0.9.4 released

In the context of Civ, ranged combat usually refers to non-suicidal catapults and not to the ability of artillery to shoot at a range of two plots instead of one.

Azoth, it's sometimes a good idea to use your head. The only thing you have to do to counter ranged weapons is await them with the same. In a turn based game, they have to move in your range first and will thus take damage first, before they can inflict damage themselves. If the units in the aggressive stack are severely reduced in strength, they won't be able to take a city anymore, no matter how many catapults in that stack helped preparing her taking. And this is not theorizing, but a matter of experience coming from other mods that wisely included extended ranged combat, to get rid of the utterly flawed design decision to allow suicide catapults and the like. Clear?
 
Keinpferd, there is no need to be antagonistic. We all have different viewpoints, playstyles and such; by all means offer a counter opinion or present facts or experience to show flaws in logic or understanding. Debate is good. But don't imply insult to the person offering their viewpoint, it's not constructive, helpful or welcome. Clear?
 
I also submit that Keinpferd's argument leaves much to be desired, over and above the antagonism.

For one, all he says is that the advantage goes overwhelmingly to the defense, not the offense- it's still unbalanced, in that large stacks of ranged attackers can destroy anything that comes against them. While suicide catapults have their problems, I'll grant, they do at least make a certain amount of sense: large scale warfare focused around the taking of cities often requires some really serious expenditure of resources.

I think Azoth has a point- ranged combat in the Civ IV engine is inherently unbalanced. Warships using it can play hit and run with impunity, and land units can pound flat any stack they encounter with it. The heart of the problem is that there's no way to shoot back.

Also, giving units a range of two tiles is somewhat excessive from a simulation standpoint- no artillery in history could fire at ranges equal to the distance across a Civ tile, except for theater ballistic missiles and the like.
 
Keinpferd, there is no need to be antagonistic. We all have different viewpoints, playstyles and such; by all means offer a counter opinion or present facts or experience to show flaws in logic or understanding. Debate is good. But don't imply insult to the person offering their viewpoint, it's not constructive, helpful or welcome. Clear?

It's true, I speak in insults instead of sentences occasionally, but never on forums and not this time! Where was I insulting anybody? Xyth, don't ever again accuse me of crimes I haven't committed;). The difference it makes! As a moderator, you should be a bit more cautious in such details. (Just hope, Azoth isn't as lightly offended – and knows, under 99% of his postings I press the intrinsical like button, with few exceptions.)

I was avoiding to mention in every other posting of mine a certain mod, that I also support, because that I felt was contra-productive. There you find ranged combat to Keinpferd's likings, but I see little sense in copying anything from there to HR (which has yet a long way ahead to carve out a distinct personality of its own). At this stage, a hundred mods are more advanced than yours, like, as a yet different example, this one. I'm assuming here the mod keeps the promises its description raises. This reads fun, idea-rich, innovative, phantastic. I'm convinced, at future stages, HR will get there, too. But you should show a little hospitality and politeness to the shy beings of ideas. Otherwise they don't come visit you.
 
It's true, I speak in insults instead of sentences occasionally, but never on forums and not this time! Where was I insulting anybody? Xyth, don't ever again accuse me of crimes I haven't committed;). The difference it makes! As a moderator, you should be a bit more cautious in such details. (Just hope, Azoth isn't as lightly offended – and knows, under 99% of his postings I press the intrinsical like button, with few exceptions.)

I'm not offended but as this is not the first time there has been unrest over something similar, I stepped in. Insult is probably too strong a word but you do not need to preface your opinion with phrases such as "Azoth, it's sometimes a good idea to use your head." It doesn't add to the topic and puts the focus on the poster not the post. Perhaps you meant it in a friendly manner but with translation and the lack of non-verbal cues it is quite difficult to tell.

I was avoiding to mention in every other posting of mine a certain mod, that I also support, because that I felt was contra-productive. There you find ranged combat to Keinpferd's likings, but I see little sense in copying anything from there to HR (which has yet a long way ahead to carve out a distinct personality of its own).

I assume you are referring to PAE. I've been meaning to look at Pie's implementation of siege units and see if it's appropriate to a full game mod like HR. In particular I'm curious to see if he has any python coding that could help overcome some of the AI problems that introducing ranged combat creates.

At this stage, a hundred mods are more advanced than yours, like, as a yet different example, this one. I'm assuming here the mod keeps the promises its description raises. This reads fun, idea-rich, innovative, phantastic. I'm convinced, at future stages, HR will get there, too.

