1.23 Development and Discussion

[Xyth]

Arguably so- but in many cases, the nature of the changes to our culture and society aren't automatic. We can imagine a society that has X but not Y, even if historically we invented X before Y. It's like, we had jet airplanes before women's liberation, and women's lib before the Internet, but that doesn't that one of those things was somehow a 'prerequisite' for the other in the sense of 'you have to walk before you can run.'

So if you really want, you can imagine different orders of technology research within the modern era as different ways to BE modern. It's interesting to imagine a society that's got modern medicine and the Internet, but has (lucky for them) never heard of blitzkrieg or the atomic bomb. And it's... grim... to imagine a society where the reverse is true.

I think of this as part of the charm of "history rewritten-" actually getting to rewrite it, having things be substantiatively different.

Agreed. I aim for the tech tree to be reasonably logical and historical, but not deterministic.

Hm. Debateable. It depends on how you view the role of supermarkets. I can imagine, for instance, massively dense urban areas supported by extensive rail networks, where the food supply for poeple living in big blocks of apartments would basically be "supermarkets" as we recognize them today. Delivery of the food to the individual home might not work the same, but you could do it- could have supermarkets without cars and trucks.

Supermarkets have shifted from the mid-Industrial era to the early Global era.

I respectfully disagree.

For one, there are quite a number of societies that more or less independently came up with the idea of, for lack of a better term, "nested warlordism" social structures- Japan and Persia come immediately to mind, and possibly India as well though I'm not so familiar with the history of India. While some of the specific details of European feudalism are unique to (western/northern) Europe, that doesn't mean the word 'feudalism' doesn't generalize to other kinds of broadly comparable systems of government.

The idea that the nation is ruled by small-scale hereditary aristocrats who raise small military forces, and who are in turn dominated by larger-scale aristocrats to whom they owe loyalty and fealty... that's not new or Eurocentric.

Main issue with the term is that it's broader in definition than just one civic category, much like 'capitalism' and 'communism' are. The civic in question ended up in the Society category and we named it 'Estate System'.

That's easy. In real life, shoulder-fired SAMs in the hands of the infantry counter helicopters and low flying planes. But they are useless against aircraft that are high-flying, stealthy, supersonic, or some combination of the above.

Whereas truck-mounted SAMs are effective against just about anything that isn't in at least two out of those three categories. On the other hand, they are vulnerable to low-flying precision airstrikes (known as 'wild weasel' missions courtesy of the Vietnam War) that exploit local terrain and electronic deception to neutralize the SAM site.

So you can have the same technology permit a Mobile SAM unit that provides area defense and interception of enemy planes that are on "bomb the whole darn tile" missions... and a SAM infantry unit that stops roving helicopter units from casually pillaging your improvements or swatting your tank formations.

Effectively defending a city against all forms of air attack, including units like the Gunship that are 'flying' ground units for purposes of the game engine, is made easier by having both types.

That's along the lines of what I was thinking too. Such change hasn't been made yet, so suggestions for stats are welcome.

The Flak Cannon unit would probably be intended to do both missions, but do them rather badly. Since unfortunately there's no way I know of within the game engine to model the idea that AA weapons which are highly effective against WWII fighter-bombers can be useless against modern jets, or that modern AA weapons would swat WWII aircraft out of the sky easily.

I'm probably going to abandon the Flak Cannon idea, due to lack of art. There's two Flak units available; one is stationary, one is mounted on caterpillar track. The former's immobility is awkward, and the latter is inappropriate for the period in which the unit is needed.

Trouble is, you don't stop needing antitank weapons when you start needing antiair weapons. Upgrading a unit should make it better in all ways, rather than depriving it of a major, critical bonus that made it capable of performing its original mission while not giving it a new way of fulfilling the mission.

For example, when (vanilla) Pikemen upgrade to Riflemen, they become only slightly stronger against cavalry units... but they certainly don't get weaker. And in addition they get the ability to be effective against all kinds of other units that could mop the floor with them before. But if Pikemen upgraded to Musketmen, they would be stronger against normal units all right... and yet they'd lose strength against cavalry. So cavalry would actively work better against your army after you 'upgraded' it than they did before.

That's not a good situation to be in.

Agreed.

On a side note I love the idea of War Wagons.

