Blaze's FfH MaxMod

[BlazeRedSXT]

So, I feel a little silly... it was probably I was working on this Settlement thing too late and just missed something obvious. I found the cannotTrain and canTrain functions... it makes sense... anyway, I realized that adding exceptions to the cannotTrain function would make it huge and unwieldy, so I thought to add exceptions to the canTrain... and that worked.
but unfortunately, I couldn't specific UNITCLASS, only UNIT type... so, any civ that is set to sprawling can only train the basic units there, even if they have unique UNITS normally in place of that UNITCLASS... maybe thats okay, just goes to show they are "conscripted" units from Settlements, instead of the Empires Unique soldiers.

another note, I am considering everything mentioned regarding historic Fort strategies you guys put out there, cool stuff btw... but truthfully, some of those things are in Fact strategies, not something a mechanic should deal with, but a generals decision. Even so, I am thinking of ways to continue to improve the code, and mechanic... though I still doubt it will be out before 22.

In response to Gutus, Fallout is still in the code(the Spell Defile uses it), so thats not so much an issue, but it is an issue if AI doesn't use spells like Sanctify and other plot based spells... it would put them at a bigger dis-advantage. The only thing is, I really don't like the random disappearing resources myself, and it seems like there should be some other secondary penalty, any alternative ideas?
Also, I am interested in the idea about reversing the Hills/Forest defense values. the Idea kind of agrees with me, and Gutus can back up the idea. Opinions?

Cheers!

 

[cvlowe]

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.

I missed that part!

And I'm still on patch 'd' with 3 huge maps...

 

[CXDamian]

Also, I am interested in the idea about reversing the Hills/Forest defense values.

For the early game I think it works nicely as is, I'm constantly debating over a sight bonus or defense bonus to station border patrols. Could you explain your reasoning behind this?

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

Really excited to see how this works out, opens a whole new ballgame to tinker with Is it a one shot deal, or do the other 2 options still list in the build menu? (Build a training yard first, build an archery range later and the yard demos)

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

CX, glad to see your interest in my little project.
Well, I think that Gutus outlined it fairly well with his quotation from the might Sun Tzu. The hills to a defender are more valuable to a defender than the confusion of a forest. Elves already get the bonus to movement and defense in forests, and they are the only ones who really would benefit from such terrain.
Thats where my thoughts are at on it right now.

As the Settlements go, each Settlement will be limited to only one of these buildigs per settlement, such that, one settlement may build a training yard and hence Axemen and Pikemen. Another Settlement may build an Archery Range and Archers or Longbowmen. All training buildings are mutually exclusive to a Settlement.

Cheers!

 

[Gutus]

I have got another balance change suggestion I must say. I can see you have enabled the AI to build pastures wherever it is possible. I think thats pretty IMBA, as these things are getting spammed by AI like hell. AI in my Monarch games is not building farms or cottages, just spamming pastures. I think that pastures should be limited the way camps are. I mean they give you significant production AND food bonus on a tile they are built, thus allowing AI to spam units even faster than it is doing it right now. AI is building farms/mines, etc only on special resources.

And then there is this logical point. How come one can find e.g. cows, where they never were in the first place? I think a much better mechanics would be to add a supply cart, which can spread cattle/sheeps. I think that the same should go for finding farm-related food resources.

As for blight I think that removing resources is good. I mean you can really suffer then and try to change your strategy. With the mechanics of supply wagon, I have suggested above, if you will be able to trade one resource from a comp, you could then plant it wherever you wish. But I really like the unpredictable loses in a game, that cause you to change your strategy.

So my proposal for the supply wagon is:

Cost: 200 hammers, while it is being built it drains the food from the city at -8 ratio, buildable only in cities of size 10+.
Starts with one of the following supplies (at random, but to which you have acces to, either by trade or by just having it): cattle/sheep/wheat/corn
Ability to plant a resource inside your cultural borders, you need to build your improvements after.
Avaliable with: Agriculture and Feudalism, Granary+Smokehouse built in the city

What do you think about it?

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

Hey Gutus, I am not sure what you mean when you say by a -8 ratio, but I think you mean require 8 more food for production than is currently being produced as excess by a city. I am fairly certain that can't be done... Also, right now, pastures do allow a chance for resource discovery, like mines do, for appropriate resources(though its just as small, which I think is okay), and Farms now have a chance to find appropriate resources for them as well.
Its a cool idea, but I am not sure if adding resources like that wouldn't be a little much, as much as it makes sense.
As far as pastures go, I used the values from.. hmmm, I think its Maniacs build. It does make Pastures extremely common, but then I find farms to be pretty useless except in rare circumstances anyway, though I have found my workers still prefer farms in fresh water grasslands and flood plains, so you should still be seeing some of a mix... but I'll take a look at it and see if I am seeing an unbalanced result there.

 

[cvlowe]

I will say, one thing I am not enjoying is the inability to build priests. I know it's not a bug- you put that in intentionally.

