Better RoM: Units

[Afforess]

Put the Unit XML name (Like UNIT_DOG, etc) in the global defines, with a value of anything other than 0, and when the game loads, and sees that XML, it will delete it instead of loading it. Do the same for the Unit Classes. So you will need to put 2 entries for each unit. One for the unit, one for the unit class.

 

[os79]

Put the Unit XML name (Like UNIT_DOG, etc) in the global defines, with a value of anything other than 0, and when the game loads, and sees that XML, it will delete it instead of loading it. Do the same for the Unit Classes. So you will need to put 2 entries for each unit. One for the unit, one for the unit class.

will you do that? Otherwise, not an urgent request .

 

[Killtech]

An alternate idea for privateers is to scrap the Privateer unit, and give all ships a new action button, much like the existing Great Commander button, that turns them into privateers. Basically, a "Letter of Marque" kind of thing. Then the unit would become a pirate ship, with hidden nationality. The downside being, that there would be a chance of the unit going rogue. Further, if the unit died, there might be a chance of being exposed, and getting negative relations with others. I think some civics should disallow the use of pirates though, like maybe Free Market.

we had a bit of a discussion about it but the idea sunk a bit with the other discussions:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=366621
and my idea: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9243910&postcount=5

so actually similar like you described it but with the option to revoke it. maybe it is sufficient to be out of enemy visibility range to revoke/grant "letter of marque" status.

the idea of going rouge isn't bad but it must meet certain conditions so you have some chance to prevent it.

as for the civics... well i don't think the economy civics should restrict it - especially not the free market. i really can imagine privateer corps if there wouldn't be international laws that ban piracy. it seems more like something that should be prohibited for emancipated civs but not for military lead dictatorships or any other intolerant/authoritarian rule (since such regimes tend to achieve their goals with any means) which still can run free market.

in the case of a promotions its funny that this privateer automatically transforms into a kind of special forces for land units, don't you think? a secret sabotage act (pillage) on some improvements by an unknown band of 'mercenaries' in your neighbors territory? yeah special forces should start with this promotion just alike.

 

[Iceciro]

Well, there's the same option to grant hidden nationality to units, but that would have to be more restricted for land units - otherwise you'd have entire armies attacking and you could just clean up upon war declaration. I'm really not sure how to balance Hidden Nationality land units.

 

[Killtech]

guess it would suffice to make sure that large troops of hidden nationality units have high chance to be exposed while a single operating unit will have zero chance. thus a played is discouraged to operate in large stacks of such units.

a sketch:

• chances of being identified if a hidden nationality unit is defeated start at 0% and rise with each other hidden nationality unit in the radius of 4 tiles by 10%.
• also the chances depend on the national count of units operating with hidden nationality from a certain number (civic dependent?) on. e.g. 5 free hidden nationality operatives and after that each next increases identification chances by 2.5%.
• chances should be displayed in the unit info.

what happens when a hidden nat unit is exposed? i don't think war should be inevitable but rather a diplomatic reaction: AI contacts you demanding some compensation for the incident and if denied AI may go to war. however relations are damaged in any case.

EDIT: units with your hidden nationality should not be allowed occupy the same tiles where there are some of your normal units. evidently a player could see which nationality they have in such a case and it is possible to use this as an exploit i guess.

EDIT2: ... UN units should be dealt differently. they hide nationality as well if i remember correctly.

 

[Iceciro]

EDIT2: ... UN units should be dealt differently. they hide nationality as well if i remember correctly.

UN Units can only defend IIRC. Or is it that they cannot capture cities? I forget.

 

[Afforess]

Further digging in the code revealed that the amount of work it would require to allow any unit to be a pirate would be extreme, at least compared to the benefits. Sorry guys.

Simply locking privateers to Fuedal, Nationalist, or Mercantile Civics should significantly lower their prevalence.

 

[Killtech]

Further digging in the code revealed that the amount of work it would require to allow any unit to be a pirate would be extreme, at least compared to the benefits. Sorry guys.

Simply locking privateers to Fuedal, Nationalist, or Mercantile Civics should significantly lower their prevalence.

hmm, why is that? vincentz warlords are now too a hidden nationality unit. isn't it enough to simply switch a certain property within the units? well, if it coded differently and the unit is managed in a different list or something you could kill the unit that switches privateer status and create a new one with the very same stats but the privateer property changed. or is it somehow unit class specific and not changeable at unit level? in that case it would indeed require to load each unit class twice, one time with and one time without the privateer status (dirty solution, i know). or more extensive code rework will be needed.

either way i think a probability of identification is a better restriction then civics for these kind of units.

 

[os79]

Afforess, would you mind so terribly adding for once and all to this modmodmod the xml tag where you delete older Warlord from the queue forever? Because it is cosmetically annoying to see older Warlord still being available when I have the newer one put in building queue .

If you mind, then just forget it . No big deal.

 

[os79]

Afforess,
Can you please change the upgrade path for Mounted Infantry from upgrading to Cuirassiers to Knights (not Mailed Knights). Both gameplay and historical reasons: gameplay, I doubt that Mounted Infantry can survive Medieval era warfare for long without upgrading. Historically, Knights are just armored soldiers who happen to know horsemanship like Mounted Infantry...

Agree? Then put that in next beta please.

Disagree? Tell me why then I will leave it alone . That include anyone else giving feedback as well since this modmod is now in 1.74 .

 

[os79]

Here is the cool link to the article here in forums about unit combat and its details. It should help us figure out where to go from here .

 

[Killtech]

hmm... interesting. looks like a simple asymetric random walk process. nvm.

the collateral damage notes are interesting too. what about changing siege weapons to do collateral damage only and no direct damage? it's limited by a fixed number as in my original suggestion. this would certainly prevent siege weapons form being stack killers. alternatively the collateral damage max damage values could be significantly decreased thus siege/distillery weapons work much more like default units with a small collateral damage amount. my thinking is to set catapults down to 5, cannons to 15 and artillery and tanks to maybe 30.

nice finding 0s97

 

[os79]

Afforess, what do you think of having Armored Cavalry require both Armor Crafting and Invention in addition to other prereqs? Because it feel weird to be able to train Knights before Heavy Cavalry. Plus, without this modification, you can easily get to Mailed Knight without having to go through Heavy Cavalry. Not a major request though. I play at Marathon speed so this is a minor consideration. If you disagree or prefer to leave it as is, then it is good too for me .

 

[Afforess]

Sounds fine. Could you make the change and upload the files?

 

[os79]

Sounds fine. Could you make the change and upload the files?

Attached .
Feel free to correct whatever you need to because it was sorta hasty .

 

[Afforess]

Looks perfect. Uploading to the SVN now....

Speaking of the SVN, I've been meaning to give you write access. Do you have a sourceforge account?

 

[os79]

Looks perfect. Uploading to the SVN now....

Speaking of the SVN, I've been meaning to give you write access. Do you have a sourceforge account?

Thanks . Honestly, I wouldn't know what to do with that privilege but thanks . Registered just 5 min ago. It is the same name as my CFC name: os79.

 

[Afforess]

Honestly, I wouldn't know what to do with that privilege but thanks

Which is why I trust you implicitly.

Anyway, next time, you can just edit the files directly (using SVN Commit).