Armies
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
Txurce
Deity
I've lost track of where Thal introduced the new Leaders dev mod, but I just played with England and built the mfg. plant everywhere I could, faster than I would have factories. It's a major buff to England vis a vis the old UU, but not as major as Lawmaker was. That one really stands out to me - not in being OP, but in transforming Ottomans from also-ran to a Second Tier civ (maybe even First).
I probably won't try Japan, because the change seems clearly beneficial yet not OP - again, particularly in comparison to the worthless UU it replaced.
I probably won't try Japan, because the change seems clearly beneficial yet not OP - again, particularly in comparison to the worthless UU it replaced.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Sorry for the confusion about that mod... I've merged it with the Leaders mod and most discussion about it has been going on in the Leaders thread here. I originally included it separately out of a worry people would go bonkers because I'm replacing uniques. It's much easier to maintain in a single mod though, since the changes to leaders in both go hand-in-hand. If people prefer to go without the replacements I'll be providing instructions on how to easily do so. 
I'm glad you seem to be liking the changes, I haven't had much time to playtest them myself lately so feedback is really helpful!
I'm glad you seem to be liking the changes, I haven't had much time to playtest them myself lately so feedback is really helpful!
Time for some partypopping. 
I noticed in your 'BC - Submarine.xml' file that 'PROMOTION_SURVIVALISM_2' is set to UNITCOMBAT_BOMBER not UNITCOMBAT_SUBMARINE. I noticed this when Subs couldn't get the promotion.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
@BomberEscort
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll correct it. I should probably disable the submarine file though... there's likely still issues with he animations, which (When I researched this two months back) appear to be hardcoded to react to certain combat closses.
@Pouakai
Yes, that'd be very easy to do. I'm unsure how valuable it would be though... after a certain point, the cost of upgrading a newly-built one to present tech level (which I'm guessing is the purpose of your request) would get extraordinarily expensive. I'll try it out in a dev build though.
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll correct it. I should probably disable the submarine file though... there's likely still issues with he animations, which (When I researched this two months back) appear to be hardcoded to react to certain combat closses.
@Pouakai
Yes, that'd be very easy to do. I'm unsure how valuable it would be though... after a certain point, the cost of upgrading a newly-built one to present tech level (which I'm guessing is the purpose of your request) would get extraordinarily expensive. I'll try it out in a dev build though.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Pouakai's suggestion is interesting, it could possibly solve the issue of e.g. upgraded Tercios being much better than newly built Spanish riflemen (in case their anti-cav promotion stays after upgrade, which is the case in TBM IIRC).
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Seems like basically what it'd do, is let you put down a higher down-payment to get a stronger unit.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
It would also allow building some very strong UUs like Keshiks longer. They are so special that one might have a use for them even if he was able to build cavalry instead (although Keshiks probably pop like baloons if Lancers are are around - then again, arent they UNITCLASS_ARCHER?)
alpaca
King of Ungulates
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,322
@Pouakai
Yes, that'd be very easy to do. I'm unsure how valuable it would be though... after a certain point, the cost of upgrading a newly-built one to present tech level (which I'm guessing is the purpose of your request) would get extraordinarily expensive. I'll try it out in a dev build though.
Actually, it's in a way cheaper than building it because it costs gold instead of production. In a pinch, gold is easier to come by than hammers and it's probably cheaper than purchasing the unit
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I think who it'd have the most impact on are the musket UUs. They're valuable for so short a time, right before an easy beeline to rifles.
The question is... which is better from a "fun" perspective...
Waiting on tech to keep the UU around longer and really using it for its intended purpose?
Or breezing right by it, and the UUs only existing single turns before getting upgraded?
Either way, we'll find out from playtesting... I'll include it in one of the dev versions.
The question is... which is better from a "fun" perspective...
Waiting on tech to keep the UU around longer and really using it for its intended purpose?
Or breezing right by it, and the UUs only existing single turns before getting upgraded?
Either way, we'll find out from playtesting... I'll include it in one of the dev versions.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
@ Thal: Feedback on the reduced strategic ressources (1.09.5 dev):
I already said that I like the approach in general, that hasn't changed.
In my new game I started next to multiple iron ressorces, but only 2 spots with horses are closer than 15 or so tiles from my capital (and in unatrractive spots). That's a pity, but I think it works as it should.
I had a few thoughts about the intentions behind the change. Every civ should have at least 1 or 2 spots with iron/horses, but to get more you'd have to search actively, no civ should be able to field lots of swordmen/horsemen without considerable effort.
Bearing this in mind, what do you think about the "strategic balance" setting? Would it help fulfill the above goal or would it be too much, making the game too easy?