No way to quickly boost culture output in new cities by sending a missionary from an established city to found a temple... Well, not without stockpiling a bunch of disciples, then hoping I have enough gold to upgrade them.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I agree. Perhaps the priests could remain unbuildable, but the upgrade cost could me minuscule. Vanilla units had high upgrade costs because this was the only way to limit how many units it was practical to upgrade, but the level requirements for FfH upgrades already do this. Don't make this change only for priesta, but also for most of the other level-requiring upgrades (Cassiel would love you for it. Perhaps too much).

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

I believe I cut their costs in half initially, when I added this feature, but I 'm not surprised by this sort of feedback. I'll see if I can't find a good median... I mean, I wouldn't want them to be free(training a Priest wouldn't be cheap after all).

hhmm.. The issue primarily with reducing build costs for all upgrades would be that the cost is linked to the actual cost in production units... I believe there is a cost function somewhere that could be adjusted for upgrades, but the problem with that method is that a lot of units can be upgraded without level minimums... So, unless we went with all the T4 units being Upgrade only, it would be hard to make a larger sweeping change to that.

 

[cvlowe]

I believe I cut their costs in half initially, when I added this feature, but I 'm not surprised by this sort of feedback. I'll see if I can't find a good median... I mean, I wouldn't want them to be free(training a Priest wouldn't be cheap after all).

hhmm.. The issue primarily with reducing build costs for all upgrades would be that the cost is linked to the actual cost in production units... I believe there is a cost function somewhere that could be adjusted for upgrades, but the problem with that method is that a lot of units can be upgraded without level minimums... So, unless we went with all the T4 units being Upgrade only, it would be hard to make a larger sweeping change to that.

Building them in a city represents a cost, if you want to slow down priest spamming, like discussed in that thread, just make them more expensive. I usually build one or two to keep and the rest I use to found temples.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I would rather have them be builable but expensive, or have either a decreased gold cost or level requirement.

 

[cvlowe]

If you are good or neutral, a couple levels of the Altar and the level thing is a non-issue, but non-buildable priests are a severe handicap for evil civs.

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

Well, this particular change was made before the Priest Spamming thread even opened, and wasn't driven by it in any way, though it does have that side effect.

I have never really had too much trouble with being Evil and Disciple units. Rush the Titan wonder(+2 XP for all units), Fend for themselves is another +1, and then depending on our Civ, or Traits, there are other buildings and options... plus, Disciples were given the Channeling 1 Promotion, meaning XP like mages, and that Means Priests get lvl one spells also, making them more potent in some ways. I guess thats been my reasoning for keeping the system as is... I did consider some alternatives earlier on, but so far I have been more or less happy with this one myself... but perhaps it could go both ways. If I added a function to reduce the Upgrade costs to Priests, but increased thier Base cost, and built Priests wouldn't have access to Channeling 1... might work. I'll add it to the list of things to look into.

Cheers!

 

[CXDamian]

Well, I think that Gutus outlined it fairly well with his quotation from the might Sun Tzu. The hills to a defender are more valuable to a defender than the confusion of a forest. Elves already get the bonus to movement and defense in forests, and they are the only ones who really would benefit from such terrain.

Somehow I had missed that part of Gutus' post earlier. After reading it and giving it some more thought, I think it'll be a welcome change especially with forests being bloom-able.

As for priests, half the time I forget to build them now. Partially because I'm still in the mindset to build disciples as culture/religion fodder. I don't think there is a problem with evil civs so much as a large balance tilt towards the Altar.

 

[cvlowe]

OK so I founded and switched to the Order. I dropped 3 prophets I had saved up on the Altar, and started building Acolytes, leveling them with the Altar experience and upgrading them to priests and sending them out to found temples to spread the religion. After the 6th one, I can no longer upgrade them to priests. The button just is not there, only the one for crusaders. Is there a limit? Does using Spirit guide cause them to exceed that limit?

Edit: not priests, confessors.

Edit2: nevermind. I figured it out. I summoned Basium in my only city with incense.

 

[Gelvan]

where can we download this`?

 

[BlazeRedSXT]

Sorry Gelvan, for some reason the link got goofy, but I have just updated it, so it should be a valid link(Thanks CXDamian for letting me know about that).
Its in the first Post.
Right now, to get the most up to date, you'll have to install the main mod then the patch over it(been pretty busy, and lazy, and haven't gotten the main install updated yet).

Hey CX, the Alter being good only is a little offsetting(though I think Neutral can build it also), but if you are sticking to Alignment lines in wonders, Evil civs have Soul Forge and Mokka's Cauldron to offset it somewhat... I am not sure if those are Evil/Neutral only, but I suppose we could see to it that they are, just to maintain some balance there.

Cheers!

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The Soul Forge and and Mokka's Cauldron currently don't have alignment restrictions, but do produce/require death mana, which has diplomatic penalties.

Adding alignment restrictions to these sounds like a good idea, but it does make neutrality superior strategically.

 

[Gelvan]

@blaze
Yippah - it works (7 min to wait, but it works )
Thanks a lot!

 

[jwin]

2 bugs I have noticed:

1: when leaving my own city when enemies are near, I am damaged as if I was approaching an enemy fort(I think this has only happened when not on roads)
2: Rith gains xp but does not level