Thought & Question About Armies & Teleportation

[Ozymandias]

Well, hypothetically, if teleportation worked fine on its own, then a properly working army could work just as well (I really recommend cap: 1, hp bonus can take of telepad hitpoints ). In other words, I'm sure the AI won't plan an invasion with telepads, but if it happens that a telepad unit ends up in enemy territory, then the AI should use it, as in Civinator's example. Whether that unit is an army or not, shouldn't matter.

I'll have to test - given some of the (in)consistencies we've all encountered, for all we (or, I, anyway) know the AI will loveto teleport to armies, making a capacity > 1 certainly doable.

Best,

Oz

 

[Blue Monkey]

I've never really understood the whole "can't have that unit since the AI doesn't understand it" philosophy. Especially in scenarios where the player is intended to select from a smaller set of civs than the whole scenario includes. Balance by giving the AI compensatory strengths, ie invisible units, those with greater mobility, better defensive improvements, etc.

 

[tom2050]

I've never really understood the whole "can't have that unit since the AI doesn't understand it" philosophy.

My take has always been that units such as Land Units that can transport other foot units... the AI does not know how to use that type of transport unit, so it doesn't. So most won't include that in their mods since it gives the human player an additional advantage that the AI cannot use, thus making the AI even more easily defeated.

Tom

 

[Balthasar]

The key is balance, Tom. As a scenario designer, you're God. The advantage the human player gets from a land unit he can use can be easily set off by an advantage given to the AI that God knows it could use. And as Blue Monkey points out, there are any number of ways to do that.

 

[Ozymandias]

My goal is to push the game to model as closely as possible the (to the best of my understanding) mega-forces which drive history. This can be done from my POV with or without armies. However, I'm always bothered by the unrealistic relationship between MFs and the length of time a turn represents. If the AI will use teleportation with Armies, then I'll have an adequate substitute for what in the good-ol'-paper-and-carboard world of wargames was generally called, "Strategic Movement". So reinforcements don't have to spend as much time as WW2 took to reinforce Stalingrad from Berlin.

I'll let everyone know how it goes.

Best,

Oz

 

[Blue Monkey]

However, I'm always bothered by the unrealistic relationship between MFs and the length of time a turn represents.

And the other side of that coin is the complaints about the railroads.

 

[Ozymandias]

And the other side of that coin is the complaints about the railroads.

Ah! I'm apparently in the minority over that one. Would I like to be able to set the rate for scenarios? - Yes. Does it generally bother me viz. MF : Timescale? - No. (When you're on the train from Moscow to Vladivostok, it only feels like an eternity )

Best,

Oz

 

[Blue Monkey]

Ah! I'm apparently in the minority over that one. Would I like to be able to set the rate for scenarios? - Yes. Does it generally bother me viz. MF : Timescale? - No. (When you're on the train from Moscow to Vladivostok, it only feels like an eternity )

That makes us a majority of 2.

 

[Steph]

Count us 3!

Railroads are nice. What I'd regret is more flexibility, ie more types of roads. I'd like an intermediate road that could have let say x6 factor, between the normal road and the infinite move of the railroad. Or an option that when discovering "automobile", you can double the move bonus of road.

 

[nick0515]

This isn't directly relevant but I once tried to have a army/settler unit. The AI refused to use it to make cities even though I could, I think. It had both the settler and army flags I think. Was a while ago. So I'm wondering if even though the AI uses teleport it may not use it with an army unit.

 

[Steph]

Some info coming from the format of the save.

A unit can have only on strategy on the map. When you plae unit with the editor, you can select its strategy.

I don't think the AI can change strategy once it has been created. So I believe each time a unit with two strategies is created, the AI randomly set one of the strategy to it.

For instance, if you make line infantry with attack and defense strategies and the AI create 10 of them, I suspect it will in fact end with 5 "attack" infantry and 5 "defend" infantry.

So, if you had an army/settler unit, but only one, it may very well be that it was set to army strategy, not settler. I think you should test if, by preplacing an army on the map and forcing it to settler strategy, the AI will actually use it as a settler.