When using it before, I always had iron and horses next to my capital (which was too easy with the old, huge deposits). But how does it work exactly? Would you have ALL kinds of SR within a few tiles from your capital? Would it be the smaller or the bigger deposit? Does it affect luxuries? Is it otherwise the same as the "Normal" setting?
A very limited form of the "strategic balance" setting, giving you at least one (small) deposit of iron and horses (very) close to your capital could be beneficial IMO, at least as option for those who like it. Other SRs shouldn't be directly in your capital (except through luck), but maybe within 10 tiles from it.
I admit this might not be fun in every game, but when playing as Mongolia or Rome you might want to take this setting.
I already said that I like the approach in general, that hasn't changed.
In my new game I started next to multiple iron ressorces, but only 2 spots with horses are closer than 15 or so tiles from my capital (and in unatrractive spots). That's a pity, but I think it works as it should.
I had a few thoughts about the intentions behind the change. Every civ should have at least 1 or 2 spots with iron/horses, but to get more you'd have to search actively, no civ should be able to field lots of swordmen/horsemen without considerable effort.
Bearing this in mind, what do you think about the "strategic balance" setting? Would it help fulfill the above goal or would it be too much, making the game too easy?
When using it before, I always had iron and horses next to my capital (which was too easy with the old, huge deposits). But how does it work exactly? Would you have ALL kinds of SR within a few tiles from your capital? Would it be the smaller or the bigger deposit? Does it affect luxuries? Is it otherwise the same as the "Normal" setting?
A very limited form of the "strategic balance" setting, giving you at least one (small) deposit of iron and horses (very) close to your capital could be beneficial IMO, at least as option for those who like it. Other SRs shouldn't be directly in your capital (except through luck), but maybe within 10 tiles from it.
I admit this might not be fun in every game, but when playing as Mongolia or Rome you might want to take this setting.
Txurce
Deity
This strikes me as too much equalization. I think having to work for either horses or iron makes the game much more interesting. Otherwise you're likely to have much more standard openings.
By the way, a CS has six iron in my current game.
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,773
This. At one point CCMAT made Scouts never obsolete, and when I reached Rifling I was building them in one turn (while Rifles took about 5-7 turns) and taking two turns to upgrade them (only costing about 1/3 of Rifles' rushbuy cost because of Professional Army). Take into consideration that there are two policies (Mercantilism and Pro Army) and two wonders (Big Ben and the Pentagon) that affect this, and you're looking at a very OP mechanic because the AI will not take advantage of it. It depends on how early the UU is; the earlier it is, the more powerful this would become.
A possible compromise would be to push back obsolescence to two units beyond the unit's replacement, allowing a larger window to build them. In other words have Muskets obsolete at Replaceable Parts instead of Rifling, for example. I'd suggest this for the next test version, and if something's OP/UP it can be adjusted.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Good point and good suggestion, Seek! 
But speaking in more general terms, WHY is the upgrade cost so low anyway? Or do we just have the feeling it would be too low? We had this topic for a moment some time ago, but never continued to discuss it...
Personally, I hardly ever build swords, I upgrade warriors. AFAIK it's 130
to save 60 
on epic speed, which would mean a base upgrade cost of 10 + 2 for every (just a guess, but I think it's right).
Is 2 gold per hammer too low? Or is the reduced construction time so appealing?
Out of a feeling I've always thought the upgrade is a good bargain, but maybe I'm wrong? TBM changes mines and LMs to yield 2 production (after machinery), just as TPs yield 2 gold (except in rare cases), maybe this is only a vanilla issue?
But speaking in more general terms, WHY is the upgrade cost so low anyway? Or do we just have the feeling it would be too low? We had this topic for a moment some time ago, but never continued to discuss it...
Personally, I hardly ever build swords, I upgrade warriors. AFAIK it's 130
to save 60 on epic speed, which would mean a base upgrade cost of 10 + 2 for every (just a guess, but I think it's right).Is 2 gold per hammer too low? Or is the reduced construction time so appealing?
Out of a feeling I've always thought the upgrade is a good bargain, but maybe I'm wrong? TBM changes mines and LMs to yield 2 production (after machinery), just as TPs yield 2 gold (except in rare cases), maybe this is only a vanilla issue?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
The difficulty with adjusting resource placement is the cumbersome method it's coded. For each "major" resource node they call a function that places about one node per X tiles, but the "minor" resource nodes are totally different. It picks a tile to put a resource, checks for each possible type of terrain, then rolls a random number in a small range... with an if-elseif-elseif chain checking for each type of resource it might add.
