Advertisement
Civilization Fanatics' Center  

Go Back   Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION IV > Civ4 - General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Nov 02, 2007, 05:22 PM   #941
Bhruic
Emperor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,457
Nope, I knew I forgot something. Oh well, I'll try and remember for next time.

Bh
Bhruic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 05:25 PM   #942
Bhruic
Emperor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMadCandy View Post
oh let's not even go there! i'm about *thisclose* to modding my files so that you can still make destroyers after you can make stealths, with this issue and because stealths can't see subs. whenever the game goes that late i can't seem to stock up enough normal destroyers even tho i try!
I wonder what sort of rationale went into deciding that SDs can't see subs? Doesn't seem to make any gameplay sense.

Quote:
i'm all for SDs defending. just don't keep following this slippery slope and have the AI give me diplomatic penalties if they're being harassed by privateers and sweet little innocent me just happens to be the only civ that knows astronomy and chemistry together okay? thanks bud.
What are you talking about? I already added a hardcoded "if you're getting attacked by Privateers, it's all KMad's fault!" function.

Bh
Bhruic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 05:28 PM   #943
Jaybe
Emperor
 
Jaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 1,923
Anticipate the player's angst when he goes to attack a lone transport and is informed that he is attacking a stealth destroyer if changes are made. Put up a big sign "SURPRISE -- a stealth destroyer was hidden there!!", perhaps in the log.

KMadCandy, I quite agree with the destroyers not upgrading to stealth (and with battleships not upgrading to missile cruisers). Among the first changes I made with BtS.
Jaybe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 05:43 PM   #944
jlwzap
Chieftain
 
jlwzap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 55
Thanks Bh- You're still Da MAN!!!
__________________
"Aku Soku Zan"
-The Shinsengumi's code of Justice
jlwzap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 05:48 PM   #945
jlwzap
Chieftain
 
jlwzap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 55
In the real world, a stealth destroyer may not want to sonar ping for a sub because the ping itself is detectable, therefore giving away its position to the enemy he's trying to hide from. Maybe this was intended by design.(that SD's can't detect subs)
__________________
"Aku Soku Zan"
-The Shinsengumi's code of Justice

Last edited by jlwzap; Nov 02, 2007 at 05:56 PM.
jlwzap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 06:04 PM   #946
Quagga
Former Dictator
 
Quagga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Li'l Rhody
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlwzap View Post
In the real world, a stealth destroyer may not want to sonar ping for a sub because the ping itself is detectable, therefore giving away its position to the enemy he's trying to hide from. Maybe this was intended by design.(that SD's can't detect subs)
Passive sonar -- listening for and recognizing the sound signature of enemy vessels -- is the answer to this problem.

Besides, every time they turn on the active sonar, they drive all the whales insane.
Quagga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 06:05 PM   #947
grumbler
Prince
 
grumbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In front of the screen
Posts: 492
Updated automated installer for the patch
grumbler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 06:06 PM   #948
jlwzap
Chieftain
 
jlwzap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quagga View Post
Passive sonar -- listening for and recognizing the sound signature of enemy vessels -- is the answer to this problem.

Besides, every time they turn on the active sonar, they drive all the whales insane.
I was just going to say something about all the beached whales being a dead giveaway
__________________
"Aku Soku Zan"
-The Shinsengumi's code of Justice
jlwzap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 06:12 PM   #949
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
 
KMadCandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peepsville
Posts: 3,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic View Post
I wonder what sort of rationale went into deciding that SDs can't see subs? Doesn't seem to make any gameplay sense.
yeah to me it seems an oversight. but i can't match that as an oversight to airships seeing subs and the later planes not seeing them, and that doesn't seem to bother people, so i dunno. i just hate that you can't ever make normal destroyers again. airships at least you can make 'em, if you go to the trouble of pillaging your oil and uranium. yes i've done that *giggle*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic View Post
What are you talking about? I already added a hardcoded "if you're getting attacked by Privateers, it's all KMad's fault!" function.
good thing i always change my leader name to Bhruic so that the AI doesn't know i'm a permanoob!
__________________
no those privateers aren't mine. that GG i just got while i'm not at war with anybody? popped him from a hut.
KMadCandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 06:15 PM   #950
Bhruic
Emperor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMadCandy View Post
yeah to me it seems an oversight. but i can't match that as an oversight to airships seeing subs and the later planes not seeing them, and that doesn't seem to bother people, so i dunno. i just hate that you can't ever make normal destroyers again. airships at least you can make 'em, if you go to the trouble of pillaging your oil and uranium. yes i've done that
Which you shouldn't have to do either. You shouldn't have units getting obsoleted without valid replacements for them.

