Blaze's FfH MaxMod

[cvlowe]

One problem I noticed- the invisibility doesn't seem to work yet, except to make my city defenders get pushed out of my cities instead of defending them. Grr... It's kind of aggravating having to check it's turned off on my troops after they are built- can you make it so they stay if they are in a city, or at least the invisibility is off while in a city?

He probably didn't turn invisibility off when inside cities.

You're right- that was my original point. That adds a little too much micromanagement. An annoyance, because I have autosaves set to every turn, but I prefer not to have to re-load because I forgot one tiny detail.

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

Well, I do not play this mods for one reason. That is I think some of the changes proposed by their authors do not fit my idea what to change in FfH. I would really like to see some of those proposed changes in my games but i.e. the fort thing is too much for me.

Now, what would help it would be a conf file [a txt or xml] with flags 1/0 [on/off] for various changes. Just like in HoM&M3 WOG you could chose with modifications include in your game.

Then implement a simple 'if' statement in the major functions[either to do it or skip it]. The only problem would be that you could not change the file till you finish your games or is there a way to save those settings in the save file?

I think a max mod would be the best place to do it but I would wish that the 'vanilla ffh' had such a feature also.

Please, please, pretty please...

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

Well, thanks for the feedback Valis(I think)... What exactly is your issue with the Forts modifications?

Also, to address your additional comments. I am quite sure that making some features "optional" in a mod situation would be super great. However, I can tell you for certain that its not a matter of a simple if-else statement. There is a reason that it isn't a very common feature.

Cheers!

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

I just do not like that a terrain improvement deals damage, doesn't fit into the game for me...but that is my, eee? problem?? I am looking forward to see the cultural borders for forts with crew ppl are talking about. I hope someone will implement this. Now that is what I expect from forts.

However, I can tell you for certain that its not a matter of a simple if-else statement. There is a reason that it isn't a very common feature.

I am learning python as I type this post Maybe some day I will do it my self.

Unfortunately I can only ask for it ;(, if you would be so kind and give me your address so I could use some whipping on you [do not get any naughty thoughts!] then there would be a really nice chance that we will see that option more common. It would really benefit the community, think about that.

 

[cvlowe]

I just do not like that a terrain improvement deals damage, doesn't fit into the game for me...but that is my, eee? problem?? I am looking forward to see the cultural borders for forts with crew ppl are talking about. I hope someone will implement this. Now that is what I expect from forts.

Have you tried it? I figure the reason for these mod-mods is to see what works and what doesn't so maybe some of the cooler features can make it into the main game sometime. Plus it is interesting that they almost make it a completely different game. I don't like all the changes but I really like others!

 

[cvlowe]

Oh another bug I noticed- The "spring" spell keeps changing my deserts into grasslands instead of plains.

Is the f7 patch the most recent? Your update says the f6 will break saves, guess I won't be able to try it yet, don't want to just give up my 6 or so hours invested in my game...

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

Valis, a note, The Improvement Fort doesn't do damage on its own... it requires that units be "garrisoned" there.
On that note, I noticed that Forts and Towers set on Coasts could attack my Naval vessels as they went by. What does anyone think of that? Should those Improvements not effect seagoing vessels? I don't mind it I think.. it seems like a keep on a coast could assail enemy vessels that passed by... dunno, what do you all think?

Sorry CV, I forgot to add that to the notes. I am not sure what version you are on, and since I forgot to add the notes.. but I think it was fixed in ver 5 or 6. I'll add a not to the update notes now.. better late than never?
Patch 7 includes the version 6 changes, so should be sadly just as breaking to save games.
I am really glad I got myself into this little mess of going public with the tweaks and madness I wanted to toss around in this incredible mod, but sometimes when I realize I spend tons more time rechecking bugs and new features than actually playing... haha, its stunning, but okay, since I am learning quite a bit along the way as well...

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

On that note, I noticed that Forts and Towers set on Coasts could attack my Naval vessels as they went by. What does anyone think of that? Should those Improvements not effect seagoing vessels?