This means if you start with very little fresh-water grassland nearby, for example (the place horses are coded to appear most) you will have few or no horse resources.
If I were designing resource placement I'd have a simple table where each row is a resource, and the columns are terrain and feature types, with cells containing weights for the likelihood of that resource being picked on the tile. A loop could run through every thing very easily and this would be simple to adjust resource allocation.
The current method basically means you can't just increase the number of horses on the map by 20% for example, or adjust terrain balance... you have to check through all the manually coded if-else chains and figure out how to get things to work.
I haven't found where it controls resource placement near minor civs and capitals either.
With all this said... yes, ideally I'd like the following:
Figuring out exactly how to do this though, is complicated.
@Seek
Yeah that's basically what I'm thinking of... change the obsolete tech for UUs to the next tier of unit.
@Tomice
The problem with upgrade costs is we can't control it on a per-unit basis. It's a global setting. In contrast, purchase costs can be modified individually. Most tier-1 buildings have a +20% purchase cost modifier or so.
This means if you start with very little fresh-water grassland nearby, for example (the place horses are coded to appear most) you will have few or no horse resources.
If I were designing resource placement I'd have a simple table where each row is a resource, and the columns are terrain and feature types, with cells containing weights for the likelihood of that resource being picked on the tile. A loop could run through every thing very easily and this would be simple to adjust resource allocation.
The current method basically means you can't just increase the number of horses on the map by 20% for example, or adjust terrain balance... you have to check through all the manually coded if-else chains and figure out how to get things to work.
I haven't found where it controls resource placement near minor civs and capitals either.
With all this said... yes, ideally I'd like the following:
- 1 iron and horse within 4-8 tiles of capital (within range of a second city, but not the capital). I think Tomice's basic point is if you have zero of a resource within a dozen tiles your civ needs for its UU, that's rather frustrating. This is to try and reduce extremes of RNG map luck.
- 1 iron OR horse near each minor civ.
- Other nodes scattered as normal (with the possibility of appearing adjacent to capitals).
Figuring out exactly how to do this though, is complicated.
@Seek
Yeah that's basically what I'm thinking of... change the obsolete tech for UUs to the next tier of unit.
@Tomice
The problem with upgrade costs is we can't control it on a per-unit basis. It's a global setting. In contrast, purchase costs can be modified individually. Most tier-1 buildings have a +20% purchase cost modifier or so.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
I'm not even suggesting a change at this point. I'm just asking you guys (and myself) where the problem with upgrading costs is - if there is.
Has anyone had the feeling that too low upgrading costs are less of an issue after the production boost from machinery kicks in?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Oh I know you weren't suggesting that, just saying that's where I feel the main issue is. I think most upgrades are okay, but a few aren't... when we're building a precursor just to upgrade it something's weird. The reason the issue arises in the first place is when upgrades switch resource-using status... if the warrior and swordsman used the same resource for example, the game could simply obsolete warriors when swordsmen came around.
Though now that I think about it... doing so might not be too bad since you can build spearmen at that point, which got buffed a bit.
Though now that I think about it... doing so might not be too bad since you can build spearmen at that point, which got buffed a bit.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
It's a good idea, because the main problem is building warriors after iron working is researched, just to upgrade them out of the barracks. Upgrading your initial warrior army the turn iron working is researched seems ok on the other hand (this is a standard move for me in every game where ANY military action is likely).
This would also make spearmen more likely to be built, since you couldn't build warriors ahead just to upgrade them when your swordmen die or you aquire more iron.
A problem might arise when you have iron working, but no iron nearby.
Overall, I agree to your suggestion
EDIT: I'm just trying a game as Mongolia without (reasonably placed) horses nearby, I'm curious how it will turn out! Getting to Keshik's soon... What's most interesting: How much effort is it to get your horses from CSs and friendly civs?
While I find it fascinating this time, it'd be very nice of you to find out the true meaning of the "strategic balance" setting, possibly also of the other options. They might be interesting, depending on what type of game you want and which civ you are playing.
This would also make spearmen more likely to be built, since you couldn't build warriors ahead just to upgrade them when your swordmen die or you aquire more iron.
A problem might arise when you have iron working, but no iron nearby.
Overall, I agree to your suggestion
EDIT: I'm just trying a game as Mongolia without (reasonably placed) horses nearby, I'm curious how it will turn out! Getting to Keshik's soon... What's most interesting: How much effort is it to get your horses from CSs and friendly civs?
While I find it fascinating this time, it'd be very nice of you to find out the true meaning of the "strategic balance" setting, possibly also of the other options. They might be interesting, depending on what type of game you want and which civ you are playing.