Quote:
good thing i always change my leader name to Bhruic so that the AI doesn't know i'm a permanoob!
I'm pretty sure the giggling gives you away.

Bh

Last edited by Bhruic; Nov 02, 2007 at 06:20 PM.
Bhruic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 06:36 PM   #951
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
 
KMadCandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peepsville
Posts: 3,991
losing an entire ability when you get the upgrade to a unit just completely annoys me. losing promotion possibilities, sure, that makes sense because the base unit type is different. also because i'm used to it *giggle*. but i really think it's an oversight that the supposedly technologically superior units can't perform one of the functions that the old ones did. if you learn Flight before Radio (which i've done in some games) then airships go obsolete but you can't yet make submarines. but the only units can could see enemy submarines would be those atm-hypothetical submarines and now-obsolete airships (assuming you got oil with combustion, which was a pre-req for flight). so you're screwed if you upgrade your existing airships to fighters and the bad guys have subs, oopsies. now if the bad guys have subs you probably want to have them too, but hey, flight is cool because airports have duty-free shops so i'm just saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic View Post
I'm pretty sure the giggling gives you away.
i've been known to name the freebie missionaries from later religions that i won't be using "SPY DON'T USE ME" since i am forgetful, and don't want to actually use them in a city. and then i go scout around with them in AI territory when i have OB, to get some use out of the hammers i didn't have to spend. the AI never resents this or kicks 'em out. even after they know writing and alphabet. so if they don't even read the names i put on my units, i don't think they can hear me giggling.
__________________
no those privateers aren't mine. that GG i just got while i'm not at war with anybody? popped him from a hut.
KMadCandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 06:43 PM   #952
Roland Johansen
Deity
 
Roland Johansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 4,281
About the submarine/stealth destroyer detection.

At present, there is only one single field available for detection of various units in the units xml-file and you can thus enter submarine or stealth destroyer there and not both. I don't know a lot about modding, but I guess that would have to be changed so that a stealth destroyer could detect other stealth destroyers and submarines at the same time.

About Airplane submarine detection.

I would agree with such a modification and would even want to extend it to airplane stealth destroyer detection (they're not really invisible, just invisible to radar). But I do think that this unofficial patch would at that point lose the idea that it is a patch and would more become a mod. Not that I wouldn't like to try a mod created by you Bhruic, but it's not the thing everyone is looking for.

Oh, KMadCandy, you should never play a civ4 multiplayer game with a microphone because the other players will know exactly who's pirate sunk their caravel when they hear the giggling. I would challenge Bhruic to add such a function to the AI, but I guess that's asking a bit much even for Bhruic.
__________________
If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics.

Last edited by Roland Johansen; Nov 02, 2007 at 06:52 PM.
Roland Johansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 07:07 PM   #953
Bhruic
Emperor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,457
Yeah, the submarine detection isn't something I'd do for the patch. The SD defending a stack is something I would do. I've racked by brain (and damn if that didn't hurt ), and I can't come up with a viable reason for the way the game handles it now. But I'll keep the debate open for a bit in case someone has something I didn't think of.

Bh
Bhruic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 07:31 PM   #954
Aquatic
Child of Surprises
 
Aquatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 90
Bhruic, just wondering if you were thinking of fixing the Blessed Sea Quest (I menitoned it a few posts back ). It's pretty powerful if you do succeed in accomplishing it and very annoying when the quest simply disappears because of the bug - you've done a pile of work to build cities like mad everywhere and then you're cheated out of the return. It may be something that's not on your list, or something you'll do later. Just wondering...
Aquatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 07:56 PM   #955
Bhruic
Emperor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,457
Well, to be able to fix it, I'd need a save before the quest has failed. After it's failed, there's nothing I can do to test if it'd be successful.

Bh
Bhruic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 08:18 PM   #956
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
 
jkp1187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMadCandy View Post
oh let's not even go there! i'm about *thisclose* to modding my files so that you can still make destroyers after you can make stealths, with this issue and because stealths can't see subs. whenever the game goes that late i can't seem to stock up enough normal destroyers even tho i try!
Wha--? Stealth Destroyers can't see subs? I actually didn't know it, b/c so far I've either won or lost the game before the late model navy units play a role in the game (probably, too, a result of nearly always playing with No Tech Brokering enabled.) That's just gotta be a mistake.
__________________
JKP1187's Not Just Another NextWar Mod. (update pending)
NextWar: Revolutions (update pending)
JKP1187's Events
Map Scripts: Earth3.py; Terra2.py

I am buying a house and starting a new job, so Civ projects are on hold for now. I shall return!

jkp1187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 08:59 PM   #957
KaytieKat
King
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 999
Hi

I need to look up the thread where I saw it but issue of making stealth destroyers attack is kind of wrapped up in bigger issues with the way naval combat is decided.