 

[nick0515]

It was only one unit. I should test again. It was a while ago and I can't remember what exactly happened. I think I was hoping for a Settler unit that you could load some units into like an army and then when you used it to make a city the units unloaded and could defend the new city. Will test again soon.

 

[Ozymandias]

Some info coming from the format of the save.

A unit can have only on strategy on the map. When you plae unit with the editor, you can select its strategy.

I don't think the AI can change strategy once it has been created. So I believe each time a unit with two strategies is created, the AI randomly set one of the strategy to it.

For instance, if you make line infantry with attack and defense strategies and the AI create 10 of them, I suspect it will in fact end with 5 "attack" infantry and 5 "defend" infantry.

So, if you had an army/settler unit, but only one, it may very well be that it was set to army strategy, not settler. I think you should test if, by preplacing an army on the map and forcing it to settler strategy, the AI will actually use it as a settler.

Steph hit the nail on the head with this one - at least, it jives with all my testing (NB: re: the simplest - Attacker vs. Defender, which the AI tends to build ~ 45% : 55% - Defender units will often move with offensive stacks; this is either actually intelligent or a serendipitous FUBAR).

Best,

Oz

 

[Blue Monkey]

I think I was hoping for a Settler unit that you could load some units into like an army and then when you used it to make a city the units unloaded and could defend the new city.

That sounds more like a helicopter than an army. But I think you'll run into the same AI issues.

 

[tom2050]

Defender units will occasionally attack though. As mentioned, defender units will move with offense stacks, I can't remember exactly what unit it was though, but it was set solely to defend in the editor.. as I was watching a game in DEBUG as a test. The AI used the defender unit to attack units that only had 1 HP left, but it would not attack any units with 2+ HP's. These units had low Attack themselves (4), compared to the units they attacked (10), but they were very often successful.

So, if a unit is flagged with just Defense, but does have an attack value, it may attack an enemy unit with 1 HP left.

Tom

 

[Blue Monkey]

this is either actually intelligent or a serendipitous FUBAR)

Does anyone below a certain age know what a FUBAR is?

 

[nick0515]

I think most people know the general meaning if not what the letters stand for and its origins. I think I first heard it in the movie Saving Private Ryan. I'm 25, so does that make me below or above the certain age?

 

[Ozymandias]

Does anyone below a certain age know what a FUBAR is?

I think I mentioned it when I started the FUBAR thread: "F*cked Up Beyond All Recognition". Originally military speak IIRC ca. WW2.

,

Oz

 

[Steph]

Steph hit the nail on the head with this one - at least, it jives with all my testing (NB: re: the simplest - Attacker vs. Defender, which the AI tends to build ~ 45% : 55% - Defender units will often move with offensive stacks; this is either actually intelligent or a serendipitous FUBAR).
Oz

I think the AI is designed to move defending units with attacker to protect them against ennemy counterattack.
Imagine a 10-1 unit alone in the field... It would be virtually useless with 1 MP, as it will be killed as soon as it try reaching the ennemy.

But this strategy part is probably the worse in the file format...

If you make a unit attacker and defender, it will in fact duplicate it, and so create one attacker and defender, the defender being "linked" to the attacker.

At first, I thought it was because each unit on the map can have only one specific strategy, and so it would be associated with one of these two "templates". But no, the format indicates that the unit is always linked to the first unit (ie attacker here), but has an additional flag to say it will in fact use the other strategy.

The worse is that each strategy can be fully stored within ONE unit. I mean, it's not an int saying "Strategy = type 1" or "strategy = type 2", it's a set of flag, so it could perfectly say "Strategy attack = true" and "Strategy defense = true".

To sum up, this duplication of the unit template when they have several strategy serves absolutly no purpose except increasing the size of the file. It is strictly redundant information.

I'm sure that's why 2k game doesn't want to release the source code. They are probably utterly ashamed and don't want the real status of the code to be known.

 

[Ozymandias]

I'm sure that's why 2k game doesn't want to release the source code. They are probably utterly ashamed and don't want the real status of the code to be known.

I thought we'd figured that one out Long Ago & Far Away

Best,

Oz