Me too. There's some rudimentary art for one, which is basically a Chariot Archer with a box over them. I want to see if I can work the model into something a bit more realistic (4 wheels, muskets instead of bow). Might be beyond my abilities though.

Sorry to doublepost, but...

Can anyone explain why my city refuses to grow above Size 2 despite having health and happiness above 2 and despite having massive food surpluses?

Avoid Growth is switched on. It turns on automatically now if your city will become unhappy or unhealthy. It doesn't switch off automatically though as people found this behaviour frustrating during beta.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, let me for the record state that I find Avoid Growth an amazingly annoying feature, then, because it appears not to notify me that the city has stopped growing. Or maybe I somehow missed or misunderstood the notification.

Moreover, in that particular place I had explicitly decided to grow the population beyond the health cap because I had plenty of food to feed a couple of unhealthy citizens.

Plus, frankly, I didn't even know there WAS an Avoid Growth feature; when was that added?

Is there any way you can make the game ask the user whether to go into Avoid Growth mode?

 

[Xyth]

Okay, let me for the record state that I find Avoid Growth an amazingly annoying feature, then, because it appears not to notify me that the city has stopped growing. Or maybe I somehow missed or misunderstood the notification.

Moreover, in that particular place I had explicitly decided to grow the population beyond the health cap because I had plenty of food to feed a couple of unhealthy citizens.

Plus, frankly, I didn't even know there WAS an Avoid Growth feature; when was that added?

It's a feature of BTS, possibly even of Vanilla Civ. Having it switch on and/or off automatically was requested by several people, added in 1.23.

Is there any way you can make the game ask the user whether to go into Avoid Growth mode?

It was something I was still working on when Atomic Gamer shut down, prompting the slightly early release of 1.23. But yes, I'll make the automation optional. In the meantime, the quickest way to see which cities have it switched on is to open the Domestic Advisor and check the rightmost column of the Economy page. A red food symbol indicates it's on.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Thank you.

What would be great is if the thing that spots when this is a problem would pop up a dialogue box saying "are you sure you want to grow?"

 

[Simon_Jester]

[accidental double post sorry]

 

[Simon_Jester]

Three suggestions.

One, on the SAM subject...

Make BOTH Mobile SAMs and SAM infantry available at the same time. Lower SAM infantry's intercept probability to 30 or 35% but keep the anti-helicopter bonus. Meanwhile, the Mobile SAM unit loses its anti-helicopter bonus, or has it lowered to 10 or 15% so that it can beat a helicopter one on one but not easily. Now you have two different, complementary anti-air units that become available at the same time, sort of like the Spearman and Axeman in vanilla.
_____________________

Also. Drones are very easy to shoot down. In practice they fly relatively slow and steady, they have limited fields of view and sensor suites so they can't tell when they're being shot at. Indeed, literally the first military application of radio-controlled drone aircraft was as target practice dummies.

Is there any way we could create a unique promotion (oh, I don't know, "Robot?") that increases the drone's probability of being intercepted, sort of like an anti-Ace promotion? Say, a malus to the evasion chance? Or could we otherwise render the drone more vulnerable to interception? That would make it easier to use them in the ways that reflect their actual employment in warfare. They're great for fighting a poorly equipped opponent that lacks its own organized air defense system. But there's a good reason the military doesn't do stuff like just fly drones over Iran trying to blow up the Iranian nuclear program; the Iranians would shoot them down like skeet.
______________________________

Third, and this is an artwork thing. If we look around the modern warfare scenarios for Civ IV we are likely to find at least one example of a "technical" unit- that is, an improvised fighting vehicle consisting of a heavy weapon mounted in the bed of a pickup truck. This would make rather appropriate artwork for the "Humvee" unit in many Middle Eastern and African countries, because in those regions technicals are used extensively as a form of light mechanized unit. This has been going on at least since the "Toyota War" between Chad and Libya back in the '80s, and is still a phenomenon today, as recent conflicts like the Libyan Civil War and the wars involving Da'esh.

Alternatively, if there are any of the Middle Eastern civilizations whose choice of unique units is a bit... iffy... giving them a Technical unique unit as a "Humvee with teeth" or some such might actually be an interesting alternative. Say, boost the withdrawal chance or (somehow) give it Flanking promotions for free, and remove the "can only defend" feature.