From what the post seems to say combat is worked out like this.

Ship attacks at this point game goes through thses steps to pick defenders

1) Game first eliminates any ships in stack that ship cant sea (at this point it means stealth destroyers and subs wont defend if say a battle ship is attacking)

2)after that game picks the strongest empty vessels to attack (meaning if an unloaded missle cruiser in stack it will defend first, if no unloaded mc but unloaded aircraft carrier then it will defend, if no unloaded ac but unloaded taransports then unloaded transports will defend)

3)If no empty vessels in stack THEN just strongest units in stack will defend.

Meaning not only would a unloaded transport defend ahead of stealth destroyer it would defend ahead of a battleship too. Making stealth destroyers defend when attacked in mixed stack would get it to defend if it is strongest defender available at point 3 but it still will just watch empty transports get whomped at point 2.

This brings up lots of annoying problems that dont make sense. Even without transports.

Like for example say you have a stack of 3 loaded missle cruisers. In one turn the stack sees a enemy ship. One MC goes after it, if first launches its missles to wound it and then attacks and sinks it. It won battle but is wounded and it goes back into stack to heal and turn ends. Next turn another destroyer attacks the stack of 3 MC's. The two fully healthy MC's would win easily, however even though it is wounded the wounded MC from the turn before now falls into category of "strongest empty vessel" since it had launched all its missles. So it would defend ahead of the fully loaded fully healthy missle cruisers. Now if there is some logic to this I cant see it :/

So it seems like maybe this should be looked into first maybe and then once that is gotten more logical say "strongest defender period that can be seen defends" seems it might be simplest solution. Then after that solution is implemented successfully a decision can be made as to whether or not stealths should fall into "can be seen category" when in a mixed stack.

Part of some of the issues to think about would be.

How hard would it be for game to know when a stealth destroyer is in a mixed stack and therefore should defend and when it is not and therefore shouldnt defend. Like if game decides okay when on same square as different types of ships it can now defend--what if a ally or neutral ship or something just happens to be on sqaure with stealth would that trigger it too?

Also it doesnt seem that game makes distinciton of being "invisible" due to stealth tech and being invisible for other reasons like subs are visible just cuz it is assumed they will be submerged. Kind of like units just fall into "visible" or not. So would subs end up being including in the mixed stacks defend solution or not? or would their be a way to make it so only stealths would do that and not subs?

To me the very simplest solution would be to not make stealth destroyers obsolete normal destroyers. Just let em be built even after stealths can be built then it would be up to the player to make sure they use "escort" destoyers for escorting and stealth destoryers for other things.

As for the "stringest empty" vessles defending first I can see why if it is JUST a stack of transports empty ones defend first so you wouldnt risk ones loaded with units if it could be avoided. But gving empty vessels priority over battleships and loaded cruisers and what not doesnt make much sense.

It also kind of leaves open an "exploit" of instead of escorting transports with battleships and missle cruiser and stuff like that just making sure all naval stacks come with a "decoy fleet" of empty transports to keep your main ships a safe as possible.

I dont know :/. Honestly I am not huge fan of big naval campaigns so I am getting all thise pretty much from other posts I have seen talking about how messed up naval combat can be in BtS. But from what I have seen the issues seem to be a buit bigger than JUST whether or not stealth destroyers can or should defend and whether or not they can or should see subs.

I still think just allowing normal destroyers to be around along with stealth is best. Lets assume that stealths operate like they do on purpose for whatever reason. Not obsoleting normal destroyers means stealth will still function as game intended and normal destroyers will still function as game intended and player can choose whichever ever they think is right type for the job. And with normal destroyers not being disabled then it wont be as bad because then it wont be like a player didnt have an option other than putting stealths with a stack.

It would also mean that making game decide when and if stealths should defend in mixed stacks unecessary and not having to deal with that in messing with naval battle calculations might make solving the "empty vessels defend first" issue simpler since now it means ONLY that part has to be addressed instead of that part AND figuring out whether a stealth destroyer should defend.