I'm not really intending for HR to ever be as 'advanced' as RoM:AND. It's impressive and has some great ideas but it's not the type of mod I personally like to play. I've also only been modding for a couple years, Afforess et al have been at it for 5 or 6, and have a much more extensive modding toolset with the SDK. There's no catching up even if I wanted to :P

HR will always be somewhat limited compared to the PC mods but that's okay. I'm happy to do what I can with the tools I have. Also, a large part of HR's 'personality' is inevitably that it's a Mac-compatible full game mod, trying to catch up on some of the vast innovation already done on the PC side (and some new ideas here and there too!)

In some ways this does give HR a bit of a 'captive audience' due to there only being a handful of Mac mods around. I love modding and trying to implement people's ideas along side my own but occasionally there will be contributions that are too far outside my area of skill/vision/interest and I have to say no lest my hobby become a chore. In the end, I'm a full-time dad with a part-time job and spare time is quite hard to come by at times. I hope people understand this and feel that I'm being reasonably accommodating.

Eh, I've started rambling. Stopping now!

But you should show a little hospitality and politeness to the shy beings of ideas. Otherwise they don't come visit you.

I don't claim to be a model of posting etiquette, I know that I can sound unintentionally abrupt or forthright at times. We just all need to do our best to be civil, constructive and, most importantly, focus any disagreement on the content and not the author of posts. Lets both be more diligent in future but for the present, lets move back to the topic at hand:

I haven't yet formed a definite opinion on ranged combat. I'd like for single tile range attacks to be possible/balanced and I agree that suicide siege units feels wrong. But unlike many other mods, HR cannot use the SDK to code the AI to understand how to use and defend against attacks, so this is quite a restriction on what is possible. Hopefully we can find a solution that is balanced, realistic and fun, and if not, hopefully there is a compromise of sorts.
 
For the record, I wasn't offended, but...

Azoth, it's sometimes a good idea to use your head. The only thing you have to do to counter ranged weapons is await them with the same.

...trying telling the AI that! ;)

That's what this all boils down to. In a multiplayer game, with intelligent human opponents, ranged combat could work. I still think it would be a horrible idea, for the reason Simon Jester states: the advantage would go overwhelmingly to the defense. But the AI in History Rewritten doesn't understand ranged combat. In all my games, I have never, not once, been struck by an AI catapult. Even with a little programming, the AI could not hope to compete with a human in that regard. I maintain that ranged combat was a spectacular failure in Civilization III:

Tripcraters.jpg

(That screenshot was posted online by Trip, an excellent player and tester for Civilization III: Conquests. If you look closely, you can see the ruins of at least three AI civilizations.)

Granted, some mods might be compatible with ranged combat, especially if they rework other aspects of the Civilization combat engine. In PAE, if I recall: units lose strength when paired with other units, making stacks nearly inviable; the fog of war returns every tile outside your vision to darkness every turn, greatly impairing strategic planning; disease and revolts can decimate your standing army, almost entirely by chance; mercenaries and a slew of unique units largely determine army composition; overseas conquest is exorbitantly expensive; and foreign cities are nigh-unto-impossible to hold and consolidate. At that point, we may as well be playing a different game.

As for carving out a distinct personality, I will always think of History Rewritten as the sensible mod. It includes a handful of new civilizations and leaders but not every nation-state under the sun. It adds a couple of new buildings and technologies but never collapses into "Religion Tech IX" and "Growth Building III" territory. The decision on Workers in the Unit thread is case in point: allowing Workers to become citizen specialist will never be a major selling point. It's not flashy; it's just sensible. So what if there are a hundred mods out there "more advanced" than HR: it doesn't mean they're better. A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away.

That said, I suggest we move the rest of the discussion on ranged combat, Siege units, and the like to the aforementioned Units thread.
 
What would happen if the cost of all military units were multiplied by 2?
One would assume that fewer military units would be built, all other things being equal.

Some people might want to try a game where military units were more expensive, while others might want to try one in which military units were less expensive than currently.

One could instead or in additional increase or decrease the cost of maintaining military units.

Just throwing out some thoughts for discussion.

If this is possible and some players have interest, maybe this can be discussed for some future version.
 
What would happen if the cost of all military units were multiplied by 2?
One would assume that fewer military units would be built, all other things being equal.

Some people might want to try a game where military units were more expensive, while others might want to try one in which military units were less expensive than currently.

This would be possible by placing a fake building in every city built. The trickier bit is where to attach it as an option. It might be plausible to attach it to new Gamespeed options, something like Marathon (Slower Military) and Epic (Faster Military).

One could instead or in additional increase or decrease the cost of maintaining military units.