(For artwork if all else fails we can take the existing Katyusha, take the rockets off the back, and slap on a machine gun, I guess...)

 

[Xyth]

Thank you.

What would be great is if the thing that spots when this is a problem would pop up a dialogue box saying "are you sure you want to grow?"

A popup like that would be too tricky to implement. I'll probably just add a couple of options to the BUG settings panel.

Make BOTH Mobile SAMs and SAM infantry available at the same time. Lower SAM infantry's intercept probability to 30 or 35% but keep the anti-helicopter bonus. Meanwhile, the Mobile SAM unit loses its anti-helicopter bonus, or has it lowered to 10 or 15% so that it can beat a helicopter one on one but not easily. Now you have two different, complementary anti-air units that become available at the same time, sort of like the Spearman and Axeman in vanilla.

I think I'll keep the SAM Infantry as it is. Lowering its interception chance would mean lowering it for the Anti-Tank and Mech Inf too. Instead, I'll increase the Mobile SAM's chance to 60%, drop its helicopter bonus completely and reclassify it as Siege unit (just without bombard or collateral). It's always bothered me that it was a Gun unit. Doing so will also mean they can be flanked by Helicopters if we wish. Should it also have a withdrawal chance?

Also. Drones are very easy to shoot down. In practice they fly relatively slow and steady, they have limited fields of view and sensor suites so they can't tell when they're being shot at. Indeed, literally the first military application of radio-controlled drone aircraft was as target practice dummies.

Is there any way we could create a unique promotion (oh, I don't know, "Robot?") that increases the drone's probability of being intercepted, sort of like an anti-Ace promotion? Say, a malus to the evasion chance? Or could we otherwise render the drone more vulnerable to interception? That would make it easier to use them in the ways that reflect their actual employment in warfare. They're great for fighting a poorly equipped opponent that lacks its own organized air defense system. But there's a good reason the military doesn't do stuff like just fly drones over Iran trying to blow up the Iranian nuclear program; the Iranians would shoot them down like skeet.

I agree that Drones need to be easy to shoot down, but I haven't figured out a way to make it work yet. Interception and evasion can't really be modded.

Third, and this is an artwork thing. If we look around the modern warfare scenarios for Civ IV we are likely to find at least one example of a "technical" unit- that is, an improvised fighting vehicle consisting of a heavy weapon mounted in the bed of a pickup truck. This would make rather appropriate artwork for the "Humvee" unit in many Middle Eastern and African countries, because in those regions technicals are used extensively as a form of light mechanized unit. This has been going on at least since the "Toyota War" between Chad and Libya back in the '80s, and is still a phenomenon today, as recent conflicts like the Libyan Civil War and the wars involving Da'esh.

Alternatively, if there are any of the Middle Eastern civilizations whose choice of unique units is a bit... iffy... giving them a Technical unique unit as a "Humvee with teeth" or some such might actually be an interesting alternative. Say, boost the withdrawal chance or (somehow) give it Flanking promotions for free, and remove the "can only defend" feature.

(For artwork if all else fails we can take the existing Katyusha, take the rockets off the back, and slap on a machine gun, I guess...)

Not keen on adding it as UU for anyone, but a regional art variant would be good. I'll have a look and see what's available.

 

[lindsay40k]

With regard to the SAM infantry/truck debate, I've never been a big fan of dedicated infantry unit subtypes in Civ. I see the individual infantry unit as like a regiment (and, when RP'ing, or killing time in MP turns, name them as such)? In this instance, stuff like a portable SAM weapon is something I prefer to see represented by promotions. So, an Infantry unit can be promoted to represent being trained and equipped, and they carry that with them when they become Mech Inf. Instead of the anti-tank unit, just make a Bazooka promotion that's effectively Ambush II.

Makes a lot of standard unit models surplus to requirements - or, viewed another way, available to punctuate the unit tree or add UU/cultural flavour. (Aside: would be awesome if the SAM and AT guy could replace an infantryman in the trio GFX when the promotions are taken.) But also means that armoured columns can take mechanised anti-helicopter troops with them that ride shotgun and keep gunships away from the AFVs.

