this too) but I don't know about the distance one can recon at... I'd have assumed it has to do with operational range.

The caravel was yes but it shouldn't also when we brought in "Right of Passage". The point of that diplomatic agreement was that units which could not attack but only defend could enter the territory. <RANT ON> Not that it is of any use in C2C since the hidden nationality units will attack them. We could have just got rid of "Right of Passage" and not had any of the hidden nationality units. :mad:

Thunderbrd · Feb 7, 2015

The problem I personally have with this is that even Right of Passage requires an Embassy be established and I won't ever do this because I will inevitably piss people off with it. With this requirement, RoP becomes useless imo.

Dancing Hoskuld · Feb 7, 2015

Thunderbrd said:
The problem I personally have with this is that even Right of Passage requires an Embassy be established and I won't ever do this because I will inevitably piss people off with it. With this requirement, RoP becomes useless imo.

Embassy has also changed to require writing by both parties! We need something less than an Embassy as I think people believe it is a building with a lot of staff. In reality I think Consulate is the name given to something that is not a full embassy so maybe we can use that as an idea.

Neighbouring tribes had agreements long before writing. After all it is easier to change/forge a written document than change a verbal agreement between two leaders. Heck, there is even some evidence that ancient nomadic tribes had mutual defense agreements both with other nomads and settled peoples!

Thunderbrd · Feb 7, 2015

The problem I have with the Embassy in general is the negative backlash from going to war with the person you have an embassy with.

Dancing Hoskuld · Feb 7, 2015

Thunderbrd said:
The problem I have with the Embassy in general is the negative backlash from going to war with the person you have an embassy with.

That is normal in the real world. Having an embassy means you are at least talking to each other. Closing down your embassy before starting a war is normal. Not everyone attacks a nation they still have an embassy with - though it does happen in reality.

In the game I usually close down the embassy, if I have one, a few turns before going to war.

Thunderbrd · Feb 8, 2015

But it doesn't matter how you close down an embassy does it? It still creates a penalty for doing so if I recall. Maybe doesn't anger the rest of the world. Still, it's kinda like being required to say, "I'll be going to war with you soon so you might want to get ready for that."

Dancing Hoskuld · Feb 8, 2015

Thunderbrd said:
But it doesn't matter how you close down an embassy does it? It still creates a penalty for doing so if I recall. Maybe doesn't anger the rest of the world. Still, it's kinda like being required to say, "I'll be going to war with you soon so you might want to get ready for that."

From what I've seen it is a much lower penalty. In reality it should cause either a push by both sides to try and repair the rift between the nations or lead to hostility in a few turns. Although we would then probably need something that is agreed on but fails also.

The removal of an embassy as a last ditch threat before war is fairly realistic. While historically not all nations attack before closing their embassies most seem to.

In game you can't break some treaties fox x-turns eg 56 but the AI can and does. Personally I think they and you should only be able to do so by removing your embassy.

Thunderbrd · Feb 8, 2015

I pretty much only want to sneak attack so I never establish embassies because I only consider myself at a temporary peace with all other nations. Particularly since being friends with one nation will make you by default an enemy of another nation... they really hold it against you when you make friends elsewhere so I just don't make any friends anywhere any more than to keep them from making me their immediate target... which rarely works anyhow since many AI's will befriend just to make you think you're safe from them. 'F' 'em all has become my general policy with AIs.

Dancing Hoskuld · Feb 8, 2015

Thunderbrd said:
I pretty much only want to sneak attack so I never establish embassies because I only consider myself at a temporary peace with all other nations. Particularly since being friends with one nation will make you by default an enemy of another nation... they really hold it against you when you make friends elsewhere so I just don't make any friends anywhere any more than to keep them from making me their immediate target... which rarely works anyhow since many AI's will befriend just to make you think you're safe from them. 'F' 'em all has become my general policy with AIs.

I don't find that to be a problem most of the time. In fact I mostly have everyone on good terms with me. However I don't do war unless I know I will win with in 10-20 turns any longer and I loose interest and start a new game.

The current siege stuff is a complete mystery to me and the odds are not helping. I get a 27% chance of winning with my 5 bandit raiders (first time I have used them) against a spearman in a forested hill fort and I defeat him with no losses, just one badly damaged unit. Then I get a 98% odds against another unit in the open and loose all my units with no damage to the defender!

Thunderbrd · Feb 8, 2015

If you're seeing combat results that don't make sense I don't mind evaluating the battle on the code side if you can set it back up to replicate.

Naval Units Rework Project

C2C War Dog

Deity

C2C War Dog

Deity

C2C War Dog

Warlord

Deity

Warlord

Deity

C2C War Dog

Deity

C2C War Dog

Deity

C2C War Dog

Deity

C2C War Dog

Deity

C2C War Dog

Deity

C2C War Dog

Similar threads