Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch

[Bhruic]

Nope, I knew I forgot something. Oh well, I'll try and remember for next time.

Bh

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by KMadCandy

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.

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

[Jaybe]

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.

[jlwzap]

Thanks Bh- You're still Da MAN!!!

[jlwzap]

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)

[Quagga]

Originally Posted by jlwzap

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.

[grumbler]

Updated automated installer for the patch

[jlwzap]

Originally Posted by Quagga

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

[KMadCandy]

Originally Posted by Bhruic

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*

Originally Posted by Bhruic

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!

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by KMadCandy

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.

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

[KMadCandy]

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.

Originally Posted by Bhruic

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.

[Roland Johansen]

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.

[Bhruic]

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

[Aquatic]

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...

[Bhruic]

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

[jkp1187]

Originally Posted by KMadCandy

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.

[KaytieKat]

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

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by KaytieKat

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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

[bmarnz]

Originally Posted by Bhruic

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.

[Krikkitone]

Originally Posted by Bhruic

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