Following your logic it would be reasonable that after gunpowder is available [blasting powder] they should also affect ships. Historical refference: the role of forts in the north&south war in the history of US [beats me how to translate our name for that war to English]

 

[Gutus]

Hej BlazeRedSXT

First - its a good compilation of various ideas. I am currently playing my first game, to check the balance. I have chosen the fantasy map and up to now it seems like the ffh (fluff wise). I really like the new unit models, but here the credit goes to Maniac and Sureshot.

I must say, that for me there is no problem with forts dealing damage if a unit is present in the fort in general. BUT... I can not find an excuse why it should do it. I mean, it would be ok for catapults or cannons being stationed in a fort, but how come a spearmen unit can do this?

I think the change should be to only allow the units like catapult, trebuchet or cannon to deal damage if stationed in a fort. The same goes for naval units damage. I do not think that adding a specific tech requirement would be necessary as well (forts were used not only in US civil war, but e.g. Constantinople was also guarded by a set of forts and the gulf near by also by a giant chain and as we know the gunpowder technology was not known in Europe in years 500 - 1200, still Constantinoplean forts were able to damage hostile ships passing near by).

 

[cvlowe]

Following your logic it would be reasonable that after gunpowder is available [blasting powder] they should also affect ships. Historical refference: the role of forts in the north&south war in the history of US [beats me how to translate our name for that war to English]

You are probably referring to the Civil War.

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

Valis, to address your point... two things. One: Fantasy World/Game! The idea of realistic values should only be taken so far. (I guess this part addresses Gutus also) That said,(secondly) The Forts do get better with Gunpowder... if you can build a cannon and put it in a fort, it does extra damage because it is a higher unit Str, and the code says it does because its a Siege unit. In this world, gunpowder has some effects, but for the most part, it is only to offset powerful Magic Using Civs... so what about extra damage for Archmages and Firebows? It gets a little complicated, and it may certainly worth a look. Again, it goes back to having to design either a terribly complicated code block, or a large one to deal with eventualities for every potential unit... and as I said earlier, it may be worth it... then again, it may not.
To continue my ramble, mostly for Gutus, the fort code idea was to mirror the concept of Zones of Control, as used in previous Civ games, that allowed units a "free" attack to units that moved into or out of that zoc. Consider those units making a partial attack(sending out a patrol or two from the whole unit) at an incoming enemy, then scurrying back to the Fort before the enemy actually pulled up to the doors of the fort. And, as I mentioned earlier, Archers and Siege Weapons do do damage above and beyond what any other unit type can do.

It seems like the consensus is that the Fort code does need to become more complicated in some ways. I don't really disagree, just have to think about what to start with... and how to do it

Cheers!

 

[cvlowe]

I disagree- but not for an in-game reason.

I have noticed a large slowdown in game performance relative to "regular" FfH when running your mod. It's not so bad that I stopped playing but there is a good 20-30 second pause while waiting for the computer to do it's turn (on top of the regular turn processing time- where I get to watch all the AI armies scurry around those cities I can see through religious spying). I click on the end-turn button and have to wait that extra time before the cursor even changes to the spinning circle thing. I doubt it's any one change in your mod, but just the sum total of all of them.

Just FYI, I am running this on my laptop- 1.66Ghz Core Duo processor, 1G RAM, 128MB ATI mobility X1300 video- connected to an external monitor 1280X1024 with every single graphical goody turned on and high.

Now I know- a cheapo $700 (last June price) laptop is not going to be top of the line anything, so I don't really mind a slight delay in processing turns. But if a minor change to how points of damage are inflicted out of a fort adds to that processing time, that to me would be worse than just leaving it the way it is.

EDIT: Oh also being a laptop, that means a pokey 5400RPM laptop hard drive... I have been thinking about upgrading- ~$125 to go to 2G RAM and ~$110 for a decent 7200 RPM hard drive, but don't have the $$$ at the moment.

 

[Gutus]

Speaking of performance, yes I am also experiencing this. It is not 30 seconds, more like 5-10, but I have Core2Duo e6400 with 1gig of RAM, running on GF7300 GT and a pretty fast HD on SATA2.