I can see how that might be undesirable from a stone-paper-scissors balance POV, so perhaps when a Mech Inf with SAM type promotions defends against a chopper, it could take a movement penalty on its next turn, representing that the troopers have disembarked from their APCs and the strafing run has disrupted the column's march. (Thinking on it, no reason something like that shouldn't apply to mech infantry in general.)

 

[Xyth]

With regard to the SAM infantry/truck debate, I've never been a big fan of dedicated infantry unit subtypes in Civ. I see the individual infantry unit as like a regiment (and, when RP'ing, or killing time in MP turns, name them as such)? In this instance, stuff like a portable SAM weapon is something I prefer to see represented by promotions. So, an Infantry unit can be promoted to represent being trained and equipped, and they carry that with them when they become Mech Inf. Instead of the anti-tank unit, just make a Bazooka promotion that's effectively Ambush II.

Makes a lot of standard unit models surplus to requirements - or, viewed another way, available to punctuate the unit tree or add UU/cultural flavour. (Aside: would be awesome if the SAM and AT guy could replace an infantryman in the trio GFX when the promotions are taken.) But also means that armoured columns can take mechanised anti-helicopter troops with them that ride shotgun and keep gunships away from the AFVs.

I can see how that might be undesirable from a stone-paper-scissors balance POV, so perhaps when a Mech Inf with SAM type promotions defends against a chopper, it could take a movement penalty on its next turn, representing that the troopers have disembarked from their APCs and the strafing run has disrupted the column's march. (Thinking on it, no reason something like that shouldn't apply to mech infantry in general.)

Not possible via promotions, their available mechanics are very limited in comparison to unit mechanics. Could possibly be done by having every combination as a pre-existing unit and multiple upgrade choices for each. That approach would allow mixed unit graphics as you describe. But I'm really not sure it's necessary since the same result can be achieved just by stacking the desired units together in the desired ratio and joining them as a group. Seems an awful lot of work and rebalancing for little or no gain.

 

[Simon_Jester]

With regard to the SAM infantry/truck debate, I've never been a big fan of dedicated infantry unit subtypes in Civ. I see the individual infantry unit as like a regiment (and, when RP'ing, or killing time in MP turns, name them as such)? In this instance, stuff like a portable SAM weapon is something I prefer to see represented by promotions. So, an Infantry unit can be promoted to represent being trained and equipped, and they carry that with them when they become Mech Inf. Instead of the anti-tank unit, just make a Bazooka promotion that's effectively Ambush II.

Personally, I mentally model modern infantry units as division-sized formations. A single Mobile SAM unit represents a heavy concentration of AA weaponry.

SAM Infantry and Anti-Tank infantry are sort of weird ones, but I would argue that their existence is made necessary by the way the game works. Realistically each of your infantry units should be an all-arms force with a variety of organic heavy weapons... but gameplay mandates that the infantry be infantry, the artillery be artillery, the tanks be tanks, and so on.

Makes a lot of standard unit models surplus to requirements - or, viewed another way, available to punctuate the unit tree or add UU/cultural flavour. (Aside: would be awesome if the SAM and AT guy could replace an infantryman in the trio GFX when the promotions are taken.) But also means that armoured columns can take mechanised anti-helicopter troops with them that ride shotgun and keep gunships away from the AFVs.

Mechanized Infantry units are already fairly effective at fighting Gunships. The Gunships don't have that huge bonus against them and the Mechanized Infantry have higher strength.

But basically, the problem is that we want dedicated AA units to generally lose to enemy infantry of the same generation (because they focus on the AA mission)... but we need them to be able to defeat Helicopter units. There isn't a big enough gap in strength available to make that possible, so we do it by giving them a hefty bonus against Gunships- even though it's debateable whether they really need such a bonus in order for the player to have a viable counter to Gunships.

 

[Nightstar]

I would like to request a reevaluation of the Airship unit and its intended role(s). More specifically, I'd like to see it get its bombing ability back now that it has a contemporary counter in the Biplane.

 

[Xyth]

I would like to request a reevaluation of the Airship unit and its intended role(s). More specifically, I'd like to see it get its bombing ability back now that it has a contemporary counter in the Biplane.

Done in 1.23. I adjusted all the Air units when I added the Biplane and Drone.

 

[Nightstar]

So you did. Nice!

You must have implemented that after the point in the beta when I wrote the note-to-self to make the suggestion. My bad for not actually checking the current state of things before posting.