And yeah I say that part has to be addressed on assumption that maybe others might agree its an issue. But if I assume wrong it wouldnt be the first time hehe :P

Kaytie
KaytieKat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 09:26 PM   #958
Bhruic
Emperor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaytieKat View Post
Meaning not only would a unloaded transport defend ahead of stealth destroyer it would defend ahead of a battleship too.
Er, how do you figure that? Battleships don't carry any units, and they aren't invisible. And they generally are the strongest unit on a square, which means they'd get picked to defend first. I think you are confusing the term "empty" with "capable of carrying units, but not". Any ship that doesn't currently have units on it, whether it can carry them or not, would be considered to defend before a ship that does have units on it. So Battleships would defend before Transports, loaded or unloaded. And if Stealth Destroyers were made to defend stacks, then they also would defend ahead of Transports.

Quote:
The two fully healthy MC's would win easily, however even though it is wounded the wounded MC from the turn before now falls into category of "strongest empty vessel" since it had launched all its missles. So it would defend ahead of the fully loaded fully healthy missle cruisers. Now if there is some logic to this I cant see it :/
It's an issue of cost analysis. If you lose a healthy missile cruiser with other units on it, you've lost a lot more than losing an unhealthy missile cruiser that's empty. Choosing the best defender regardless of cargo sounds like a great plan until you consider the consequences of losing. I mean, consider the following: You've got a fully loaded Transport with 4 Modern Armor on it that has the Combat I promotion. And you've got an unloaded Transport with no promotions. You get attacked by a Battleship. Which Transport would you rather have defend?

Anyone with an ounce of sense is going to choose the unloaded Transport, despite the fact it has less strength - because it doesn't matter which you use, you're going to lose anyway (almost certainly, based on probability).

I'm not saying that they've made the right choice, but I can certainly see why they chose it.

Quote:
How hard would it be for game to know when a stealth destroyer is in a mixed stack and therefore should defend and when it is not and therefore shouldnt defend. Like if game decides okay when on same square as different types of ships it can now defend--what if a ally or neutral ship or something just happens to be on sqaure with stealth would that trigger it too?
Let's just assume that I can implement it properly.

Quote:
Also it doesnt seem that game makes distinciton of being "invisible" due to stealth tech and being invisible for other reasons like subs are visible just cuz it is assumed they will be submerged. Kind of like units just fall into "visible" or not. So would subs end up being including in the mixed stacks defend solution or not? or would their be a way to make it so only stealths would do that and not subs?
Out of curiosity, in what way does the argument for Steath Destroyers differ from the argument from Subs (and please, don't bring "in real life" examples into play)?

Quote:
I still think just allowing normal destroyers to be around along with stealth is best. Lets assume that stealths operate like they do on purpose for whatever reason.
No, it doesn't affect the problem in the slightest. The problem is not "Destroyers upgrade to Stealth Destroyers", the problem is people assume Steath Destroyers will defend their stack.

Bh
Bhruic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 02, 2007, 10:12 PM   #959
bmarnz
Prince
 
bmarnz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic View Post
Well, to be able to fix it, I'd need a save before the quest has failed. After it's failed, there's nothing I can do to test if it'd be successful.

Bh
I have save for this event, but it requires marnzmod v1.7.

Marnz AD-1640.CivBeyondSwordSave

If the first galley in the active stack is deleted or lost in combat (which eventually happened) you fail the quest.
bmarnz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 03, 2007, 12:11 AM   #960
Krikkitone
Deity
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic View Post
No, it doesn't affect the problem in the slightest. The problem is not "Destroyers upgrade to Stealth Destroyers", the problem is people assume Steath Destroyers will defend their stack.

Bh

Exactly... and Destroyer Don't upgrade to Stealth Destroyers, they upgrade to SDs OR MCs

so


Heavy=Battleship->MC
AntiAir=Destroyer->SD
AntiSub=Destroyer->Attack Sub
__________________
Improvement Ideas
City States:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...5#post11296685
Miscelaneous Ideas:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpo...&postcount=403
Krikkitone is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION IV > Civ4 - General Discussions > Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Solver's unofficial BtS 3.17 patch Solver Civ4 - General Discussions 925 Jan 27, 2013 10:47 AM
BTS epic pbem Rho patch 3.13, unofficial patch 1.11 bathsheba666 Civ4 - PBEM Games 7 Jul 02, 2008 09:22 AM
Does this mod work with Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch? Melhisedek Civ4 - BTS Unaltered Gameplay (BUG, BAT and BULL) 3 Nov 13, 2007 06:45 AM
Solver's Unofficial BtS Patch Solver Civ4 - General Discussions 695 Oct 21, 2007 05:31 AM
request for sticky for Bhruic's unofficial 3.13 patch jray Site Feedback 2 Oct 10, 2007 12:32 AM


Advertisement

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is copyright Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com | Amazon UK | Amazon DE | Amazon CA | Amazon FR