I'm not sure how to do this one but it may be possible in a similar fashion.

The problem with the overall idea though is that it would penalize/benefit some playstyles or AI leaders more than others, effectively making it an 'easy-mode' for peacemongers or warmongers depending on what you choose. Well, not as extreme as that but it could certainly undermine balance on some difficulty levels and victory options. Personally I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
 
As I said, I was only throwing it out as an idea, to see if a large percentage of players would be interested in such option(s). I was not implying that 2 or 1/2 were the factors that players might be interested in. While if it were already available, I would give these options a try for variety, I am not be clamoring for them.


This would be possible by placing a fake building in every city built. The trickier bit is where to attach it as an option. It might be plausible to attach it to new Gamespeed options, something like Marathon (Slower Military) and Epic (Faster Military).



I'm not sure how to do this one but it may be possible in a similar fashion.

The problem with the overall idea though is that it would penalize/benefit some playstyles or AI leaders more than others, effectively making it an 'easy-mode' for peacemongers or warmongers depending on what you choose. Well, not as extreme as that but it could certainly undermine balance on some difficulty levels and victory options. Personally I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
 
Some people might want to try a game where military units were more expensive, while others might want to try one in which military units were less expensive than currently.

One could instead or in additional increase or decrease the cost of maintaining military units.

As a matter of fact, this is already captured to some extent by difficulty level. On Warlord, your empire can support garrison troops and an expeditionary force free of charge. You'll only incur unit costs if you have a massive army gunning for Domination Victory. Meanwhile, the same empire on Monarch will support only garrison troops; you'll be charged for any rapid response force above and beyond one unit per city. Finally, on Deity, you'll pay full cost for nearly every unit you build.

So you don't need that extra player option: it's already a feature in BtS!
 
Wrong.

The option would effect all civs.
What you have described affects the player civ.

As a matter of fact, this is already captured to some extent by difficulty level. On Warlord, your empire can support garrison troops and an expeditionary force free of charge. You'll only incur unit costs if you have a massive army gunning for Domination Victory. Meanwhile, the same empire on Monarch will support only garrison troops; you'll be charged for any rapid response force above and beyond one unit per city. Finally, on Deity, you'll pay full cost for nearly every unit you build.

So you don't need that extra player option: it's already a feature in BtS!
 
Wrong.

The option would effect all civs.
What you have described affects the player civ.

Well, technically, you can also adjust the AI difficulty level.
It is set to Noble by default but it doesn't have to be; consider the 1000 AD scenario, for example.
It's not possible to make the change in the Custom Game screen; you have to edit the Worldbuilder file in TextEdit, which is a little awkward, I admit.
However, since the AI wouldn't know how to compensate for higher unit costs, it's probably best left alone.
 
Hi all,

Not sure if I should post here or in BUFFY forum... please forgive me if I'm off topic or has been answered elsewhere!

Just installed mod: no problems with gameplay as far as I can see... but get (attached) message as I boot up. Is this normal while the add-on is loaded, or will I have AI problems down the line? I enabled "Modular Loading" thanks to the troubleshooting thread...

Always great to see new content; keep up the good work!
 

Attachments

  • Civ4ScreenShot0000.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0000.JPG
    143.4 KB · Views: 141
Hi all,

Not sure if I should post here or in BUFFY forum... please forgive me if I'm off topic or has been answered elsewhere!

Just installed mod: no problems with gameplay as far as I can see... but get (attached) message as I boot up. Is this normal while the add-on is loaded, or will I have AI problems down the line? I enabled "Modular Loading" thanks to the troubleshooting thread...

Always great to see new content; keep up the good work!

Hmm, my best guess is that is a permissions problem with your Windows setup. BUG is unable to create its setting files. It won't affect gameplay but any interface changes you make in the BUG options pane won't be saved. I'm not the best person to help with that as I don't have Windows in any form.

Head over to the BUG forum and see if anyone there can help. They're bound to have come across that issue before. Let me know how you get on.
 
Fixed.

FTR I had not provided write permission for the relevant folders (...//Beyond The Sword//Mods//History Rewritten//User Settings): some elementary fiddling with Windows (Folder Properties) took care of that.

These posts from the BUG forum were helpful:

Turn on logging in CivilizationIV.ini (LoggingEnabled = 1)...

@Shakamustdie - Make sure you have permission to write into that folder and that it exists of course. If that doesn't work, run BTS as Administrator, though that's not ideal.

Cheers.
 
Glad it was an easy fix! Thanks for letting me know, it will help me help others with related issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom