[BtS MOD] Wolfshanze 1850-1920 Enhancement Mod v2.0

[Kip Beagle]

Wolfshanze (or anyone else who may know this),
In a game of mine with your mod running, my naval stacks are putting weak defenders on top of stronger defenders. For example, if someone attacks my stack of destroyer, heavy cruiser, and battleship, the destroyer defends first, then cruiser, then BB. Same with a stack of a destroyer, a dreadnought, and an attack sub, the sub is defending first, then the destroyer, then the dreadnought.

I searched around the forums for a bug like this but couldn't find anything. I can attach a save if requested.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Wolfshanze]

That would be a "game thing". It supposed to put the strongest unit as defending the stack... as far as I know, the only reason a "weaker" ship would defend is if the "stronger" ship is damaged or something to that effect.

Unless it's based on something crazy like the order it's listed in the unit XML file, but I doubt that... if anyone has any better ideas, I'm all ears, but as far as I know, that's controlled by the game itself... not sure if I have any control over that, but I doubt it.

 

[Cdrommel]

My game frequently crashes while running this mod and I get the following message:

"Failed to allocate video memory. Please try reducing your graphics settings File:\main\Civilization4\SDKs\Gamebryo2_0\CoreLibs\NiDX9Renderer\NiDX9SourceTextureDate.cpp, Line 321"

I can't really tell what specifically causes this to happen, but it happens most often when I am scrolling around the map, the map is scrolling by itself to follow a unit's movement, or I am switching to or from the world builder. I'm fairly sure this isn't a graphics problem for me because I've never gotten this crash running the game without a mod.

 

[ladiesman]

My game frequently crashes while running this mod and I get the following message:

"Failed to allocate video memory. Please try reducing your graphics settings File:\main\Civilization4\SDKs\Gamebryo2_0\CoreLibs\NiDX9Renderer\NiDX9SourceTextureDate.cpp, Line 321"

I can't really tell what specifically causes this to happen, but it happens most often when I am scrolling around the map, the map is scrolling by itself to follow a unit's movement, or I am switching to or from the world builder. I'm fairly sure this isn't a graphics problem for me because I've never gotten this crash running the game without a mod.

This is a Civ4 problem....Civ4 eventually robs you of all your memory. The only really good solution is to get more memory, although if you lurk the forums enough there are some fixes you can try.

I get slammed with this alot too, late game. which sucks because most of my game is played in the late game (I spend the first several thousand years building up cities and devoting to techs....I only look to conquest once I have at least Riflemen usually Infantry.)

 

[Couch Tomato]

How many civs do you play with? I've noticed in my lower-end laptop that this mod will cause problems that the normal game wouldn't, probably because of all the different models. I was able to play through the late game though if I kept the number of civs to at max around 10 or 11.

 

[Wodan]

That would be a "game thing". It supposed to put the strongest unit as defending the stack... as far as I know, the only reason a "weaker" ship would defend is if the "stronger" ship is damaged or something to that effect.

Unless it's based on something crazy like the order it's listed in the unit XML file, but I doubt that... if anyone has any better ideas, I'm all ears, but as far as I know, that's controlled by the game itself... not sure if I have any control over that, but I doubt it.

I do know that part of the algorithm (of who defends) depends on whether the unit has any cargo. The Firaxis code has cargo-carrying ships defend last always. One of the Bhruic patches I think changed this to be some sort of math calculating the hammer cost of the cargo combined with a comparison of the % chance to win the battle.

Cargo = anything on board. Usually this was land units on a transport. With Wolfshanze, though, we now can have a seaplane etc on the big ships, so that might be what's going on here. Even if it's not, you may want to investigate, Wolf, because the seaplane etc definitely will impact the situation.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Cargo = anything on board. Usually this was land units on a transport. With Wolfshanze, though, we now can have a seaplane etc on the big ships, so that might be what's going on here. Even if it's not, you may want to investigate, Wolf, because the seaplane etc definitely will impact the situation.

Hmmm... never thought of that possibility.

Well... cruisers and battleships can carry seaplanes (one-each). If that's the reason (and I'm not sure if it is), then that may explain why a destroyer may defend the stack first.

Having said that, if we assume that's the reason (which is an assumption), then you could look at it like this:

A) If you have a full fleet of ships, transports, CVs, BBs, CAs & DDs... all carrying whatever cargo they can, the ONLY ship that wouldn't have cargo would be the destroyer. Hence, it would defend first... which, could be explained as the "Picket Line" which Destroyers were almost always used for. As for the rest, if the game algorithm for defenders tries to protect the most valuable ships (cargo-wise) seaplanes are very cheap items, and only ONE can be carried per CA or BB... hence the fleet carriers and transports will almost certainly be carrying more-numerous/more-valuable cargo, both in cost and number and should defend last, so the BBs and CAs should still defend before carriers and transports, even with seaplanes.

B) Using seaplanes properly... the whole point of seaplanes is to spot the enemy well in advance of them reaching/finding your fleet so you can deal with the enemy appropriately... either by attacking them first, or by avoiding the confrontation all-together. Maybe I've never noticed this because I use seaplanes in this fashion, so it's rare I'm getting a large fleet attacked by the AI.

C) If neither of the above make sense, or agree with your personal thoughts on how the game should run, the solution is simple... don't put seaplanes on your ships. That would probably solve the "problem" right there.

This is all assuming, of course, that seaplanes are the problem here.

 

[Wolfshanze]

One final thought... I could "level the playing deck" by giving destroyers the ability to carry spies/explorers/missionaries like a caravel can... then all modern warships would have a cargo capacity of some type, so it should default back to the strongest warship.

I'm not sure if this theory only applies to someone actively carrying a cargo or just having the cargo capacity all-together used or not used that changes the defense priority.

 

[phungus420]

One final thought... I could "level the playing deck" by giving destroyers the ability to carry spies/explorers/missionaries like a caravel can... then all modern warships would have a cargo capacity of some type, so it should default back to the strongest warship.

That actually sounds like a simple way to deal with the "problem". Assuming you consider it a problem, in all honesty though, it makes sense for destroyers to defend first, since they engage first in actual naval combat. But.... that's based on real world, which you know as well as anyone it's not necessarily better to go for realism in games.

 

[Kip Beagle]

I did a couple tests on my game, deleting seaplanes to see who'd defend.
In a stack of 1 each: DD, CA, and BB, with NO seaplanes, the CA defends first, then DD, then BB. When the CA and BB have seaplanes, order of defence is DD, CA, BB.
The ONLY way I could get BB's defending first is when there is only a CA and a BB, and the CA has a seaplane.
Even when I put a carrier and a battleship together, if the CV has no planes and the BB has a seaplane, the CV will defend first.

So, yes, I would guess giving destroyers the ability to carry something should even the deck, although the actual defence does actually take into account whether anything is really being carried.

In relation to Phungus420's point that DD's defending first is more realistic, I would agree, but only with subs. A surface ship would probably be met at the front line with a BB (if a modern naval battle ever took place) but the destroyers would probably meet the subs.

Oh, and Wolfshanze, thanks so much for putting all that time and detail into your mod... it looks very professional and really adds so much to the game!

 

[Wolfshanze]

Okay... I did some checking... yeah... it's the fact that you're carrying Seaplanes that bumps you down the list... but a cruiser or battleship with a seaplane is still higher on the defense list then even an empty transport... only the destroyer is listed higher.

Also, only cruisers or battleships WITH A SEAPLANE LOADED will move-down the priority list. If a cruiser or battleship does NOT have a seaplane loaded, it will defend before a destroyer will (so it's not the fact it can carry a seaplane, it's only effected if it IS carrying a seaplane).

Finally, I did some tests with adding "Special People" cargo carrying to destroyers... this doesn't really help much. Mostly because you have to carry a unit to move down the list, and the value of the cargo is also part of the equation. While a seaplane is cheaper/less expensive then fighters or light bombers, it's still more expensive then the average explorer... so a destroyer carrying an explorer will still defend first over a cruiser carrying a seaplane.

The simple solution here is... if you want a cruiser or battleship to defend a stack with destroyers, then don't have it carry a seaplane. Also realize, this is a minor thing, because cruisers and battleships (even with seaplanes) will still defend over a transport or carrier... so only the destroyer factors into the equation. This may-well serve to stress the role of cruisers in a fleet, as the eyes of the fleet... just have your cruisers carry the seaplanes and your battleships will always defend the fleet first. Of course if you're a lone-hunter battleship (like the Bismark), you may want to carry that seaplane!

P.S.
In my tests with a DD, CA & BB, the BB defended first if all were empty... strange.

 

[JackOniell]

hello Wolf & friends,

Great mod! However has anyone ever come across a problem where a saved game gets corrupted?

I'm running Wolfshanze mod, bts 3.17, and the attitude mod. I've played a full game into the late 1990s and it was fine, but in my current game as Inca, after 1670 AD and any subsequent saves after that date, I can't load it without a CTD. I can load 1660 though.

I don't think its my hardware because I can run BTS maxed out and my first few games with the mod was perfect. Just wondering if the one of the mods is causing this or BTS itself has this bug.

Thanks.

 

[LunarMongoose]

That would be a "game thing". It supposed to put the strongest unit as defending the stack... as far as I know, the only reason a "weaker" ship would defend is if the "stronger" ship is damaged or something to that effect.

Unless it's based on something crazy like the order it's listed in the unit XML file, but I doubt that... if anyone has any better ideas, I'm all ears, but as far as I know, that's controlled by the game itself... not sure if I have any control over that, but I doubt it.

It's controlled by the function isBetterDefenderThan() in CvUnit.cpp. As-is it is not perfect. It makes the strongest defender do the defending most of the time, but in cases with large modifiers like +50% vs Archers or whatnot it can get confused, especially with FirstStrikes involved and other factors. I tried improving it once a long time ago unsuccessfully and am planning to take another look at it soon.

One thing it DOES do wrong (imo) and which I fixed a long time ago in my DLL is choose the higher-experience unit if two possible defenders tie on effective defense strength. It should choose the lower-exp unit in that case so that if it dies your loss isn't as great, and so as to give you fewer low-exp units overall rather than more low-exp units and a few higher exp units.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Question for fans of the Wolfshanze Mod:

Which would you prefer?

A) Aztecs (by Civ-name and flag/banner), who upon reaching musketry become Mexicans in appearance

B) Mexicans (by Civ-name and flag/banner), who start off in ancient/medieval times as Aztecs in appearance (and later become Mexicans)

C) Making separate Aztec/Mexican Civs... nope sorry... this is actually the joke response, because no-matter how much you beg and plead, I won't do this... so, answer "A" or "B"... there is no "C"!



On a side note, Mayans will still be Mayans and Incans will still be Incans... i'll probably get around to doing unique units/looks for these guys since all three Meso-American civs have been sharing the same graphic set in the Wolfshanze Mod.

 

[arstal]

I vote for B.

 

[Xenomorph]

Well, the Aztecs called themselves Mexica, so that would probably be the best name. However, I prefer flags/buttons that are more representative of the civilization, like double eagle for Russia or the dragon for China, rather than their actual flag.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Well, the Aztecs called themselves Mexica, so that would probably be the best name. However, I prefer flags/buttons that are more representative of the civilization, like double eagle for Russia or the dragon for China, rather than their actual flag.

I could do the Mexican Eagle/flag-thingie for Aztecs/Mexicans...

 

[Couch Tomato]

The Mayans could be called Yucatan as the short name, since I believe that's what they named their home. That's usually what I name em when I play as them anyways.

I prefer Aztecs because Mexicans and Aztecs are pretty much different cultures and civilizations. You could call them the Aztec Empire and have the short form as Mexico though (cuz as Xenomorph said, that's what they called themselves). It's not like such differences don't exist in real life anyways (Dutch Empire, Netherlands...)

 

[Wolfshanze]

Three responses and one straight answer!

 

[The Capo]

Personally I would go with B, based solely upon the simple fact that the enhancements to your mod deal with the an era that was very important in Mexican history, so I think that would be better. And referring to "Mexico" as the land of the Aztecs is fine becuase the Aztecs called themselves/the area Mexica.

BTW; Yucatan is NOT what the Maya called their home, the Maya were set up into city-states who often competed with one another, just like ancient Greece and had no concept of a shared homeland. Also Yucatan is either a mistranslation by Spaniards of the word "Tuctectan," (which supposedly means 'I don't know') or of the world Yucalpeten which was a specific tribe's name for themselves. Either way it wouldn't be what the Maya called the land, but what the Spanish thought the Maya called the land.