Vokarya's Workshop: Units

[thegreekweegee]

Alright, so, tactical nuke only affects the tile it's deployed in, while nuclear missile and ICBM have a radius of 1, with ICBM having unlimited range. We also have hydrogen bomb, that is simply a 2-radius ICBM.

I'd say keep the Hydrogen Bomb and make sure it had a higher unit support cost than ICBM. Probably also name it something like "ICBM, higher yield". When you have to pay more to keep the same amount of hydro bombs than ICBMs, it'd put a damper on producing it. No wait, it's already got that. I'd say keep it as is, it's fine.

Also, what's the use of nuclear missile?

 

[Rezca]

Nuclear Missle doesn't cost as much as an ICBM so they can be produced faster. If the enemy you want to nuke is nearby, then you'd just build those instead of the costlier ones. If they're on another continent, then you'd probably go with the ICBM's (Or load the others up on a ship/sub and ferry them over there...)


I'd say Hydrogen Bomb could use a range limitation, though I'm not sure how much would suffice.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I'm against limiting HB range although we can raise its support cost.
Also Nuke Missile is the only one that can be loaded on a sub and I would prefer it to stay like that. Tactical Nukes used to be loadable on subs but they're not anymore, although they can be loaded on missile cruisers. Actually I was thinking about giving a wider range to Nuclear Missiles: real ones have almost unlimited range, practically the same of ICBMs.

 

[Pepo]

I would remove HB as they cover the same role of ICBM (in fact, they are ICBM). Alternative would be to make them more expensive and require then to have extra requirements (maybe a new nuclear development phase?)

 

[Rezca]

I would remove HB as they cover the same role of ICBM (in fact, they are ICBM). Alternative would be to make them more expensive and require then to have extra requirements (maybe a new nuclear development phase?)

The difference is that ICBM - the unit I mean - has a Blast Radius of one. So it's just your typical average nuke.

Hydrogen Bomb on the other hand, is an upgraded nuke with a Blast Radius of two. So it covers an area that would otherwise require several standard ICBM's.


Why build 2 ~ 3 ICBM's to do the same thing one Hydrogen Bomb can accomplish?

 

[Pepo]

The difference is that ICBM - the unit I mean - has a Blast Radius of one. So it's just your typical average nuke.

Hydrogen Bomb on the other hand, is an upgraded nuke with a Blast Radius of two. So it covers an area that would otherwise require several standard ICBM's.


Why build 2 ~ 3 ICBM's to do the same thing one Hydrogen Bomb can accomplish?

But they cover the same role. The vast majority of RL ICBM where hydrogen bombs. If you are going to nuke your opponents, you wanted the bigger bombs. In fact, I know how to solve the problem: remove ICBM and change the name of Hydrogen Bomb to ICBM and increase the range of nuclear missile a lot. That way, nuclear missile will represent the less powerful nukes while ICBM would all of then be of the hydrogen type. Currently, ICBM overlaps with both nuclear and Hydrogen bombs. With the change I support we will have three clear distinctions: tactical nukes for doing less damage (anti-unit) , nuclear missile for general use and for submarines and ICBM for M.A.D and for a bigger BANG. And of course we will still have the peacemaker for the fun of completely blowing out continents

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Guys, there were MRBM and IRBM that have already been removed from the game. Now there are A-Bombs which only require First Nuclear Test and Tactical Nukes, which represent basic nukes; then there are ICBMs which represent more advanced nukes with unlimited range for more advanced civs but have higher requirements. Hydrogen bombs have a larger nuke radius and are movable (ICBMs are not). I agree they should be more expensive to maintain (they are already to build); then there are nuclear missiles which are kind halfway but they can be loaded on subs which makes them more advanced: I think they should have a larger radius range but I can live with them as they are. Finally there's the Peacemaker, which I think it's only for fun.
I don't think we need changes in this part, it's been made like this to avoid nukes proliferation while leaving different nations a chance to build at least basic nukes.


Edit: getting rid of ICBMs and replacing them with HB will save little in terms of memory but would force you to utter destruction when attacking another continent (because of the unlimited range); you could only use them as a countervalue weapon and not as a counterforce one. I might agree with this change HB-->ICBM and get rid of current ICBM if we give almost unlimited radius to Nuclear Missiles but then the problem is the evasion chance which should be lowered for Nuclear Missiles. Thinking about it, I could make evasion chance dependant on target distance from the launch point, which should be quite obvious.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

If you are going to nuke your opponents, you wanted the bigger bombs.

Not true in real life and in game: in real life because it's more practical to have small bombs instead of a big one (destruction radius is proportional to the cubed root of yield), in game because in general you can cover more practically the tiles you want to hit with smaller nukes.

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

once you have ICBM technology, range shouldn't be a problem.

Tactile nukes, are short range for battlefield use, not a problem.

But a hydrogen bomb, with ICBM should have unlimited range, but limited numbers, like a national defense unit.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

once you have ICBM technology, range shouldn't be a problem.

Tactile nukes, are short range for battlefield use, not a problem.

But a hydrogen bomb, with ICBM should have unlimited range, but limited numbers, like a national defense unit.

I'm against a limited number, that's for Peacemaker. You can control the number via maintenance costs, I think that's enough.

 

[Vokarya]

I will leave Hydrogen Bomb alone. I noticed it because it seemed to stick out compared to the rest of the Modern Era nukes.

 

[Pepo]

Not true in real life and in game: in real life because it's more practical to have small bombs instead of a big one (destruction radius is proportional to the cubed root of yield), in game because in general you can cover more practically the tiles you want to hit with smaller nukes.

frome the Wikipedia article about hydrogen bombs: "As thermonuclear weapons represent the most efficient design for weapon energy yield in weapons with yields above 50 kilotons of TNT (210 TJ), virtually all the nuclear weapons deployed by the five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT today are thermonuclear weapons using the Teller–Ulam design".
I'm only advocating for that change because if nuclear missile get their range increased (which I think they should) , there would be overlapping between the three missiles

 

[Rezca]

I don't think merging ICBM and Hydrogen Bomb is the way to go though, unless that's what everyone else wants....

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I think we can leave things as they are, or we can have a-bomb, tactical nukes, nuclear missiles (with increased range), replace ICBM with hydrogen bomb (and call it ICBM and make it not movable), and finally peacemaker. This is, if we want to get rid of one of the nukes. Requirements should be the same they are now. Anyway I think I should code that part about evasion chances I was talking about. It should go like this: basic evasion chances as they are now plus some evasion chance based on distance between launch position and target tile. The closer they are, the higher the evasion chance. Always provided there's some interception chance granted by buildings, wonders and so on.

 

[Rezca]

So the Nuclear Missile would have better range and one tile blast radius, and the Hydrogen Bomb "new ICBM" would still be a 2-radius?

 

[<Nexus>]

I think we can leave things as they are,

+1

or we can have a-bomb, tactical nukes, nuclear missiles (with increased range), replace ICBM with hydrogen bomb (and call it ICBM and make it not movable), and finally peacemaker. This is, if we want to get rid of one of the nukes. Requirements should be the same they are now. Anyway I think I should code that part about evasion chances I was talking about. It should go like this: basic evasion chances as they are now plus some evasion chance based on distance between launch position and target tile. The closer they are, the higher the evasion chance. Always provided there's some interception chance granted by buildings, wonders and so on.

That sounds very-very good.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

So the Nuclear Missile would have better range and one tile blast radius, and the Hydrogen Bomb "new ICBM" would still be a 2-radius?

Yeah, and not movable

 

[Vokarya]

With the changes to Automated Defenses using the No Entry ability, Nanite units need the ability to bombard city defenses. The Nanite units should be capable of taking down a city all by themselves.

The most defense that can come from non-building sources in the late game is 100%: 50% from culture and 50% from Nanite Defuser. Feudal and Nobility can add city defense as well, but I doubt that anyone would still be using them in the Transhuman Era.

So I am giving Nanite Swarm a 35%/turn bombard ability (takes any cultural defense apart in 2 turns, 3 with Nanite Defuser) and Nanite Cloud 50%/turn (destroys cultural defense in 1 turn, 2 with Defuser).

 

[Vokarya]

I pulled together some graphics from Colonization and other sources to create some distinct graphics for Pioneer units. I want to not have Settler/Colonist/Pioneer use the same models.

What I decided to use for Pioneer was several units from Colonization: the Wagon Train, the Expert Farmer, and the Expert Sugar Planter. The child graphic is from a few other mods; it's actually a small-size Modern Worker, but I edited it a little to remove the lunchbox and the shirt pocket. It uses Modern Worker animations; it looks very strange if you try and use the default settler animations. I deleted the horse and one of the women to make room for the wagon.



For the Colonist, I might keep the models the same and use the Horse instead. The Free Colonist would also make a decent male colonist. It has the tricorn hat that fits the Renaissance Era, but it didn't feel right for the Industrial.

The only art styles that currently have distinct Colonists/Pioneers are Africa and India. I will have to see what I can do about these.

Let me know what you think of this.

 

[Vokarya]

I remembered there were two unusual art definitions that don't see very much usage. I was wondering if we could cut both of them out.

The first is the Ancient Cannon. This is currently used as a Chinese Catapult flavor unit. Do we really need it? I feel like this could be a weird UU, but I don't really like gross changes for the sake of flavor. If we must keep it, I think it should be a Trebuchet replacement rather than a Catapult.


The second is a unique Worker art for the Arabian style. It only appears during the middle period (Medieval Era through Industrial Era). Arabia is the only style that uses this, and the Middle East styles already have a distinct Worker unit -- on the left is the Arabian Middle Worker, on the right is the Middle Eastern Worker. I don't think this is worth keeping. None of the other art styles have a middle Worker, although they all transition to a Modern Worker during the Modern Era.