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

I know that one patch did have some process speed errors... there was a slight incongruity between a couple of the python modules... not bad enough to cause a error, but enough to slow it down during turns while it looked for what was suppose to be there...
I think Gutus's time delays are realistic to what I am seeing on my monster(with its sadly outdated CPU), but since I don't know if Civ4 is capable of multi-threading, I don't know if you are using that full Duo, or just the single cpu at 1.66(and for Gutus 2.2, which is what my processor runs at)...
Anyway, I'll double check with various map sizes and different civs and make sure there isn't something that is going too far over the top with cpu time... but I would expect some extra time over "vanilla" FfH because most of what we out here in mod-land are doing is a little clumsy and heavy on Python processing(as opposed to the geniuses in the FfH team converting things to the SDK and using those sharpened skills for nice clean python codes ).

I think when I get a little more comfortable with coding I'll see about improving the fort module(if I can do so with some clean code that doesn't further increase cpu loads). probably not until after .22 is released though. Unless some terrible bug comes along, I'm thinking we are pretty stable here until then... maybe I can finish a game

::EDIT:: What do you all think of the changes to Blight prposed here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=217727 ?

Cheers!

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

So, I got an easy one I have been thinking about to work, but I 'm not sure if you all will think its a good idea or not: for Sprawling Settlements :
I was able to implement the ability for the Settlements to be able to construct any one, and only one of the 3 basic training buildings(Training yard, Archery Range, or Stables). I always felt a settlement should be able to handle limited "conscripts" to the empires army, and with the -50% production, and no other bonus buildings to apply to it, should be okay. but I am running into trouble with one thing... I can get the buildings built and limited to just one per settlement, but I still can't get them to be capable of building units, and I haven't found where that is being cut off yet.
Any thoughts if I should keep working on this or not? I kind of like the idea...

Cheers!

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

Going back a little:

One: Fantasy World/Game! The idea of realistic values should only be taken so far.

Fantasy shmantasy, we are still talking about forts and gunpowder that we all know. In FfH they are the same thing as 'here'. Gunpowder is not a black powder that you can find under rocks and you need alchemy to forge a special kind of glass. Combined those two and you get a very unstable butterfly witch explode when they hear a whistle. Nope, the rewelance to 'the real world' in this case must stay, otherwise we could not continue any discussion without specifying some dictionary entries.

The Forts do get better with Gunpowder... if you can build a cannon and put it in a fort

So the forts are better with gunpowder of the canons? I was referring to fort dealing damage on its own. I mearly suggested that they should slow ships down after you have access to gunpowder [Gutus has stated that it is possible for forts to do that without the use of it so I am very curious how it was done] Forts, not the garrison in it!

My perfect fort scenario would look like this:
- forts should give more defence, 50% on clear ground [so it is better to hide in them than to stay in woods], stack with the hill def bonus [forts build on strategical hills, that was their main role in history]
- give healing bonus to your units if it is not in the opponents cultural borders [healing like in cities] {another advantage over the forest}
------------------
those are a must changes, without them forts are useless and illogical

If I were to add anything it would be like that:
- decrease the movement of enemy troops by 1 for every 10 points of strength stationed in the fort [or make it proportional to the stack strength that is passing by, i.e. -1 movement for every 25% from garrison cumulated strength/advancing stack strength {only the attack strength is take under consideration}]
- if there are any siege units in the garrison then make them do some damage to every unit passing by, not to much thoe [and the damage is dealt by the units, not the fort it self]

The last thing is optional IMO. A garrison should be a threat in its self following the rule that even a weak army is a threat by its own existence [for Poles: zasada Krótkiego] You can do two things: The garrison has big defence bonuses so we can just ignore it and go into the enemy territory but then we will have some troops on our backs that can cut of our supply/reinforcements, also if we fail we will have our escape route cut off by those troops. Second way is to take the fort. In this time the enemy will have time to consolidate and maybe come with a rescue force, also we will surely lose some troops or damage them and will have to waste time to heal them to be field fit.
Sun Tzu said that you should not siege cites nor forts and this should be implemented also by the forts mechanics. This is a strategy game if I recall

But I do not even play this mod for now so why am I writing this? ^^

PS: A city/settlement build on a fort should have walls build.

 

[Gutus]

I have a few more things to discuss. But first things first...

Blight: The idea proposed by Hawe Hawe are interesting, but I think that blight should not bring fallout upon you. I mean we all know what blight is. I think all of us have heard about great US blights. Blight should bring what it does now - making desert terrains and removing resources at random. Blight is not made because of some pollution rise. I do not see the need for fallout terrain. One thing I would like to see is AI restoring its terrain more often. The problem I have necountered is that AI is not at all terraforming, sometimes having tonnes of not irrigated farms, etc. Maybe blight should also lower the sea levels?

Settlements: Sorry no rose gardens over here . Currently I have no clue how to change that. I like the idea of it having been able to produce units.

Forts: I think it was clearly stated that a fort is only slowing down units, if garrison is inside. I like the idea of this being related to total strength of units stationed in the fort. If forts will boost healing, then their cost should also be significantly boosted. I also back the idea of boosting the defense bonus. Sorry Valis if I have confused you. Those constatinoplean forts had garrisons inside .

One more thing I would like to mention, is again related to Sun Tzu, Sun Pin exactly. It is he, who said, that hilly terrain wins against forests. So maybe its hills who should have +50% defence bonus and forests to have +25% bonus. Sun Pin mentioned clearly that defending in a forest is as much difficult for the defender as it is to attack for the attacker. Your troops get scattered and its harder to command them in forest. You can also not see your enemy coming, nor make any manouvers. Forests should be good only for elves and guerilla units. Dwarves should have a defence penalty in the forests (they do not trust trees ).

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

One more thing I would like to mention, is again related to Sun Tzu, Sun Pin exactly. It is he, who said, that hilly terrain wins against forests. So maybe its hills who should have +50% defence bonus and forests to have +25% bonus. Sun Pin mentioned clearly that defending in a forest is as much difficult for the defender as it is to attack for the attacker. Your troops get scattered and its harder to command them in forest. You can also not see your enemy coming, nor make any manouvers. Forests should be good only for elves and guerilla units. Dwarves should have a defence penalty in the forests (they do not trust trees )

A VERY good poit ere

 

[cvlowe]

Going back a little:

So the forts are better with gunpowder of the canons? I was referring to fort dealing damage on its own. I mearly suggested that they should slow ships down after you have access to gunpowder [Gutus has stated that it is possible for forts to do that without the use of it so I am very curious how it was done] Forts, not the garrison in it!

Have you even tried it yet?

From this paragraph it sounds like you haven't.

The forts do not do any damage on their own, the damage is a function of the strength of troops fortified in them- the "forts doing damage" is just the in-game function used, but it is logically caused by the troops stationed inside.

The game I am trying right now, the only troops I have to man up the forts are werewolves. 1 ravenous werewolf only causes 1 hp of damage. The fort I had 3 blooded and one ravenous actually did (I think) 10 hp. That is not (to me) excessive. It only changed the combat odds a couple percent when my turn to attack came up. I don't have gunpowder and haven't built any siege weapons yet, so I have no idea how much more damage those will cause.

For now the tiny amounts of damage being done haven't really affected the game yet other than to give me an extra couple percent of turning my ravenous werewolves into blooded werewolves. Not that it matters- I get so many ravenous I expect to lose quite a few before they get promoted.

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

But I do not even play this mod for now so why am I writing this? ^^

This clearly states that I have not tried it out I was only asked what I do not like in that concept. The discussion is all about logics, mechanics and alternatives. Yup, the most confusion comes from that it aint clearly described [who deals damage, were is the strength taken from] Now all is clear, thanks from explaining the details.

If it looks like you described then I would say it is good balanced. I will give it a try WHEN I finish my 0.20 games! Damn, those take so long on Huge maps and no time to play.